@@martinploughboy988 He simply asked Ken to respond to the Old Earth arguments. He didn't get much of a response, though, except for the repeated "we must believe in the Bible".
Today in my bio class I had a good discussion like this with my teacher and all the other students in my class. It ended with everyone against me and thinking I’m going no where. But I may not understand everything that God does but I know I can trust His word.
I was like this in high school. I grew out of it. Going through college, I gradually became more literate in sciences and more secular. Now, I consider myself a natural spiritual person. I think the universe is amazing as sciences describe it. No need for the guy up there. :)
@@Solideogloria00 I have to ask what makes you think anything in the Bible says it's millions of years old? That's pretty easy to shake that thought today. Dinosaur soft tissue honestly smacks millions of years put of the picture. It destroys evolution the dating methods and a whole lot of scientific religious beliefs. There is no possible mechanism that allows any of the soft tissue to be around millions of years. They have actually found blood cells nerve fiber tendons collagen and Many other proteins that have absolutely no way to remain even a million years. Iron preservation is the best lie they have come up with to try to keep it. Nothing they have found could last 65 plus million years. They said fossils develope slowly over long time yet we know that's false. It just like when a creature dies today its broken down in no time. Also there is absolutely no mechanism that allows the creation of whole genes and new different dna in any creature. NONE. Fruit flys have been tinkered with for a long time. They were able to do a lot of crazy things 4 wings legs on it head curled wing, everything you can rearrange but not once did they ever get anything but a fruit fly and mostly just dead fruit flys. Even the latest DNA bar code study goes back a very short time to a bottle neck and what was stated, what seemed hauntingly familiar to creation as all life seems to have popped up around the same time fully formed. No where in the Bible does there ever not say it's a 24 hour day. It makes it very clear morning noon night 24 hours. I think even Jesus said something about 24 hour days in the new testament. Need I go on?
All I can tell you is look a/ all the evidence on both sides. Listen to the arguments. Don't look to verify the Bible don't look to prove or disprove evolution. It won't take you long to see evolution has nothing in it that works. Most of the time you'll figure out they make up evidence assume facts that are not there all according to their evolutioninary theory. It doesn't work and always breaks down. The age of the earth isn't in millions of years. Dinosaur soft tissue ruins that. Best of luck to you
You can trust God's Word 100%. We must however be humble and be ready to recognise the difference between what God's word says and our interpretation of God's word. For centuries Christians believed that the earth was stationary and the sun moved around the earth, Then actual evidence taught people that they were misinterpreting the bible and the evidence from God's nature is true. God's nature is his first revelation. This is also God's word. It is an expression of God. Therefore when we interpret nature and the bible correctly, they will say the same thing. The bible does teach us things that science cannot: about WHY we have life, the purpose of life. We should not stand in people's way and argue over smaller issues about how nature works when there is a more important issue of respecting God. Just say to people " I thin tis or that" But there are other Christians who think that.... This gives people the freedom they have to explore nature and science and also explore God
It's almost like Jeff was afraid to debate or hurt feelings. He never really responded to Ken's questions but presented more blanket generalizations. You're an astro physicist! Present the science man!
@ArmanAditya Basu there are no observable instances of a species evolving into another species. There are changes within a species, but no changes from one species to another, just speculation. Speculation is not fact. That's why it's called a theory.
in short you did not even check comment section . or in short we just detected a click bait troll :) that is ok mate.. you will get a life .. i am sure of it. if you did check the comment section you would see nobody is acting smart but only commenting about the talk between these two gentleman . i guess you are not used to normal comment section under atheist channels :)
Thank God for folks like Ken Ham. I just don’t understand how Genesis could be interpreted to indicate anything other than 6 literal days of creation, especially pairing each day with evening and morning. I also just don’t understand how anyone could think that a loving God would look down at his creation suffering and dying and call it good. The truth is that it WAS very good. And then mankind rejected God and through their sin, death and suffering entered the world. The Bible says creation groans for the return of Christ. It groans, we groan because we know that we were not made to die but to live. In union and submission to our God.
There is literally an example of day not meaning a 24 hour day in Genesis 2:16-17 "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” Adam and Eve did NOT die the day that they ate the fruit. Not even close, Adam lived to over 900 years. This is a massive hole in Ham's argument that he doesn't address.
In watching this debate, it seems to me that Ken brought more questions and legitimate arguments against old earth creationism while Jeff never any presented any arguments against a young earth. So to me Ken won this debate.
@@macy12347 One philosophical question: Consider that before creating the earth, God thought out every detail of the life of a dinosaur. He imagined every detail of its personal story, such as where it walked, what it ate, how it gave birth, and how it died, and then buried the signs of each of those activities in the earth on the 1st day. Is that dinosaur's life in God's mind so different from our life in God's creation?
@@quadmasterXLII by including death before the fall is the issue with this point. The order of events is critical and his point of having the consequences of an action being before the action took place is never seen in scripture.
I really enjoyed that interaction. I thought Ken did a great job defending the young earth understanding of the bible. If you read the bible and believe it then the young earth position fits what the bible teaches. Thank you Ken Ham.
@@nichetcher1 Yes, Read Exekiel 28:11-18 and also revelation for the war in heaven and the angels being cast out. Then read John 8:44 New International Version (NIV) 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
That's because Ham doesn't have a leg to stand on in the science so he sucks it into theology and attacks his interlocutors integrity in that area. Any evidence against his position he hand waves away as not compatible with scripture.
Thanks for saving me the time. Must be like a court trial without bringing up any evidence lmao, and I remember trying to get thru the Bill Nye debate, clear that he had to hold back and Ham was reaching for relevance for it to be remotely close (still think tho strict Atheists have nearly as much faith as people who 'know' a god they never met but only 'felt' can exist, agnosticism is the most rational way, but getting ahead of myself lol, the earth is definitely ancient af and I don't even live near any mountains or canyon's, still clear as day in evolution thru looking at modern life and other clues in nature)
Ham's position is more solid than Lane-Craig's, as it is truly biblical. It would be an interesting discussion. They would probably talk past each other a lot, but their philosophical presuppositions might well be revealed.
Can't decide who I enjoy listening to more. Ken ham or Kent hovind. Both are the gift that keep on giving. Just goes to show how religion dumbs people down
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Interesting; but for a discussion of that length I expected a discussion of evidences. This was really just an introduction to the conversation, and we’ve certainly already heard that, hence we clicked the link to hear it.
I'm a Gen Z kid, raised in a Christian home, and my parents raised me on Ken Ham. As I've become an adult though, I've obviously questioned what I grew up learning. But I've found that no matter how many debates I listen to against Ken's Biblical creation argument, I have *still* never found someone who has arguments that make more Biblically-sound sense than Ken's. Just as one example, this issue about the Hebrew word "yom". Jeff's only argument against it, from what I could tell, was that he is not a Hebrew scholar, and therefore he can't know exactly what the Hebrew says, and needs to turn to the people who have been studying it for a long time. But number one, Hebrew is a language you can learn like any other; therefore understanding what a word means shouldn't be any more complicated than learning how to say "day" in French or Swahili. Second, if you do want to only rely on the people who have studied ancient Hebrew for most of their lives... then the *dictionaries* are where you would turn! They were **written** by people who have studied ancient Hebrew for a long time! And according to the dictionaries, like Ken said, yom. means. day. **shrugs**
To be clear, its not as simple as learning another language, as if we are certain of the meanings and have contwmporary speakers. Language changes over time. "Gay" now has an entirely different meaning than it used to. More pointedly, I believe Beowulf was written in old english and its entirely incomprehensible to a modern english speaker without translation. Even if we could be certain of the meaning, that still doesnt answer the question of the level of literal exactness on the part of the author. WLC notes that there are several factors which seem to indicate that this was not intended to be understood purely literally, (and thats not entirely dependent on whether its poetry or prose)
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
The Hebrew that the Bible is in, isn't the Hebrew that anyone speaks today. It's like me telling you to read a book written in English of the 1200's. You wouldn't understand any of the words, even though both are English. Words constantly change meanings so going off what that word means today wouldn't work either.
I'm only about 45 minutes in but this is super interesting already! Getting to see Ken and Jeff cross swords is a real treat, thank you very much to the debaters, Justin and the rest of Unbelievable!
@@ModernDayDebate Would love to hear Jeff ask, "well, many well meaning Christians make a good case that scripture points to a flat earth, should we try to fit science into that debate?" anyway, love your channel.. have heard at least 50+ debates there. You're the best moderator..
@@tex959 Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it. In fact, the Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.
Another thing I would like to see Jeff comment on, as I see it as one of the foundational concepts that old Earth creationism rests: that light took billions of years to get here based on the measurements. The only measurement I know of is red shift, but it's been noted that red shift is in discrete quantities, similar to how integers don't represent the entire number line. Some scientists now think red shift is intrinsic to certain galaxies/quasars, and that some low-red-shift objects are linked to high-red-shift objects, meaning red shift cannot be an indicator of distance. Not *proving* a short time frame, but definitely removing one solid case for great distances and billions of years
That's right if I allow what I think you mean. The z value rests on some assumptions that could negate the claims by enthusiastic astronomers. Physics work the same throughout all 'creation'. That does not mean we know for sure that the z=n value needs no asterick for distance.
Im not sure about red shift and all of that, but haven't some physicists altered the speed of light? Alerting the speed of light as in slowing it down as well as speeding it up, means it is not always constant. It would follow that God can create things in a mature manor instantaneously just as Jesus produced wine with the appearance of age (perfectly aged at that). If Christ can perform the miracle of turning water into aged wine at a small wedding, then surely He can create an entire universe with the appearance and complexity of age that reaches well beyond our finite, limited minds.
@@MCDubaree Keep telling yourself all that & you'll be able to hold onto your ridiculous warm fuzzy feeling. When do stop making excuses & trying to bang your square pegs into secular science's hard earned round holes & objectively research how *NOTHING* in the bible tallys with science. Just because your pitch, in making supernatural claims, is as wide as your imagination & your god the greatest goalpost mover known to mankind along with the all time champion at hide 'n seek doesn't mean you have a shred of *REAL* evidence!
I would love to ask Ken why he accepts an Ice Age in the past. Where does he find that in the Bible? Does he suddenly accept evidence through 'historical' science?
@@danielmann5427 I am very familiar with the YE arguments. Evidence from so-called 'historical' science is denied if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. There are hundreds of examples from astronomy, geology, palaeontology etc. The existence of an ice age is an example where YE creationists accept evidence from 'historical' science. In other words evidence is accepted, but only if it can fit into their picture of the universe.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 - any belief system has that so called problem . There have many things that were laughed at and mocked , because Christians held to scriptures ABOVE so called archaeologist and scientists. Let every man be liar and God be true. Sooner or later science catches up and reaffirms the bible.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 - I highly doubt that. Is a deist or theist included as a Christian? We may need to ask what is a Christian? Can you back up your claim?
This is a very good discussion, with both participants doing well in the time allotted. And the moderator was excellent and fair. And the emphasis on the gospel and the agreement on that being primary was of key importance to both participants. We recently toured the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum, and I was surprised and impressed that the Good News was front and center and primary to the presentation. I was a young earth creationist growing up. Later, I would say that I was an old earth creationist six days a week, and a young earth creationist on the seventh. Then I started reading old earth creationist literature and that was pivotal to becoming a solid young earth creationist again. The OEC position, particularly the biblical interpretation, seemed very weak to me, for many of the reasons that Ken Ham brings up. A prior comment said that Ham doesn't acknowledge or ignores the hermeneutics. What did I find? Again, I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I can only assess the arguments of those who are. Yes, there are Bible believing Hebrew scholars with a high view of scripture on both sides of the argument. But I found that the arguments favor--and it seems to be strongly in favor--of a 24 hour, six day creation being what the text is saying (after many many hours of reading opposing viewpoints). Even non believing Hebrew scholars--who don't have a dog in the fight--have stated that the text is clearly saying six 24 hour days, even though they don't believe the account is true history. John Lennox, an old earth creationist (whom I highly respect) says the days are six 24 hour days, but that they are not consecutive and may be many thousands of years apart. And all the Hebrew scholars I know--well all two--say Genesis 1 is clearly referring to 24 hour days. I think it is telling that Zweerink says that the long age view of "days" is viable, but never says in this discussion that it is the best interpretation. Maybe that is his modesty because he is not a biblical scholar. I know from reading that Ham would not equivocate (and is he modest? He is also not a Hebrew scholar). Even Dennis Prager, who is Jewish and a Hebrew scholar says that he believes they are 24 hour days because that is what the Torah says, even though he doesn't know how to square that with the (materialistic) science narrative. My first conclusion from reading extensively on both sides, hundreds of hours, is that OEC really are generally trying to square the scientific consensus of the day with scripture, not coming to the best interpretation of scripture first although they vigorously deny it. My second conclusion from studying extensively (thousands of hours) is that molecules to man Darwininan evolution is contrary to the evidence. And many evolutionary scientists agree that Darwinism--natural selection working on random mutations and genetic drift, etc., is no longer a reasonable explanation and are looking for other mechanisms.
"My beliefs are in conflict with reality therefore I am more right" Wowa... Well that settles it religion is a poison. Evolution is the most tested scientific theory and has not been falsified, if you want to make up your own untested nonsense go for it, but you are going to be wrong.
@@AvNotasian Whoa. Not been falsified? What rock have you crawled under? Where does the initial biological information come from? Nobody knows, not even close. If you do, it's time to let the world know. How can organisms survive macro mutations in the early stages of development--where they need to take place to affect body plans. Well, nobody knows. How do neo Darwinian mechanisms overcome genetic entropy? Again, nobody knows. Get out from underneath your rock. Of course, someday somewhere someone may come up with those answers, but no one is anywhere close to having them. In the meantime, the only plausible answers come from ID. Adherence to evolution is because of philosophy, not because of evidence. Let's see--Try these sources if you want to step into the light--Biological Information, Various, published by World Scientific, or the Synopsis and Limited Commentary of the same available free on line. Genetic Entropy, J. C. Stanford is another good resource. Try Doug Axe. Also, try Darwin Devolves, Michael Behe, and on line, listen to Dr. James Tour. That one is devastating, from the smartest man in the room. Or of course, you could just wave your hand, and these will all go away and you can keep repeating your mantra--"Evolution is the most tested scientific . . . . . )
@@cewoldt The beginning of life is not part of evolution, like I said you are wrong. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are talking about, evolution is a very gradual process undergone by populations not individuals. Genetic entropy is not a thing... ID has actually been proven false in a court of law. O I see you are referring to a book of lies by a documented liar. You will note this book is not peer reviewed and as such is in the same category as harry potter or books on how the earth is flat. Consider fruit flies, they can have hundreds of generations in a year and a similar mutation rate to humans, so why haven't they degraded into nothing? The answer comes from Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection Science 19 October 2001: Vol. 294 no. 5542 pp. 555-559 That paper is important as it demonstrates via experimentation that recombination hastens both the extinction of detrimental mutations and the fixation of beneficial ones. So literal experimental evidence showing the man on the couch writing about impossibilities wrong. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Conclusions of the court case After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.] The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. But considering there are over 100 pages where ID is ripped apart from this court case you will understand if I don't paste it all here. But I note your appeal to authority fallacies, how cute. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are or what your name is, if your theory disagrees with experiment its wrong, and what these charlatans are proposing flies in the face of over 100 years of accumulated scientific evidence.
@@AvNotasian NotAsian== I guess I coulda written this myself. Evolutionists replay the same arguments over and over. The first "get out of jail free card" that evolutionists are likely to play is the "The beginning of life is not a part of evolution" card. But now that we are emerging out of ignorance, we now know that information is an important part of life, perhaps the most important component. Evolution can't even begin without biological information. But materialistic evolutionists like to wave their hands like magicians and poof, there is information and evolution is on its way. Second “Get out of jail free” card. You all like to refer to a court case--yeah, a court case--where even prominent evolutionists agree that one of their "expert witnesses" lied when they said that ID isn't science. Yeah, once a judge has ruled, you can point to that forever to "prove" that ID isn't science. Next GOOJF card: If it’s not materialism, it isn’t science. Basically, the judge defined science as materialism--only materialistic causes can be appealed to. Anything else is religion. But in so saying, he belies that this is not a discussion of evidence, but of philosophy. Science is forever tethered to philosophical naturalism. No intelligence need apply. Naturalism can't explain the origin of biological information. ID can. But naturalistic scientists will forever be foundering around looking for a naturalistic explanation, because intelligence is--"religion"--and regardless of the evidence, can't be used as an explanation. On to other tactics: Attack the person, and by all means avoid addressing their argument. You call an author a "documented liar." I have no idea which author your are referring to, but why don't you interact with the ideas rather than name calling. Again, by hand waving, the concept of genetic entropy is dismissed. But what about the concept fails to pass muster? Have you read the books or articles or watched the videos. I have, and they make a great deal of sense. But if you can wave your hands, you don't need to interact with ideas. If you could tell me, and all of us, where the author is wrong, that would be helpful and educational. But for now with the name calling, all we are getting is more heat and no light. Next tactic can be called, “debate an evolutionist.” Wherever the non-evolutionist enters the argument, the person in the debate doesn’t hold “that view” of evolution. So they can label their opponent ignorant, biased, unscientific, ad naseum because the opponent is not addressing their particular view. In this case, you don’t need to address the problem of the accumulation of small mutations that are effectively invisible to natural selection and may not affect reproductive success but weaken the genome as they accumulate. You just call those who note the problem “liars” and “ignorant.” "Evolution is about populations, not individuals." Wow, so are you saying that within the population, all the genetic variety for new species already exists? Natural selection just sorts through them based on what gives the advantage in a particular environment? That is what creationists believe! No mutations are needed for new body plans to arise? All the genetic information already exists? Whoa!! As I understand evolutionary theory, a mutation starts in an individual and then moves into populations because the mutation gives the individual a reproductive advantage. But maybe not in your particular evolutionary community. So whenever your views are challenged, just go to the Kitzmiller v Dover case and the 139 page ruling (or book), and then you will feel better. The judge defined science as naturalism only, closing the door (in his view) to alternate explanations.
A question was asked on the forum, although I can't easily find it as to whether Ken was addressing the science of origins. My answer is that no, this was not a discussion of the science of origins, but about the biblical narrative. Ken discusses the science in other books and articles.
Regarding the distance light travels from the stars to us as evidence for the gap theory, the Bible says 17 times, “God stretched out the heavens” which easily explains why we can see starlight from far away and yet the earth was created around 6000 years ago.
It's impossible. If the starlight billions of light years away was only 6,000 years old you wouldn't be able to see it because it wouldn't have had enough time to reach us yet. The earth cannot be only 6,000 years old. Isotopes with half-lives in excess of billions of years can't exist in an environment that is only thousands of years old.
Aaron Kellett When the heaven and the earth were created they were “complete.” When Adam And Eve were created they were adults not infants. When the plants were created they were “complete.” Adam & Eve did not need to wait for the vegetation to mature before they could eat, therefore, it was all created mature. The animals were created mature. All of creation was created mature/“complete.” Even isotopes were created mature. This includes the heaven (space, planets, stars, & galaxies.) God “stretched out the heaven.” This is a logical explanation if “God created the heaven and the earth.” From my point of view, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” From your point of view, in the beginning nothing created everything, which by the way is a scientific impossibility and is also NOT science since you cannot study it, test it, demonstrate it, or observe it. What you believe in my friend is as much a religion as Christianity since you have to have “faith” to believe either. I believe it’s far more logical that God created everything in a fine-tuned way vs. nothing created everything in a fine-tuned way. But once again, both positions take faith to believe since neither is testable or observable. I hope your eyes are opened to what is true vs. what is not true. May God bless you.
It's impossible. If the stars were visible to Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago but are now billions of light years away then they have receded at many times the speed of light, disappeared outside our cosmic horizon, been red shifted into oblivion and become invisible. You wouldn't be able to see distant starlight billions of light years away if it was only 6,000 years old. If everything has been created 6,000 years ago (even with the appearance of being old) then the furthest starlight would only be 6,000 light years away. The reason why it looks old is because it is.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Ken is a danger to the public he literally makes up science to fit what he interprets the Bible to be people like that are dangerous and they will destroy the world
@@paulwood6636 sure, when I get some time later today or tomorrow I'll list some of his lies concerning science. As far as time stamps go, I wasn't only referring to this particular video, I meant pretty much every time he talks about science. Also, saying the Earth is 'young' is a lie right there, so basically this entire video is anti-science. Please also keep in mind that he runs Answers in Genesis, and they have a statement of faith on their website which reads, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'if any data or evidence from any field of science contradicts scripture in any way, then it is false', period. That right there is an admission that AIG misrepresents science.
Everyone takes it seriously. There is ambiguity to the meaning of the world Yom, Christians have always debated that. If we look at creation, we see consistent and separate lines of evidence for a universe that is billions of years old. The debate is about to what extent our observations of patterns in creation should inform our interpretation of Genesis. The bible also uses language like 'the circle of the earth', or the 'four corners of the earth'. Does Ken 'take God at his word' on those parts too? Surely God could have said sphere instead of circle. And how does a sphere have corners? We all allow our observations of the world to inform our interpretation of where the bible is making a poetic description vs a scientific description. Both interpretations hit the same important notes - God created the world - they just disagree on how.
I watched this podcast with an open mind to both views. Clearly, Jeff Zweerink was very evasive and I have to say that Ken made a much stronger case for his position.
Agreed I had hope for a much better from Zweerink I did not find any of his talk, convincing or logically consistent, and as you said, he refused to answer questions directly, was very evasive much like our politicians. Very disappointed in him.
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
I actually have more respect for Ken than Jeff, and I'm athiest! At least Ken is consistent in his stupidly ridiculous position. Jeff looked at the science, realised that the bible was crap and still tried to hang on to the belief in a God.
Nicely done, Jeff. You were respectful and level-headed while maintaining your sensible Christianity, while marrying your argument with well-established science.
@@pup1008 If God created nature and the universe, then His attributes pierces through it. That is why Jesus often look to nature to make points. Nature can teach of God because it is from God's essence. So if science is the study of God's creation, it can't be a contradiction. The problem with the scientist is their interpretation of what they find. Centuries ago Christians refuted scientist about the Sun being the center of the universe. Look how that turned out. If the scientist have facts and evidence then we must listen. ONLY if they are true facts though.
Ken published creation science magazine here in Australia many decades ago. it was a monthly magazine and even for an atheist there were many things in it that raise questions he interviewed artists recreating hominids and the artists did indeed admit to making them look more like they would be transitional, one of the more interesting ones was stalactites, he published pictures of man hole covers with six foot long stalactites, and even more interestingly a beer bottle covered in a stalagmite, which given the accepted age of growth of them would be aged at tens of thousands of years old but it was a pickaxe bottle from the west end brewery, so a decade or so old.
@N/A you have made a good point Ken published pictures of a 6 foot long stalactite in queensland Australia that was on a manhole cover. several issues with that are high mineral concentrations combined with high rainfall produced them. even if they found dinosaurs in the congo that doesnt prove god it proved those particular species survived somewhere, like the coelacanth has.
Ken has no formation on Hebrew. Ken is reading his modern western scientific worldview, culture and language back into the Bible (Hebrew, Ancient Near East).
Ken ham helped me leave young earth creationism. I saw extreme intolerance for how others that thought different than young earthers. From my perspective to some young earthers made how old the earth was an issue salvation. It became the more important that any other aspect or part of the Bible.
I would caution you against 2 things. 1. Blaming someone else’s actions as your reason to lean against God’s word, as that will not stand up on judgment day. And 2. It is a very serious topic that literally causes millions to question or even disregard God’s word. Of course it’s often a topic he touches on. Also he is very respectful and makes clear boundaries. Look again. He will never concede and agree with the opposite thinking…. That’s not wrong. The other side often refuses to concede to his point… would they too be intolerant or just Ken? Double standard??
@@dsparkletear314 I feel you need to learn to embrace fellow Christians and not blame or judge them based on a particular dogmatic interpretation of the bible over matters that none of us will be judged on by Christ. Christianity and biblical authority is not undermined or challenged by divergent views on these matters. One must be able to mesh what one sees in God's natural revelation with the written revelation in order to worship God with all your mind, body, soul and spirit. Many folk who are happy to pigeon hole science and nature as a peripheral thing in their life can happily live with a literal 6 day creation which is a populist evangelical interpretation.. Folk who are professionally engaged in or think seriously about these issues must find other ways of interpreting Early Genesis and creation's message while being true to their intellect and spirit. None of us are questioning God's word. We are simply questioning specific interpretations of God's written word when they clash with what is revealed in nature just as Christians did when confronted with the idea of the earth revolving around the sun.
You’re doing the very thing you claim Mr Ham is doing: being intolerant. You said “Folk who are professionally engaged in ir think seriously about..” - so by your definition you yourself are ruling out those who differ from your opinion. And you let someone else’s “attitude” on a matter let you change your mind on something rather than the material itself. Seems childish and myopic. Whether you agree with him or not, the simple truth is that it IS an issue that people question. Who are you to say that it doesn’t undermine biblical authority? Maybe for you it doesn’t. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t for anyone else.
@@jamaicanyoute Your comment in your first 2 paragraphs are simply playing on or responding to my choice of words so I'll let them flow under the bridge. The key issue is our reverence for God's revelation, in both nature and the bible. Biblical authority and our holding this as paramount. When our exegesis of the bible is correct it will clearly be mutually supportive of God's revelation in nature, natural reality (cf postulation or theory). What I say doesn't matter. The fact that leading Christian apologists through the centuries have had different interpretations of the Genesis account and ae capable of objectively discussing them without affecting core truths like the identity of Christ, salvation, redemption and integrity of scripture, demonstrates that that, yes, there are differing interpretations on Genesis that exist without undermining biblical authority. The fact that Ken Ham and many who support his view think that it does undermine biblical authority to look at Genesis with a mindset that is something other than a 20th century literalistic expectation. Other great minds and believers over the centuries thought and think differently. They see is is more exegetically consistent to look at it through different eyes, given that the text of Genesis 1-11was written in ancient times as a collation of stories and genealogies of the past handed down from antiquity, for the purpose of setting God's people apart from the surrounding heathen beliefs. Humility is called for rather than dogmatism. This is especially so when there are huge logical and factual challenges from God's textbook of nature when interpreting God's miraculous creation as a seven 24 hour day event or interpreting Noah's flood as a global event, both of which can be deduced and defended from scripture, but both of which can be discounted from a different exegesis of scripture. When we interpret God's text on nature (scientific observation of nature) and God's text on God-man relationships (bible) both correctly, the two will of course be in harmony. Exploring this is a privilege, and the different understanding of sound Christian leaders though time demonstrate that such different interpretations can and do exist without impacting on our reverence for the authority of scripture or of the truths of core Christian beliefs: God the Creator, Christ's identity, Salvation, redemption, etc. Humility rather than dogmatism is called for on these deep issues of the past.
I have been a preacher of God's word for 40 years and there is nothing in the Bible clearer than that God created in six days and sent a worldwide flood. It is not about the meaning of the word 'yom'. Genesis 1 includes day and night, evening and morning as well. There was astounding unity among Christians on six day young earth creation. The NT addresses "Christians" doubting many issues including the resurrection, the humanity of Jesus and his deity. Only since long age geology have significant numbers doubted six day young earth creation. Augustine was a young earth Creationists, and he castigated those who did not believe the world was less than 10000 years old. He tentatively suggested instantaneous creation because of his Greek philosophy, but backtracked on this when challenged.
I have spent many years leaning towards Jeff's position but considering it not critically important. I have also always considered Ken to be a bit obstinately dogmatic and unimaginative. But I have say that I have found Ken's arguments very compelling here. My faith is in a nutshell believing the unbelievable because of how God has revealed himself to me. Why should the creation story be any different? I have seen and experienced things in life that no one would believe except that they know me. How much more would that apply to God
Really, compelling? Ken is aggressively it odds with even the most basic of scientific concepts. I’m curious what you found compelling? Was it just his theological stance?
Well you just said it.... "Creation STORY", they just made it up, or at least modified it from creation myths from other religions. They had little scientific knowledge or technology to explain how the world is as it is, so this is the best they could do. They saw creation everywhere, so a creator would make sense back then. But there's little need for one now that we have explanations for most things
Here I thought this was going to be arguments for and against young earth and old earth theory. In reality this debate was Ken arguing that "this topic is not debatable if you're a Bible believing Christian" and Jeff defending that his argument is valid and worth having within a Christian context. I feel like they just repeated themselves over and over because they couldn't agree on whether it's a valid debate or not.
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
One of the difficulties facing those who do not hold to a young earth is the question: Why is Genesis 1 written figuratively? What is the purpose behind figurative rather than literal language? The answer, I believe, is that Genesis 1 is a 'Temple Text'. To take such a view respects the cultural and religious context in which it was written and avoids the assumption that the original readers would have been asking the same questions as 21st century westerners. There is a far more important question than "What does the word 'Yom' (day) mean?" and that is "What does the word 'Bara' (create) mean?" It had a very different meaning to the ancient near east than it does for the modern west - and I've never heard Ken Ham address it on this level. For the interested reader, please see The Lost World of Genesis 1 by John H. Walton.
It is not figuratively. 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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
I wish someone other than Ken Ham would be the spokesperson for new earth theory. Ken Ham mostly just makes the argument an ad hominem attack on the character of his opponent, in this case over and over again impugning the motives of Jeff Zweerink. This keeps the conversation from being able to make it's way into very much science. Furthermore, Ken Ham pits natural revelation against special revelation: something to the effect of "you can't trust what the natural world is telling you because it was corrupted by the fall"; whereas, on the contrary, Psalm 19:1 says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." Romans 1:20 says "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." Ken Ham believes in the perspicuity of the special revelation of Scripture, so why does he pit it against natural revelation when Scripture itself says that natural revelation is perspicuous.
Jon Cawthorn - careful in bearing false witness. You trying to put words in his mouth. I don't think you know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Ham gave reasons why he holds what he holds too. He counter argued as well.
@@danielmann5427 I am not sure what words you think I put in his mouth in accusing me of being a false witness. At the one hour mark Ken Ham says "Creation is cursed. It's under the judgment of sin. All creation groans. And man's interpretation of a fallen universe and trying to interpret the past is completely different than a written revelation that is God breathed. All Scripture is God breathed. This is the infallible word of God, as God says in First Thessalonians 'It is in truth the word of God'. That's very different. You can't in any way equate the written word of God with the revelation of nature which is a result of God's creation and now suffering from the effects of the fall, of sin and the curse." An ad hominem fallacy is an adjective describing an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. I believe I used that correctly to say that Ken Ham makes the argument an attack on the character of his opponent and thereby keeps the conversation from being able to make it's way into very much science.
@@joncawthorn8201 -Ken Ham speaks correctly, all creation is cursed, it is all under judgement. It all groans for redemption. For it is not ken ham who spoke it but the scriptures, it's not an interpretation the bible is plain in words. Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. The so called attack was related to the subject at hand. And he gave sufficient reasons for his postion and why he is against his opponents postion. I do not see this often over used term ad hominem being used.
It's not natural theology and natural revelation is not the same thing. Its usually called special and general revelation in Christian circles. They are not pivoted against each other and ken ham does not do so.
@@danielmann5427I am not disagreeing with what the Bible says about the world being under a curse. I just don't think that Ken Ham is justified in using that to say that the world God spoke into existence disagrees with the Scriptures that God breathed. Ken Ham says Jeff Zweerink is accusing God of being responsible for death and suffering. He also accuses Jeff of not taking God at his word and of compromising the word of God. Although the attacks by Ken Ham on the character of Jeff Zweerink were related to the subject at hand, they are almost certainly false, they distract from the subject at hand and they are very uncharitable. In the other Ken Ham debates I have listened to he used ad hominem there as well; you might say he "over used" this base debate tactic. This tactic is a turn off and it implies that he has no substantial argument to lean on. If your a young earth creationist you should want someone more winsome for your side, and if you are not you definitely want someone who brings you better reasons to believe in that so that you can judge the argument on substantial merits. Because he does not bring good arguments and because he is so uncharitable, I don't think Ken Ham is the young earth theories' best foot forward, at least I hope not.
I was a Christian Creationist until I watched Ken Ham and Bill Nye Debate, then I had to accept evolution. Overtime as I studied Genesis and my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture I began to formulate how to understand Genesis in a middle place between allegory and literarily. My question for Ken Ham has always been the same, what does he do with the Theologians before modern Biology who also did not read Genesis 1 literally? Because he seems to claim that those who do accept evolution force science into, but these early Theologians would not of been able to do that. Examples would be: Irenaeus (130-202AD); Origen (184-253AD); Gregory (329-390AD); Augustine (354-430AD)
@@CoverBeats46 I don't think I'm compromising with evolution, but compromising with the great Early Church Father's who had many conversations and disagreements before we knew of biological sciences on whether Genesis should of been read literally or not. I think I look to early church to shape how I should understand the modern church.
@@danielmann5427 Absolutely! I began to personal know Jesus Christ as the one true God made flesh on November 13th, 2011. Since then, He has done so much in transforming my heart, soul, mind and strength through the process of discovering what it means to call Him my Lord and my God. I was part of a Non-Denominational Church from 2009-2014, then was in a Nazarene Church from 2014-2018. Currently been moving around the past year+ so have not been in once place. But yes, I do know Jesus and know greatly of his wonderful grace.
Yay!!! A comment section that isn't disabled! Ken Ham can finally face some criticism without blocking them out. Answers In Genesis pisses me off so much because of that.
(09:26) Zweerink - "... as I was studying or preparing for my scientific career, I realized that as I tried to *_integrate what I was finding in creation with the Bible_* that an old Earth position did that the best ..." Notice that Zweerink makes a distinction between "what I was finding in creation" and what is in the Bible. It's rather subtle but you can see through it if you look carefully. Zweerink's professors and fellow students were telling him a very different narrative than what the Bible tells him and he compromised. In his heart, he was embarrassed about the Biblical narrative. His professors sold him a bill of goods and Zweerink became convinced they were wise and knew what they were talking about. Zweerink bought into the lie. It's happened to many, many Christians. The key to understanding Zweerink's position is in the highlighted words above. He thinks the creation and the Bible do not agree with one another and must be reconciled. He does not recognize the absolute authority and accuracy of the Bible (though he will tell you otherwise) and therefore he does not see that it is the Bible that interprets creation and not that the creation should interpret the Bible. If you think the creation is telling you something different than what the Bible is telling you then you have misinterpreted creation. You should not reinterpret the Bible based on something you think the creation is saying. If the Bible tells you the stars were created on the fourth day then you need to interpret creation as though the stars were created on the fourth day. If the Bible tells you the Earth and all that is in it were created in six days then you need to see the Earth and all that is in it as having been created in six days and adjust your _interpretation_ of the evidence accordingly. Gᴏᴅ does not lie nor make errors when He speaks.
I was in secular college, in the 'divinity', and within the introduction to Old Testament, Liberal theology raised its ugly head. I hear the same taint of Liberal thinking in Zweerink replies. He races to secular viewpoints as you correctly say and does not answer Ken at all.
There was the 1) religious tenant that everything in space revolved around the earth 2) the earth was the center of the universe 3) the most gifted scientists like newton, copernicus, Galileo and others all held back there awareness that the planets had many of their own moons revolving around not earth but the other planets. Today the vatican astronomers have agreed with the earth revolving around the sun which revolves around the milky way. The observable universe stretches with the expansion of space and the observable universe is now about 92 billion light years across. These figures come from anilizing the red shift of most all the stars and galaxies in the universe. This expansion could not occur in a short period of time as promoted by a short creation period. The events described in genesis are in error as the events are somewhat backward. Light cant appear before the sun was created. The sun is where we get 99% of all light. The first galaxies we're not formed after the earth. The earth was created billions of years after most of the galaxies were created. Listen to renoun astronomers and their comparison of biblical creation vs modern cosmology.
@@mikelevitz1266 - "In the first period, the universe grew from an almost infinitely small point to nearly an octillion (that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros) times that in size in less than a trillionth of a second." "... nearly an octillion (that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros) *_times that in size_* ..." "... less than a trillionth of a second." That's called cosmic inflation. It's an idea that is part of the standard cosmological model. Your notion that the universe cannot grow by unimaginable amounts in an unimaginably short period of time is not what the secular cosmologists are teaching. The conclusions you reach with your common sense are incorrect. I see "cosmic inflation" as day four of creation week. I think it's a pretty good fit. You should listen to renowned cosmologists like Alexei Starobinsky, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde. Keep in mind that the Earth was created 3 days before the rest of the cosmos was created and cosmic inflation occurred. The God that can create the entire universe can shield one small planet from the dangerous effects of cosmic inflation. It's not hard for Him. When I flip a switch on the wall, I get light that doesn't come from the Sun. C'mon, dude! You can do better than that. Can you tell me what caused the universe to come into existence? ---------------------------------------------- When a play is being presented on a stage and there is a forest scene, does the stage manager grow all the trees? How do the trees for the scene get on the stage? When a movie is being filmed in a forest, do the movie people plant the forest and wait for it to grow before making the movie? This is all a drama being put on by God. He prepared the stage and then put the actors in place. You are one of the actors. Smile for the camera 😁
Very well said. It really is that simple. It’s sad to see so many Christians compromising on this to appear less “crazy” to the world. When you believe God came to earth in human flesh, died & rose again - believe me, they already think you’re “crazy”
With a topic heading titled, “Do we live in an old or young Earth?” I expected actual evidence for each position to be presented. But all was discussed was how to interpret the Biblical claim of the Earth’s beginning. Very disappointing, cover it, but maybe backing up with evidence could strengthen either position’s viability.
Once you have a supernatural event in the mix, "scientific evidence" is meaningless at best, misleading at worst. (For the life of me, I don't know why this point is so often ignored) The question then becomes "as God was creating the heavens and earth, when did the supernatural events stop and natural events begin?" No science anywhere can (ever) answer that question. Maybe Scripture can. Gen 1:1 describes a supernatural event. How about the rest of Gen 1? That is the million dollar question. And no science anywhere can answer it.
The evidence is either equivocal or conflicting. We have strong evidence for a young earth, the recession rate of the moon, the decay of the earths magnetic field, a galaxy filled with comets...these all point to a young earth/universe. There is evidence that could support an old earth...the inferences produced by radiometric dating, the size of the universe and the starlight that fills it, etc. So those are the conflicting evidences. There are equivocal evidences (evidence that could support both explanations). The existence of biological life (naturalists have their warm puddle or ocean vent, and creationists have a super intelligent creative being that explains both the material and informational components of life). I'm sure there are other such equivocal evidences. So my point here is that "evidences" are not clear and not conclusive. It comes down to whether or not you "believe" in the naturalistic story, or if you "believe" in the supernaturalistic story.
Ken Ham is a refreshing primer as to why a literal reading of the Bible is nonsense. Problem is, once you drop a literal reading, it mostly falls apart. So credit to Ham in that respect.
I am a Christian who converted to Old Earth Creationism after listening to Ken Ham. LOL. I wouldn't criticize him if I were you though. Atheists actually believe that all the complexity in life arose out of mindlessness. It's absurd that Theist Apologists have to even exist, the probability of all the order of the Cosmos and of human life without God is infinitesimally small, if not impossible. The best argument Atheists have is the Hiddness of God which when you think about it isn't much of an argument at all, nothing more than a temper tantrum, anger at God for creating the world according to his will and not their's. Ken Ham has an IQ of 1000 compared to you!!!
This depends a lot on what you mean by "literal." People like Ken Ham and yourself tend to claim that the Bible must be either literal or metaphorical, but that is a false dichotomy. Think of the first time you saw the solar system portrayed on a poster in elementary school. Was the depiction literal? What does that even mean? The scale was most likely way off. The orbits were probably simplified. On the other hand, the solar system is literally heliocentric, and the ordering of heavenly bodies moving from the Sun outward was literally correct. Was it metaphorical then? No, the planets are real, so it clearly wasn't a metaphor. Was it inaccurate? Absolutely. Was it a lie then? Not really. Does this mean the person who authored it didn't know any better? No, not necessarily. So then, how can we categorize this poster? It was a model. A model, by definition, is not the real thing. Models are almost always simplified which means they are, by nature, inaccurate. Because the author doesn't know any better? Not necessarily. Models are almost always simplified in order to teach a particular concept to a particular audience in a way that is pedagogically appropriate. In other words, if models were not simplified so that the audience could grasp a particular concept, then a _pedagogical_ error would have been committed. A very knowledgeable author might create a very simplistic model based on the targeted audience. My view of the Bible is that it is (at least at times) neither literal nor metaphorical. I believe that it is inerrant in the sense that the Author unfailingly hits the target for which He is aiming, but I also believe that it is often inaccurate in the sense that the lessons are often models of truth that are simplified for human (even ancient human) consumption. It would be a mistake to relegate the entire Bible to a collection of metaphors because a lot of what is being said is quite literally true. On the other hand, it would also be a mistake to insist on a ultra-literal interpretation of every phrase because that's simply not the way we communicate, especially when we are trying to teach complex concepts to those who haven't even formed a basic understanding with the appropriate foundation for grasping anything complex.
The problem with Ken's approach is while he builds on the authority of scripture which is right, in reality though, he is actually building on his subjective interpretation of scripture.
No, he's reading the words and presupposing them to be true, as well as written to be easily understood by an illiterate, largely oral population. But he also doesn't rest on that presupposition, but tests it with science as well. When other scientists disagree on "the science," he analyzes what those scientists claim as axiomatic, and has found significant flaws that actually can be reconciled with the Biblical presuppositions instead... Secularism is wrong in how they've interpreted the data to support the wild pontifications of a 19th century dolt who believed the European man to be more evolved than the African man, and that women's brains are just marginally more developed than a children's brains (inferior to men). At the bare minimum, they are treating their theories as facts, and then citing those theories to validate other conclusions. None of which is fact, but actually belies what the facts indicate. Microevolution is impossible, and even the carbon dating methods are rife with presuppositional assumptions that cannot possibly be true... to the point where they manipulate and discard data to fit their hypothesis instead of adjusting their hypothesis to fit the data.
Ha. I love this. You talk about subjectivity, and seem to recognise it so clearly in others, but then baldly state that scripture is right. Has it ever occurred to you that scripture may not be right? In fact, has it ever crossed your mind that scripture may just be like all other religions - bogus?
This debate is what made me go from young earth to old earth. Ironically, Ken Ham is actually the reason I'm not young earth anymore because he makes a lot of inconsistent points. What I heard was Jeff say that there are plenty of complex issues and that he doesn't know everything. What I heard Ken say is if you disagree with me you disagree with God. He tried to make a point that Christians believed that the earth was young, but when that argument didn't work, he started talking about fallibility even though that would apply to everyone not just the people he disagreed with. The worst point is that he asks why the average person can't just read the Bible without going to a scholar of different languages. Well, because it had to be translated into English, so technically no, the average person can't necessarily read the original scriptures because the average person doesn't read those languages.
But the words have been translated for the very purpose of eliminating your need for an interpreter every time you pick up your bible. This should allow you to read it and interpret it for yourself. It like you going to a foreign country with your interpreter and complaining that you need a interpreter to interpret your interpretor's words.
I agree, my concern about Ken is that he wants to make this debatable issue into one that splits the church over inspiration of Scripture. He essentially says, “Interpret this my way or else.” Here’s my biggest issue - why hold this strict interpretation of one word, yom, and not apply the same principles of interpretation to the rest of the Bible? How is Ken not required then to believe in a flat, Earth-centric world? For example, there is no other way to interpret the words except that the sun must literally “rise in the east.”
This should have been a heartfelt, earnest discussion amongst brothers, but instead it was a debate where winning was more important. Anyone who genuinely wants the truth doesn't care what the answer is. Ken Ham was quite hostile in his approach, using hyperbolic language and seeking to undermine Jeff, who he attacked as an opponent. Very ugly and such a bloody shame. Stop with the infighting, for Christ's sake, and just talk it through. If you can't agree, then agree to disagree bless each other and move on, just like Christ said to do. Focus on the big picture; becoming an expert in loving God above anything and anyone (obeying from the heart), then loving your neighbour and brother-even the difficult, stubborn ones.
That's only because Ken knows the truth and is trying to reciprocate that to Jeff. Jesus sure wasn't polite and welcoming when he turned over the money tables now was he?
@@rachelbrewer9578 there is a huge difference between a den of thieves being allowed to set up camp in God’s house and a brother who has a different opinion . I hope you can see that.
@DavidKnowles The bible is black and white, not grey. It teaches what is right and what is wrong. A thief manipulates the weak and easily deceives. The Bible is so telling when it talks about how many will simply be blind to the truth. Not difficult to understand.
@@rachelbrewer9578 The truth is black and white. The Mosaic law is black and white. However, the correct way to interpret and faithfully apply both is not always black and white at all. Jesus illustrates this clearly when He was asked to apply the law to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11). The law is clear; the woman must be stoned! It’s black and white, and there is no wiggle room! Easy to understand. Yet Jesus did NOT cast the first stone, nor any stone, even though He is without sin. This shows your contention, ‘the Bible is black and white’, as at best, overly simplistic. Jesus fulfilled all the law, always, including in this situation by applying the great commandment justly; He loved her as Himself. He refused to write her off and He gave her room to repent. Have you written off Jeff? Have you grouped him and other old-earthers with the blind and the ‘thief that manipulates the weak and easily deceives’? I’m convinced you mean well and, with Ken Ham, earnestly desire to walk in love and truth. So do not make the mistake of labeling everyone you disagree with as an arch enemy intent on evil. Remember, believing in a young earth is not a life-and-death criterion for Christ’s salvation. Please don’t confuse salvation issues with side issues. It’s ok to disagree on side issues because none of us know ALL the truth, ALWAYS, in ALL circumstances. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says we’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. (MSG). This ‘is’ black and white and true for you, me, Ken, and Jeff. God bless you, sister.
I am Christian … but people like Ken are ignoring reality. There are literally TREES that are older than people like him thinks the age of the Earth is…
And the bible states that men will scoff at the truth. There are alot of comments in here that scoff at the truth. But that's ok. Jesus always wins. Ken is fighting for the truth. That's all.
Thank you for the debate. I personally didn't find Jeff to be particularly good at articulating an argument. I didn't find calls to authority outside of the Bible to be compelling. God bless!
At about the 37:23 mark, Justin asks Jeff Zweerink to explain death before sin (which theistic evolution requires). I listened closely to Jeff Zweerink's response, and essentially he seems to be saying that whether death came before or after the fall is, in a sense, irrelevant, because the doctrine of redemption from death through Christ's sacrifice on the cross remains unaffected. But the order is in fact critical, because this is the order that Genesis clearly teaches, i.e. that sin brought death into the world. The only reason that so many try to shoehorn theistic evolution into Genesis is because ultimately they allow the secular models of origins to pervert what the Scriptures clearly teach. Prior to the advent of naturalism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism, there was broad agreement in Christendom as to a young (@ 6000 year old) earth.
Romans 5:12 “Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed to all mankind in turn.” This is clear death came to “all mankind”, not animals. Why would God kill animals due to man’s sin?
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
@@djsarg7451 replying to your first comment, animals’ death is due to sin. If this was not the case, then that would mean that it was like that since creation and if that’s the case, then when God said that everything was very good, he would be calling death good which goes against his character. God does not kill animals because of sin, it is just a byproduct of man sinning.
The problem with Ken Ham is that he thinks that you can move from text to understanding _without_ interpretation. In fact this is a good definition of fundamentalism. The fundamentalist always thinks that his interpretation is coterminous with what the Biblical texts "say"; and it is always a consistent message. The Bible is not a book but a library containing different genres of literature, so the first thing we need to ask when reading a book of the Bible is: what genre is this? Ken Ham doesn't do that. Genesis is clearly written in the language of mythology (which is not the same as "an untrue story" but rather an imaginative narrative which tells the truth in non-literal, metaphorical, symbolic form). We know that the Genesis myth was in part derived from Babylonian sources.
I disagree. I believe Ken Ham did look at the text and ask, how should it be read? Which is why he points out that Genesis' days has evening and morning in the same sentence to be sure that we read it as 24hr literal days. Nothing in Genesis suggests that the days are metaphorical, in fact the opposite is found.
Just to put it into context... ALL mythology stories derive from what the Bible is explaining in Genesis 6. Angels (gods) procreated with women which produced the mighty men of mythology. The Bible gives you the entire picture to see how things were corrupted, not a mythology of "gods" (fallen angels) who tricked people into believing that THEY were in charge.
Jessica H Ken Ham has completely misunderstood Genesis. The genre is not history but mythology. A talking snake? God walks in the garden? The light was created before the sun? It is clearly the language of mythology. This was recognised in the 2nd century by Christians such as Origen.
Cosigner22 Mythology existed before Genesis was ever written. I find it difficult to understand how people can seriously believe that we live in a universe which is only 6000 years old! All of the evidence is against you! Genesis is clearly not history but myth.
Blind leading the Blind, its contagious not sure if you can be inoculated but it sure would be nice, zombies everywhere I look around and see nothing but worn out faces
It's so frustrating to see Kent arrogantly assert that he is the best interpreter of scripture and then accuse any humble and questioning approach as not believing God's word. It is because I revere God's word that I'm doubtful of my ability to fully understand it without careful exploration and seeking correlation with the "testimony of creation" and the guidance of the holy spirit. Dogmatism to ones own interpretation is not honoring scripture, it is self worship.
I disagree. I was a so called old earth agnostic for almost 40 years. Taught as a secular scientist. I couldn't believe Genesis and it's claims. Multiple Creation Ministries have revealed alternative theories that actually make logical sense compared to my previous suppositions.
Ken Ham u are on POINT. Clear crisp and refreshing with BIBLICAL TEXT. Jeff days it so well I believe in millions of year because someone said the bible might say this. Jeff u need to read it for ur self it is clear. Ur stances Jeff eliminates free will
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
@@reverendbarker650 Let snapshot of true history place in check your ignorance and arrogance: 5554 BC - Creation 3298 BC - Noah's flood (4 pairs of human beings survived) 2850 BC - Tower of Babel destroy (approx. population 12 million) 2750 BC - Egyptian Dynasty 1 founded by Menes/Narmer 2166 BC - Abraham born 2067 BC - Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed 1886 BC - Joseph made ruler of Egypt 1446 BC - Moses at 80 led ~2.5 million Jews out of Egypt & crossed Red Sea 1052 BC - Saul became 1st king of Israel 960 BC - Solomon completed building 1st Temple 776 BC - 1st Olympic Games 586 BC - 1st Temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar 515 BC - 2nd Temple built 333-323 BC - Alexander the Great ruled Jerusalem 221 BC - Great Wall of China built 2 BC - Jesus of Nazareth born 33 AD - Jesus Christ crucified & resurrected 70 AD - 2nd Temple destroyed by Romans led by Titus 476 AD - End of Roman Empire 927 AD - Kingdom of England founded 1206-1260 AD - Mongol Empire flourished 1371-1433 AD - Admiral Zheng He (Cheng Ho) lived 1478-1834 AD - Spanish Inquisition 1619 AD - Slavery began in America 1776 AD - U.S. Declaration of Independence 1876 AD - Telephone invented 1886 AD - 1st motor car by Karl Benz 1914-1918 AD - 1st World War
This guy is a great mediator in debates... And Ken is spot on with his defense while the other guy stumbles and makes little sense in my honest opinion, which stems from my own studies.
You believe the earth is 6500 years old & everything alive today came of a boat 4500 years ago? Did you "studies" also conveniently omit that the bible tells us the world is flat?
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Literal interpretation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of an oral myth written in a now dead language versus all of the combined knowledge of every discipline we study. This shouldn’t still be a debate in this century.
@@felixostman8569 I didn't compare it to other religions, they are all equally deluded. At least the Hindu scriptures actually got the age of the Earth pretty much spot on!
As a person unconvinced by the Christian claims, I am more impressed by the consistency of the Ken Ham position in just rejecting all scientific evidence. Jeff Zweerink seems to sit on the fence in trying to reconcile the literal truth of bible scriptures as the word of his god with the 'obviously' allegorical nature of many bible stories. Maybe his brain contains religion and science in two compartments, each of which has access to his speaking voice but without access to each other? For me that is a bigger mystery than the age of our planet.
The difference is that Jeff is using the "two books" model in which the "book of creation" (what we see when we study the natural world) can inform our understanding of the "book of revelation" (the Bible). Though this idea has a history going back to the earliest days of Christianity, Ken does not like this model and dubiously asserts that it is a cowardly concession to materialism.
Ken Ham cherry picks as well. They all do. They cherry pick which Biblical stories to believe and which scientific pieces of evidence to believe. He accepts most science until it contradicts a part of the Bible he thinks he's familiar with. Hell, the Bible has at least three creation stories, the second of which, on the SECOND PAGE OF THE BIBLE, flatly contradicts the first. He ignores it. There are two Flood narratives that are mutually incompatible. He ignores this. He takes his kids to the doctor. He flies on planes. All of this is fine. When science helps, it's right. When it makes him feel bad, it's wrong.
I like what Ken often say in his talk, (he didn't say it here) but I like what he says that if death and suffering has always been around before the creation of the world, then the death and suffering of our Lord Jesus is redundant. The reason why Jesus came to die for us is because of our Sin, and death is the wages of Sin, therefore Jesus came as a redeemer to reverse the curse that was brought by the disobedience of our first parent Adam and Eve!
Love the channel and these types of conversations. However, this Jeff guy is not equipped to debate this topic very well. I love that he loves Jesus! I would love to see someone debate this topic that knows all the different positions of “old earthers” and can defend them well. Add an British accent, too ;)
Maybe Jeff should really know the position of the Young earthers well then he wouldn't be making such a clod of himself. If you're going to debate someone, at least do them the honor of studying their position well.
Should get William Lane Craig to debate Ken Ham... if you can get the good doctor to lower himself. He would wipe the floor and blow Kens objections to dust when it comes to interpretation of scripture.
Its not an actual 'debate', Ham couldn't possibly hold his own in any real debate. He already lost this debate many times, This 'conversation' is obviously skewed to the ..lol..'christian perspective'...
What is so hard to believe about the fourth commandment? For in 6 days God made the heavens and earth. You can’t have long ages between the days. Way too many symbiotic relationships that can’t be separated by millions of years. Flowers(day 3) and insects (day 5) must be days not long period of time. Old earth believers are left wanting.
LeeTubular You still need faith to believe in your theory. Amazing how many nonbelievers misinterpret scripture. I’d be happy to clarify any curious or skeptical questions you have. I didn’t believe that book for 40 years , especially the Genesis. Don’t close your mind to it until you’ve had it explained by someone who is qualified to explain it.
LeeTubular Qualified enough to realize I was blind to the saving faith of Jesus, and now I see . A non believer will not comprehend until they realize that they need a Savior. Good luck Lee
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
I just heard in the last week that Augustine felt that God could have completed creation in one 24 hour day with no problem! My feeling is the best way, was the six day, morning & evening, day He did it. He created a man & a woman, not infants, He created ALL things in a mature state. It made the best understanding of creation by an unlimited and powerful God according to His own good pleasure.
As a young man I believed in theistic evolution. It was only after 10 or 15 years of actively reading scripture and. seeing that creation could not for example been "very good" if the evolutionary process of "kinds" and such, would create huge theological problems regarding sin.
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
@@djsarg7451 Seventh Day is not still ongoing! The Bible does clearly indicate that God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago (all one needs is to be able to add, or at least use a calculator). Genesis 2:1-3 states that, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” He ceased His work of creation the seventh day after creating everything in six days. He does NOT continue His work of creation, now is not the seventh day of creation. He only rested (ceased) His work of creation. He isn’t still “resting in a seventh day”, He is still working, (but not in creating. That is what He ceased from.). John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. Obviously God has not ceased from other works, the seventh day rest mentioned in Genesis 2 was only from the creation that was completed after 6 days. As you referred to Hebrews, 4:3 tells us that God’s “works were finished from the foundation of the world.” How could it be more clear that God stopped creating after a flurry of supernatural activity in the beginning? Also, the NT says the world was created-in the past-through Jesus (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), and this is distinguished from His present work of upholding the universe (Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.). Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 both refer to a corresponding possible rest - the Jews’ and ours, if we obey, that we can obtain. It does not tell “us that the seventh day has not ended.”. It does not mean that “Each believer are [sic] to enter day 7.” (I guess if everyone is ready to stop creating a universe from nothing they could do that. But that is not the case!). Heaven will be a rest/cessation of our work here on earth. You say “there [sic] no ‘evening or morning’ for the 7th day”. So, by your logic, since there was no start to it, how do you get that it’s still going on?? You say that, “Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary”. There were plenty of other Hebrew words that God could have had Moses use which refer to a long period of time! These include qedem which is the main one-word term for ‘ancient’ and is sometimes translated ‘of old’; olam means ‘everlasting’ or ‘eternity’ and is translated ‘perpetual’, ‘of old’ or ‘for ever’; dor means ‘a revolution of time’ or ‘an age’ and is sometimes translated ‘generations’; tamid means ‘continually’ or ‘for ever’; ad means ‘unlimited time’ or ‘for ever’; orek when used with yôm is translated ‘length of days’; shanah means ‘a year’ or ‘a revolution of time’ (from the change of seasons); netsach means ‘for ever’. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning ‘seasons’ or ‘festivals’. And your usage of the English word day with various meaning corresponds to the Hebrew usage. It is obvious from context which meaning is being conveyed. (Deuteronomy 33:15 with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills, Habakkuk 3:6 He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook the nations; then the eternal mountains were scattered; the everlasting hills sank low. His were the everlasting ways. What does this have to do with God ceasing His creation on day 7?) Finally, your interpretation of Genesis 2 makes no sense of Exodus 20:9-11. ‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work.’ ‘But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. You shall not do any work …’ ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.’ The six days of creation and day of rest are exactly the same as those of the command to work six ordinary days and rest on the seventh. The passage is certainly not teaching an eternal weekend.
I'm an Athiest and I respect the young earth creationist as he doesn't waver from his beliefs, he believes the bible as it's written and not try to make it something it isn't like the new christians who say 'well it's just poetic'
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Ken Ham: "I don't like being called a Young Earth Creationist ... I wanna be called a Biblical Creationist..." Thereby annulling, a priori, the arguments of every believer that disagrees with him -- because that's not disingenuous at all! I'm a believer that holds the position that creation is old, and I would maintain that arguments for OC are far more "biblical" that are Ham's. However, I could be wrong in my understanding of scripture.
Yeah shame some omniscient diety did such a terrible job in giving us what some proclaim to be the most important message ever that 2000 years later fools like you have to argue about some ridiculous text that most sane people filed away as nonsense years back. If you want clarity maybe become a Hindu, they got the timeline & events of the Big Bang pretty much spot on with no ambiguity! Better still - grow up & put away imaginary sky fairies! Even if you tried to smack your puerile square peg into secular science's hard earned round holes on the creation myth how do you explain away what can now be proven to bunkum in the rest of the bible like the Ark story when you have cultures that were around at that time like the Chinese, Egyptian & Native South American cultures making no mention of it, modern geological evidence, pardon the pun, blowing it out the water & irrefutable DNA *PROOF* making you all look a laughing stock?
@@pup1008 Yup, you're the fool. You obviously haven't felt the holy spirit. So you blab about the Bible being irrelevant and outdated. Wow, will you be surprised. The Bible isn't done yet. Flip to the last book. Then turn on your TV.. You don't see the world looking for a world leader to make things the way you want? Just hang on for the ride. You keep going the way you're going it will be quick for you.
@@Alec_Cox *"Revelation?"* You know that was even talked about & imminently predicted in biblical times right? You know that idiots like you were claiming *The Plague* (a totally naturalistic event) as the end days & at least they had something to base that on as it wiped half of Europe! Probably from every century, you could & people *DID* look at their situation & say *"The end is neigh!"* What about in *1914 & 1939* shouldn't those two great world wars have been a clarion call for your flavour of god & Jeepers to come & take all you "good people" up in the rapture? We are probably now living in the best of times *EVER!* Secular science, free from the dogma & confides of religious maxims, has progressed & cured many ills, our technology brings us abundant food in most countries, the level of violent crime is at an all time low in the West.... Yeah there's tinkering but there has *ALWAYS* been the need for tinkering!
Nah. This discussion proves that the name Biblical Creationist applies to Ham.Because he always stood by the authority of scripture. Jeff sounded really weak on authority of scripture and spent the whole time citing what other "experts" say. So if this interview is anything to go by, Biblical Creationist applies to AIG
@@MrEKEN7 Your argument is a joke. Anyone can claim to be a "biblical creationist" since there is no authority on wtf that ridiculous fairy tale states.
So I just heard Ken say that you can be a Christian AND believe in evolution or an old earth. Talk about eating crow. It's just not his theology. I'm glad Justin put him on the spot cause I think he has too many people duped into thinking it's all or none and that's never been the case until about 70 yrs ago. Ken isn't the ultimate authority on scripture. Neither he nor Jeff have a theology background yet Ken continues to act like he has God's ultimate revelation on the Genesis account. So sad. Even his ark encounter is very inaccurate yet he elevates himself as an authority. C S. Lewis said that, "the sins of the flesh are bad but the utmost evil is pride". And pride goes before a fall. I think Ken needs to read what his Bible says about it: Prov 11:2, 16:18, 29:23. That's what caused lucifer to fall.
I have a question to Ken, when he is talking about the Hebrew word for day, evening and morning is always talking about a 24 hour period. My question is this: If the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, what defined the evening and the morning of the first 3 days??
You have some frame of reference wrong. Also Genesis is not the oldest book of the Bible, Job is, so to understand Genesis, must read Job first. 1) Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testa , always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. 2) The Genesis says "let there be light", the word create is NOT in the text. Job tells us what is "let there be light". Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness. The cloud make it dark, Genesis 1:2 tells you the frame of reference above the waters on Earth. So the two tell use the cloud went from dark to lighter. The clear sky does not come till " moon to mark the seasons" now with have blue sky. 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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
When Ken reads in the Bible that the earth is unmoving on its foundations, or that it has four corners, does he take that litterally or apply some... hmmm... interpretation?
Excellent point. Businessman like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind that make a very good living off their " interpretation" of Scripture like to be dictators of the Truth. Its fascinating that Ken and Kent make a living off of a hotly debated TRANSLATION of GENESIS. Genesis is an ancient HEBREW jewish text and if you ask ancient HEBREW experts, the Creation story can be understood several different ways. Its fascinating to me that fundamental Young Earth Creationists have ignored this fact. The part that really bothers me is they are willing to present lies as scientific fact to an audience (market really) that cannot discern lies from truth. Its sad....
Actually he understands there are different literary styles. Don't confuse being able to see analogies or euphemisms or poems or parables with strictly interpreting what written words actually say. This is not "fours corners" versus "young earth". It's that "four corners" actually means FOUR, not four years or four ages or "four" the prepositional term. If you can't interpret "four" to mean there are a numerical four corners, then you can't interpret the Genesis "day" as being an age or a time, or an actual 24 hour period, etc. You have to know what a word means before you can "interpret" the sentences it appears in. You have to know that four means four and corner means corner before you can interpret that "four corners" is a literary device. Likewise, we need to know what the words "evening and morning were the first day" means before we can figure out the literary device. If "day" is millions of years, then what does it mean to suggest millions of years are contained in a single evening and single morning? It's a conversation about word translation, word meaning, sentence interpretation, contextual interpretation, and logical reasoning.
@@ryry854 Ken spends a lot of time on the translation of "day", not its interpretation. If the translation is "standard 24 hour day", then you can worry about interpretation.
May God give us more leaders with the integrity of Ken Ham. Also, it's important to note that one of the reasons Augustin was perplexed by the 6 days is that he treated one of the apocryphal books as canonical and had trouble reconciling part of it to genesis. If he had the correct cannon, he may have read genesis in a more straightforward way.
In my opinion, reading genesis 1-3 as a literal account is equal to reading the psalms and thinking that trees have hands that they clap. It's simply not how good scholarship and exegesis works. You find out the historical context and compare it to the literature of the day to find out what is being communicated. If they took their exegesis to the logical conclusion, they would believe in a flat earth, held up on pillars, under a dome with water on top that has windows which open and cause the rain.
So when exactly do you take the Bible at it’s word? Moses? Abraham? Jacob? Jesus? This is illogical. Genesis is history, it’s written as history, and you’re not intellectually superior for rejecting it. You’re actual prideful.
Thank you Unbelievable? For hosting this debate. And thank you Jeff Zweerink for further confirming my confidence…in Biblical Creationism and a young earth. This is a topic I’ve studied in-depth for a few years, and I can say it’s more intellectually satisfying than a old earth position. As Biblical Creationists, without question we have scripture on our side, but additionally there’s a lot that’s on our side scientifically as well (I wish I had space to elaborate). Regarding Mr. Zweerink, from Reasons to Believe, I was surprised at how weak his arguments were. I’ve found two observations from Christians in a science career regarding the age of the earth: 1) They’re under tremendous pressure to comply with millions of years 2) As a result, their view of scripture is one of “Allowance”. How to allow for millions of years. Hearing him talk, I heard the same things. At 9:25 he mentions that his conversion to old-earth was “As I was preparing for my scientific career”, and “was trying to integrate what I was finding in creation with the bible”. And for the rest of the video, regarding him accepting an old-earth, I kept hearing one theme: That there were others that accepted old-earth, and that there seemed to be ‘differing views’. That honestly seems to be the bulk of his arguments, simply that differing views existed (or supposedly existed to him). Quite frequently I heard “room for” and “disagreements” existing, and example of other Christians compromising on age. Consider these statements: (9:45) “So that’s kind of why I landed on an old-earth position because I think there’s room in the church, we, In the Church we have a disagreement on how old things are.” (17:16) “So part of why I think that Big Bang cosmology is sound is that I know people who are Christians who think that that's the best explanation” (24:25): “ I disagree with Ken’s position that this is a settled thing” (24:50): Mentions three ‘pillars’ of faith and says “and they all three held different views” (37:10) “when it talks about the days and how long they are, there’s a diversity of views” (43:35) “There’s room for places where Christians can disagree” and that Christians have “come to different viewpoints there” My conclusion, two things: 1) Being in a scientific career field, he felt pressure to ‘integrate’ it with the bible. His justification for ‘allowance’ for millions of years: the fact that there seemed to be others that have, and that there seems to be “room for” and “diversity of views”. That’s all the justification he needed. That’s pretty much it. 2) No one doubts that differing views have crept into the Church today. But he is being disingenuous when he tries to picture these ‘differing views’ existing in the early Hebrew scholars and the early church. 3) The 'existence of differing views' is a poor hermetic. With that thinking, he should likewise accept evolution, and deny the resurrection. BTW I have to commend Ken Ham for the following: (14:50) “The point I’m making is we don’t take man’s secular ideas and try to fit them into the bible, we take what God’s word says and judge man’s ideas against that.” AMEN! I’m saving the link to this video: It’s added to my list of “reasons to believe” in Biblical Creationism and a young earth! Truly more intellectually fulfilling.
@@pup1008 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” c 20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
ugh... I’ve watched numerous debates featuring Ken Ham and other folks from AIG and they have shown themselves utterly inept in defending their perspective. Every single one of them resorts to the same tactics: paint your opponent as mistrusting God’s “plainly written word”, painting scientists as hostile humanists or naturalists, frame anyone with a dissenting opinion as a person of questionable faith or commitment to the authority of Scripture. If they really had anything of substance to offer, why do they keep resorting to attacking other peoples’ faith?
There is also a young earth and infinite universe position not represented. Justin Brierley made it sound like the only positions are everything is old or everything is young.
Hamann9631 who would be a leading apologist who takes this position, I’d like to hear more. I always wondered what was here during the fall and during the preadamite world.
@@sharplikecheddar2 Anyone consistent with the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should take that position. Our leaders spend more time telling people how to be forgiven than details about earth's past. Here are specifics. The word used in Genesis means to create from existing matter. That is reaffirmed in the teachings of Joseph Smith Junior. We believe God has reconciled Genesis 1 and 2 by telling us that Genesis 1 was "spiritually" and Genesis 2 was "naturally" Moses 3:5. D&C 77:6-7 are clear about the earth having a 7000 year existence. The Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenant encourage us to read and believe The Bible. Bishop Ussher's calculations are approximately right and don't leave room to believe Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution in my opinion.
A seminary professor I had named John Sailhamer wrote I commentary on Gene'sis and also a specific book on this issue entitled, Genesis Unbound. He takes these texts of Scripture very seriously and provides a potent argument that addressed these issues Biblically.
Light takes a long time to travel but if I creat a beam of light and fix it between point A and point B, then it didnt even take a instant to travel. Its like the chain on a bicycle. It takes time to circulate the sprockets but before its even in motion it is already connected to the peddle and the wheel. The time the chain takes to make a revolution can be calculated but it should have no influence on our understanding of the how long the bicycle has existed. Think of the universe as a mega clock. All the components were arranged in the positions for proper function and the it is plugged in. While every sprocket takes time to complete its revolution, that time has no influence on the age of the clock.
If God created the light between stars and the earth, given their distance, because it is Light and Light has a direct relationship to Time, it will age the Universe. The light is not just a beam, it is a history of the star. Did God create a false history? The universe is very old just like Adam was not an infant.
Biblical Hebrew a small vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago.
I wish Jeff had used science to back up his claims rather than getting caught up in a hermeneutical argument which he was not really equipped (as he said several times) to have.
Jeff couldn't rely on science to support his claims, because the latest science does not provide adequate evidence of deep time. Science does not imagine answers and then look for evidence to support those imagined answers. That's how cults and religious sects operate. For example, radiometric dating cannot reliably date anything. The most reliable method is Carbon-14, but it is very limited in application. Even so, diamonds allegedly millions of years old still have Carbon14 in them. Mount St Helens put the final nail in the coffin of radiometric dating being used as scientific dating of things. Sedimentary rocks created by Mount St Helens in the early 1980s were dated as 2.3 Million years old. Clearly a problem here. Looking out into the Universe, the idea any light arrives at Earth after traveling through space for billions of years is laughable. No experiment validates such a wild and irresponsible claim. Red Shift? Please. Why is every galaxy red-shifted as seen from Earth? Does that not put the Milky Way galaxy at the center of the universe? How does this affect time at our advantaged position? Einstein's Relativity equates a few days to billions of years, depending on one's inertial reference point. Therefore, a few days on Earth can be identical to a few Billion years at the edges of the universe (i.e. the event horizon for the Big Bang).
@@danweaver4304 The science you reference is beyond my current ability to understand, so i'm unable to personally interact with your argument, but i'd be interested in seeing how Jeff has responded to similar objections in the past. Do you have any articles which would explain your position in greater detail or interact with any of Jeff's work on this topic?
Bruce Baker - let's look at K40-Ar40 decay as an example (widely used method for dating rocks with no organic material content). K40 is Potassium-40, which makes up 0.012% of any sample of Potassium (K39). The half life is 1.25 Billion years, which means half of the K40 will decay and become Argon-40 (Ar) which is a noble gas, with a stable nucleus , that is, non-radioactive. However, Ar40 produced by radioactive decay of K40 is in an excited state, and must emit a gamma photon to become truly stable. Thus, after 1.25 Billion years, one might expect all K39 would be composed of just 0.006% K40. One might also conjecture the original K40/K ratio at the formation of the Earth must have been about 0.1455%, or slightly less than four half lives 4.5B/1.25B = 3.6 half lives, or about 2^3.6 = 12.126 x 0.012% = 0.1455%. This all assumes the Earth is truly 4.5 Billion years old. Let's set aside the fact that no one knows what the actual abundance of naturally occurring K40 was when the Earth was formed - this is not possible to determine after a period of 4.5 Billion years. Let's also set aside the fact that no one knows if K40 decay rates have always exhibited 1.25 Billion year half-lives over the past 4.5 Billion years. They may have decayed faster or slower as a consequence of higher or lower radiation exposure (Early Earth conditions are thought to have had much higher radiation exposure at the surface due to a lack of atmosphere). Let's just look at how to measure the age of a rock sample containing 1% Potassium. To keep the math simple, let's make our sample have a mass of 39 grams. That's about one mole (molar mass) of Potassium, but our sample isn't pure (it would ignite/explode in the lab on contact with moisture). The sample is only 1% Potassium. You have about 4x more Potassium in your body than this (150 - 180 grams), but it too is heavily diluted. Our 39 gram sample should then have about 9 atomic decays per second, on average. This can be easily verified by anyone with a reasonably good grasp of the subject (and a slide rule or calculator). We don't know where in the sample those 9 decays will occur. Some may occur near the surface, and thus, detectable by laboratory instruments capable of counting each neutron disintegration. Others may occur deep inside the sample, and have the decay event particles absorbed before being detected, which would tend to make the sample appear older than it is. This is why many labs crush the samples to be measured, maximizing the surface area of the elements making up the rock, and separating out the Argon gas. There were many problems with K40-Ar40 dating. The method required splitting up the K and Ar in the sample into two groups, so the quantity of Ar40 could be measured through decay and emission of a 1.46MeV characteristic gamma photon. Without an exact record of the amount of Ar40, the amount of K40 is very difficult to establish. You may or may not know the third largest constituent element in Air is Argon, so Ar40 is a very problematic contaminant in the lab. Air is nearly 1% Ar40. I should mention: counting a radioactive decay event due to a specific decay type is complicated by many other contaminants in the sample (other radioactive material), in the handling of the sample, and in the laboratory (both room & instruments). Most testing is done in carefully calibrated vacuum chambers. BTW: 9 dps = disintegrations per second = 9 counts per second = 9 Becquerels (Bq). At this rate, it would take 1.25 Billion years = 3.945e+16 seconds to accumulate a half-life's worth of daughter elements (3.945e+16 x 9 = 3.6e+17. Our sample has 1% K (incl K40), or 0.39 grams = 1% of one mole of K. Each mole of atoms is 6.022e+23. So 1% of that is 6.022e+21. The radioactive bit is 0.012% of that, or 7.23+17 atoms of K40. Half of that (one half-life) would require 3.6e+17 atoms to decay. The background radiation varies from 0 to 4 Bq. Our generous lab sample in this example would be expected to "measure" 9 Bq, based on current ratios of K40 to K39 (contamination which can't be easily eliminated during radiometric sample measurements). So what is the margin of error in every test? Given the fact that the lab instruments may miss half of the 9 counts expected, the error ought to be posted as +/- 9 Bq. The sample itself may exhibit 4 - 9 Bq. The lab could subtract from 0 - 4 Bq due to background contamination. Thus, results could vary from 0 to 9 Bq. No reasonable lab personnel would consider a sample with zero counts to be "valid", but I hope you can see the error is enormous in this example: readings from 1 to 9 can be correct, or off by 900% (count of 9 when it should have been 1, or vice versa). Now, what labs typically do is demand to know the source of the sample (what geographic location & level was the sample removed from)? This is done to enable the lab to toss out invalid counts. See the problem? If the sample is dated within the range expected, then it is considered "plausibly correct". Researchers then substitute the word "likely" for "plausible". Sorry, but if I did my Physics or Chemistry research like that, I'd have blown myself up long ago. Truth is, those who work in the field abandoned K-Ar dating methods quite some time ago. But other methods suffer from other false assumptions. I've picked on one, here, because it was so widely used to "establish" the original ages for geological strata. If all of the original dates are unreliable, then how reliable is the deep time originally hypothesized by Buffon, Lyell, LaMarck, Hutton, Playfair, Werner, Cuvier, Darwin, and others? These early thinkers had no knowledge of radioactivity, let alone the methods used in radiometric dating. These men were credited as being "great scientific minds" of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, when in fact, we can now criticize them as simply more misguided souls who thought they could contribute to scientific achievement by imagining potentially plausible things. Their ideas were actually ridiculous (as declared by their contemporaries -- real scientists, like Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Liebniz, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Maxwell, Mendel, Gray, Stokes, Kelvin, Planck, Millikan, Compton, Lemaitre, Boyd, Collins, Morris, and Ross, to name a few).
I have the same belief with you, Bro Ken. I don't believed that the earth is a millions years old of age. Thank you for standing up and speaking the Bible truth. Thank God for people like you who are an inspiration for others to boldly speak the Bible truth and not be intimidated, nor swayed to speak up. Praying for you and the whole family. To God be all glory and honor.
It isn’t millions of years old: it’s BILLIONS of years old. And guess what! You don’t have to believe it. The good thing about science is that it’s true….whether you believe it or not.
It really doesn't matter how the old the earth is. The bible nor science nor anybody knows how old the earth exactly is. We were not here when it was created. The only thing that matters is that it was created by God. You do know that until the late 1700's the calendar had 13 months in it? For thousands of years a 13 month calendar. And thousands of years other various calendars. The 12 month Gregorian calendar was only adopted in the 1790's. Just like how Christians go to church not on the Sabbath (Saturday), but the first day of the week Sunday they can and do quite often get things wrong. Just like you cannot accurately figure out time lines accurately because the "yearly" calendar has changed many times. take care
Honestly Ken was a catalyst in my deconversion. I could actually argue that young earth theory is a giant strawman argument meant to help people lose their faith.
The one thing I like about Ken Ham is one of the qualifies I like about myself were stubborn about things we care about like he's not gonna let someone get away with something . One thing I like about Jeff is he seems very genuine, idk but he seems that way
@@NoContextRDH because of science... Ken has asserted that the book of Genesis is literally true and he has attempted to prove this by appealing to things like evidence and the scientific method... but he completely fails to understand how those things works due to his willful ignorance and bias. He has admitted to his own bias, and tried to assert real scientists who come to different conclusions are just as biased as he is. He is obviously wrong. Science doesn't work by starting with a conclusion and then working backward to try and cherry pick data you think supports your conclusion. It works by gathering evidence and seeing where the data leads. It works by making hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses to try and disprove them to see if you are wrong. Real scientists do this. Ken does not. I used to actually get his newsletter and CDs and stuff and believe in the story he's pushing... but... as I learned more about science I eventually had to concede that Ken was, definitely, absolutely, wrong.
i love Ken Ham he says calm while defending his point and gives easy to understand evidence. I personally agree completely Ken and believe in a young earth. I don't see why if it wasn't a 24-hour day back then then why do we have 24-hour days now? it also feels like Zweerink takes God's word in some parts like Jesus death but not creation.
I am quite often called a fool for not believing in the god of Israel. Yet these people also believe that I was very carefully designed ! Perhaps they haven't thought enough about it.
I was disappointed...but in Jeff. He was way too wishywashy. Ken was adamant and Jeff was being a nice guy. A different well versed Christian who believes in science and would be more forceful would be a welcome debate.
I wouldn’t let confidence in belief be a determiner of truth, a person can adamantly claim that we have a fire burning inside of us and that’s why we are alive, but it doesn’t matter if they refuse to back down.. they don’t get any more “right” because of it. In fact Ken Ham’s adamance is what’s so off-putting to me.
@@ThyBountyHunter - You believe in a falsehood. Your struggle will be when you leave this Earth and are brought before the Holy God to give an account for yourself.
@@rubiks6 You believe in a falsehood." What falsehood is that? As I never stated what I believe the only thing you can do is assume what I believe. When you assume you are only making an ASS out of U not ME.
I struggle to know how to take Genesis 1-3 and by extension 1-11. Ken Ham makes some very good points. My current position is that Genesis 1-3, possibly 1-11 tells the story of history, not as hostorical narrative but as a representative story of some kind. In other words we read it as writtenso as to understand it's revelatory points. But Ham's challenging implicit point is that, if scientists concluded that the earth / universe was only about 6-10,000 years old, then we would all say Genesis 1-11 is literal - I think that is true. This means Science has made me take another look to see if it can accommodate millions of year. The point Ken Ham fails at making is the use of scholars. He asks, 'do we need scholars to understand the bible?' That's not so simpple a question to answer. Eg, we are all utterly depend on scholars for everything biblical, they are the ones who translate the Bible from Hebrew, in translating it they vary quite a lot. Also we depend on scholars for interpreting the Bible - hence we used to take the analagous approach but now we know much better how to interpret it.
The trouble with biblical scholars is their need to include cultural elements into their scholarly work. There is not a hint of a few billion years when we look outside our window. That comes from a pagan belief system accounting for its religion and it has no place in biblical believers 'scholarly' interpretations. As you say though, they are the ones whose interpretations get passed down and it is clear to me, we must cut away the unbelievers from the raw data interpreted through pagan lenses. Most of them I suspect, including this guy.
@@billhesford6098 i did watch the video. you should care what the ancients say, because you're the one who made the claim that you can't find evidence in nature. you should also care what the people in the ancient near east believed because that's the cultural backdrop for which the israelites would have received God's word for. do you read the illiad with an american lense, or with a greek lense? The evidence is plenty if you look and dont just make up conspiracy level theories to fill in the gaps that no one in academia accepts. You can believe the earth is only 6k years old if you like, and force your model to fit because you don't want to accept observable evidence. no one is stopping you.
@@jaaaaysselam3372 all evidence is interpreted through a lens. I remember when a scientist held up a big bone in front of a picture of a dinosaur. He asked how old was the bone? Most there assumed at least 64 million years because the fact was well known. A huge comet wiped out the dino's 64 million years ago. He then told us he bought the bone at the local butcher's shop. Scientists have their own lens reinforced by whatever learning institutions handed out the phd's. A model constructed, repeat after me to get your phd. Experts contradict each other as well as those scientists of the past. Do these experts have it right, finally? Tomorrow's experts will no doubt call out error after error. But you think these never-ending changing ideas have finally been proven? Just gullible is all I can say. Conspiracy theorist is little more than a modern colloquial put down to shut people up who are often rightly suspicious of the authoritarian model being pushed.
Even if one accepts the big bang theory, the assumption about the time it takes light to travel becomes relative does it not? If some mass of matter exploded beginning the expanse and the expansion of the universe, would not the light have emanated from the mass and therefore travel away from it at whatever speed the parts of the mass were moving. No one can know how fast that mass would have been travelling. Further, the relationship of the light to other pieces of the exploded mass would be dramatically different in every case, so light time travel would be impossible to estimate.
Paul Morgan that’s opinion not facts. Sorry to burst your bubble. The problem with a atheist is no matter what scientific evidence I show you for the existence of God. You’re mind is already made up. You could say that about me. But here’s where you’re wrong. Even with all the knowledge you have, you can’t say you know everything. No one can!! So to say that you absolutely know there is no God is absurd! You don’t know that for sure! You can’t possibly prove without a shadow of doubt that God doesn’t exist. Even Agnostics understand that. Agnostics will usually say something like they don’t see evidence for God but it’s still possible. Also before you say that it’s not possible for me to know if God exists because I don’t know everything. Maybe you should consider that people have personal experiences that aren’t proven through science. For example if Jesus makes a personal trip to a person. That person can’t prove that through science. Many people have had personal experiences like these and through prayers. And make sure to be an adult instead of insulting by saying something stupid like we’re on drugs. We’re not all on drugs. Maybe if you open your mind instead of looking to science for everything you might just have a experience that you can’t explain. I happen to very much enjoy science and understand it well. Just because I believe in God doesn’t mean that I’m ignorant. Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t mean you always will think like that. You can’t possibly know your future regardless of wether you think so or not. Remember the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would do unto them. That’s not a religious rule. That’s a universal rule. It might be of interest for you to do this. Have a intelligent conversation instead of insulting!
If God is all powerful, He is not bound by natural processes, He can change growth rates of plants, cancel gravity's pull, etc. He is not bound by the processes that He created. I agree with Ken, let's believe God's word first, not man's word first.
Actually, a research initiative launched years ago found that Genesis 1:1-2:3, by looking at the finite Hebrew verbs, that the passage was 99.99% likely to be historical. Why would you think it isn't literal? @@ProfYaffle
@heidingai5378 because it obviously isn't. Why should it be? "A research initiative..." what about all the research that shows it isn't literal. Do you just ignore that? Literalists make Christians look stupid and ignorant
Or, God teach Ken Ham. He often speaks about subjects he knows nothing about (or pretends to know nothing about, since he's been corrected countless times but keeps repeating the same false info..) I'd like to see some honesty and integrity from him, but, being a young Earth creationist, that isn't likely to happen.
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 ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
@@Solideogloria00 Those who hold to the fundamentals of Christianity put up no barriers to people coming to Christ. The barriers are already there. No one becomes a Christian of their own free will, indeed, everyone is the enemy of God by nature. The Bible tells us that the Father has to draw people to the Son before they will become Christians, that those who do become Christians were chosen before the foundation of the Earth & are the gift of the Father to the Son.
What? Are you fearful of someone who takes the word of God for what it really says? Did Moses really mean it when he literally says, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth." (Ex 20:11)? Do you think the Israelites hearing that sermon would have believed Moses to be telling the truth or veiling an understanding that really meant billions of years. Was he lying to the Israelites knowingly? Was he just not enlightened enough for God to explain to him as he was getting revelation that "Really, it is long periods of time and even though I have painted a picture of a perfect earth for you, Moses, there was death and sickness and disease in animals and hurricanes and floods and mayhem before I made Adam and Eve. And all those things are "...very good..." as I declared them. Until old earth creationists come up with a theological position that can answer that problem, they make the God of the Bible the creator of those evils. Those are the clear implications. Rightly can the atheist then say to Christians, "Your God is the source of evil and I want nothing to do with that God." This issue is more important than you think. Already Mr Zweerink has been convinced to call the scripture untrue when it talks about the whole earth covered even to the tops of the highest hills. That's compromise and one who is driven by his modern scientific understanding, not the scripture.
Zweerink doesn't debate, he merely plays a shell game here., laying down the "Golly gee, I'm not a Hebrew scholar" card whenever confronted with issues he cannot defend, which suddenly becomes irrelevant when he makes other bold doctrinal opinions. He also is not being honest when he states that the Old Earth point of view has been debated since ancient times. The vast majority of Christian theological opinion has always been Young Earth (Calvin and Augustine both held young earth points of view, btw). The old earth opinion did not gain any steam until it became a popular theory in academic circles. Lastly, are we supposed to just ignore the elephant in the room that were Zweerink to be public with Young Earth creationism, his job as an astrophysicist would be ended?
I like how you say this about Jeff but ken is a one trick pony in every debate. “I’m a biblical creationist”, “bdb lexicon”, “cancer in bones”, “big bang = naturalism”. He used the same points against hugh ross, Walter Kaiser, here with Jeff, and on tbn. So who’s really the one trick pony here? I think the guy who makes genesis 1-11 a salvation issue but what do I know?🤷🏻
Ham would at least offer distinct answers to the various objections raised against him, though. I don’t share his view of Genesis 1-11. But I think Zweering could have offered a lot more than he did, unfortunately.
Yea, the evolutionist just kept saying he knows experts and lots of so-called "Christians" who do not believe in the truth of six literal days for creation. To that I say, so what.
Young Earthers ALWAYS argue from the "plain interpretation of Scripture". Seemingly oblivious that elsewhere in Genesis the same word for day (yom) is used to mean an age. Both interpretations of old vs young are LITERAL, and both are "plain interpretations of Scripture". IMO both are valid, but because one cannot be ruled out (by Scripture alone) we simply cannot use the Bible to accurately date the age of the Earth. We will find that answer in the Book of Nature. Being dogmatic on this topic is foolish I think.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Justin is so incredibly fair to his guests, its nice to see a journalist so genuinely even handed , just facilitating the debate
Justin is easily the best moderator I've ever seen.
Yes, especially considering that he is very much on the Old Earth side of the debate. He doesn't show it.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Actually I thought his bias was quite apparent in the questions he asked.
@@martinploughboy988 He simply asked Ken to respond to the Old Earth arguments. He didn't get much of a response, though, except for the repeated "we must believe in the Bible".
@@hansweichselbaum2534 The old Earth arguments are really nothing more than speculation, and I think he did answer them.
Today in my bio class I had a good discussion like this with my teacher and all the other students in my class. It ended with everyone against me and thinking I’m going no where. But I may not understand everything that God does but I know I can trust His word.
You can trust God’s Word, but nothing in there says the Bible is young
I was like this in high school. I grew out of it. Going through college, I gradually became more literate in sciences and more secular. Now, I consider myself a natural spiritual person. I think the universe is amazing as sciences describe it. No need for the guy up there. :)
@@Solideogloria00 I have to ask what makes you think anything in the Bible says it's millions of years old? That's pretty easy to shake that thought today. Dinosaur soft tissue honestly smacks millions of years put of the picture. It destroys evolution the dating methods and a whole lot of scientific religious beliefs. There is no possible mechanism that allows any of the soft tissue to be around millions of years. They have actually found blood cells nerve fiber tendons collagen and Many other proteins that have absolutely no way to remain even a million years. Iron preservation is the best lie they have come up with to try to keep it. Nothing they have found could last 65 plus million years. They said fossils develope slowly over long time yet we know that's false. It just like when a creature dies today its broken down in no time. Also there is absolutely no mechanism that allows the creation of whole genes and new different dna in any creature. NONE. Fruit flys have been tinkered with for a long time. They were able to do a lot of crazy things 4 wings legs on it head curled wing, everything you can rearrange but not once did they ever get anything but a fruit fly and mostly just dead fruit flys. Even the latest DNA bar code study goes back a very short time to a bottle neck and what was stated, what seemed hauntingly familiar to creation as all life seems to have popped up around the same time fully formed. No where in the Bible does there ever not say it's a 24 hour day. It makes it very clear morning noon night 24 hours. I think even Jesus said something about 24 hour days in the new testament. Need I go on?
All I can tell you is look a/ all the evidence on both sides. Listen to the arguments. Don't look to verify the Bible don't look to prove or disprove evolution. It won't take you long to see evolution has nothing in it that works. Most of the time you'll figure out they make up evidence assume facts that are not there all according to their evolutioninary theory. It doesn't work and always breaks down. The age of the earth isn't in millions of years. Dinosaur soft tissue ruins that. Best of luck to you
You can trust God's Word 100%. We must however be humble and be ready to recognise the difference between what God's word says and our interpretation of God's word. For centuries Christians believed that the earth was stationary and the sun moved around the earth, Then actual evidence taught people that they were misinterpreting the bible and the evidence from God's nature is true.
God's nature is his first revelation. This is also God's word. It is an expression of God. Therefore when we interpret nature and the bible correctly, they will say the same thing. The bible does teach us things that science cannot: about WHY we have life, the purpose of life. We should not stand in people's way and argue over smaller issues about how nature works when there is a more important issue of respecting God. Just say to people " I thin tis or that" But there are other Christians who think that.... This gives people the freedom they have to explore nature and science and also explore God
I don't know the answer, but I know that we do live on earth.
>> "I don't know the answer, but I know that we do live on earth."
Ewan I love your answer! Good one!
True
Some of us.....
From my own experience, there seems to be curvature. I think it is a globe in space. Isa 40 : 22; Job 26 :7.
@@ewankerr3011
Never says "globe" or "sphere." "Circle" or "disk" at best!
It's almost like Jeff was afraid to debate or hurt feelings. He never really responded to Ken's questions but presented more blanket generalizations. You're an astro physicist! Present the science man!
Yes. Frustrating. Ken has had years to learn how to win debates. We need more scientists with a bit if strategy
@ArmanAditya Basu you say accept evolution as if it's established fact, which it's not. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
@ArmanAditya Basu yes, but not from one kind to another. Like a cat to a dog. It hasn't happened.
@ArmanAditya Basu no there actually isn't
@ArmanAditya Basu there are no observable instances of a species evolving into another species. There are changes within a species, but no changes from one species to another, just speculation. Speculation is not fact. That's why it's called a theory.
Justin always does a very good job as a mediator
Glad all the real experts are in the comment section...
🤣🤣🤣
I don't think you can fit the debaters into an electronic comment section
The Bible was written for every human.
@@HM-vj5ll And what is your expert opinion?
in short you did not even check comment section . or in short we just detected a click bait troll :) that is ok mate.. you will get a life .. i am sure of it. if you did check the comment section you would see nobody is acting smart but only commenting about the talk between these two gentleman . i guess you are not used to normal comment section under atheist channels :)
Thank God for folks like Ken Ham. I just don’t understand how Genesis could be interpreted to indicate anything other than 6 literal days of creation, especially pairing each day with evening and morning.
I also just don’t understand how anyone could think that a loving God would look down at his creation suffering and dying and call it good.
The truth is that it WAS very good. And then mankind rejected God and through their sin, death and suffering entered the world. The Bible says creation groans for the return of Christ. It groans, we groan because we know that we were not made to die but to live. In union and submission to our God.
There is literally an example of day not meaning a 24 hour day in Genesis 2:16-17
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Adam and Eve did NOT die the day that they ate the fruit. Not even close, Adam lived to over 900 years. This is a massive hole in Ham's argument that he doesn't address.
In watching this debate, it seems to me that Ken brought more questions and legitimate arguments against old earth creationism while Jeff never any presented any arguments against a young earth. So to me Ken won this debate.
A question: does being able to "win" a debate while being wrong indicate strength or weakness?
@@quadmasterXLII I take it that you agree with Jeff more...
@@macy12347 One philosophical question: Consider that before creating the earth, God thought out every detail of the life of a dinosaur. He imagined every detail of its personal story, such as where it walked, what it ate, how it gave birth, and how it died, and then buried the signs of each of those activities in the earth on the 1st day. Is that dinosaur's life in God's mind so different from our life in God's creation?
I respect the consistency of Ken's argument, and he is a very strong debater, rooted in that consistency.
@@quadmasterXLII by including death before the fall is the issue with this point. The order of events is critical and his point of having the consequences of an action being before the action took place is never seen in scripture.
I really enjoyed that interaction. I thought Ken did a great job defending the young earth understanding of the bible. If you read the bible and believe it then the young earth position fits what the bible teaches. Thank you Ken Ham.
When did Lucifer fall? Did he sin before Adam?
@@nichetcher1 Yes, Read Exekiel 28:11-18 and also revelation for the war in heaven and the angels being cast out.
Then read
John 8:44 New International Version (NIV)
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
😭😭😭
But it doesn't fit the evidence in the real world
Ham is a delusional moron
They didn't actually discuss any scientific evidence in this debate. They pretty much only discussed the theological and biblical implications.
That's because Ham doesn't have a leg to stand on in the science so he sucks it into theology and attacks his interlocutors integrity in that area. Any evidence against his position he hand waves away as not compatible with scripture.
Thanks for saving me the time. Must be like a court trial without bringing up any evidence lmao, and I remember trying to get thru the Bill Nye debate, clear that he had to hold back and Ham was reaching for relevance for it to be remotely close (still think tho strict Atheists have nearly as much faith as people who 'know' a god they never met but only 'felt' can exist, agnosticism is the most rational way, but getting ahead of myself lol, the earth is definitely ancient af and I don't even live near any mountains or canyon's, still clear as day in evolution thru looking at modern life and other clues in nature)
@@Dman9fp Praying for you ;)
@@misternewman1576 if that helps your subconscious mind, so be it I know what's true and what's not xD
I would love to see William Lane Craig debate Ham on the age of the Earth.
@el old earth
@el Yeah he's a pretty hardcore old earther. He makes some interesting points.
Craig is too busy discussing with brilliant minds such as Sir Roger Penrose to waste time on an ignorant fanatic like Ham.
Ham's position is more solid than Lane-Craig's, as it is truly biblical.
It would be an interesting discussion. They would probably talk past each other a lot, but their philosophical presuppositions might well be revealed.
@@michaelviljoen2161 Craig would disagree with that assertion. He sees the old Earth view as being just as biblically solid.
Can't decide who I enjoy listening to more. Ken ham or Kent hovind. Both are the gift that keep on giving. Just goes to show how religion dumbs people down
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Interesting; but for a discussion of that length I expected a discussion of evidences. This was really just an introduction to the conversation, and we’ve certainly already heard that, hence we clicked the link to hear it.
I'm a Gen Z kid, raised in a Christian home, and my parents raised me on Ken Ham. As I've become an adult though, I've obviously questioned what I grew up learning. But I've found that no matter how many debates I listen to against Ken's Biblical creation argument, I have *still* never found someone who has arguments that make more Biblically-sound sense than Ken's.
Just as one example, this issue about the Hebrew word "yom". Jeff's only argument against it, from what I could tell, was that he is not a Hebrew scholar, and therefore he can't know exactly what the Hebrew says, and needs to turn to the people who have been studying it for a long time. But number one, Hebrew is a language you can learn like any other; therefore understanding what a word means shouldn't be any more complicated than learning how to say "day" in French or Swahili. Second, if you do want to only rely on the people who have studied ancient Hebrew for most of their lives... then the *dictionaries* are where you would turn! They were **written** by people who have studied ancient Hebrew for a long time! And according to the dictionaries, like Ken said, yom. means. day. **shrugs**
To be clear, its not as simple as learning another language, as if we are certain of the meanings and have contwmporary speakers. Language changes over time. "Gay" now has an entirely different meaning than it used to. More pointedly, I believe Beowulf was written in old english and its entirely incomprehensible to a modern english speaker without translation. Even if we could be certain of the meaning, that still doesnt answer the question of the level of literal exactness on the part of the author. WLC notes that there are several factors which seem to indicate that this was not intended to be understood purely literally, (and thats not entirely dependent on whether its poetry or prose)
@milo_thatch_incarnate, The other person you should listen to is Kent Hovind, Mr. Dino. Another great Bible scholar and debater.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
The Hebrew that the Bible is in, isn't the Hebrew that anyone speaks today. It's like me telling you to read a book written in English of the 1200's. You wouldn't understand any of the words, even though both are English. Words constantly change meanings so going off what that word means today wouldn't work either.
I'm only about 45 minutes in but this is super interesting already! Getting to see Ken and Jeff cross swords is a real treat, thank you very much to the debaters, Justin and the rest of Unbelievable!
Haha I agree this is an awesome surprise and I'm really enjoying it!
@@StandingForTruthMinistries Amen to that!
@@ModernDayDebate Would love to hear Jeff ask, "well, many well meaning Christians make a good case that scripture points to a flat earth, should we try to fit science into that debate?" anyway, love your channel.. have heard at least 50+ debates there. You're the best moderator..
tex959 well any Bible believer should not believe a flat earth but yes this was a well thought debate
@@tex959 Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it.
In fact, the Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.
Another thing I would like to see Jeff comment on, as I see it as one of the foundational concepts that old Earth creationism rests: that light took billions of years to get here based on the measurements. The only measurement I know of is red shift, but it's been noted that red shift is in discrete quantities, similar to how integers don't represent the entire number line. Some scientists now think red shift is intrinsic to certain galaxies/quasars, and that some low-red-shift objects are linked to high-red-shift objects, meaning red shift cannot be an indicator of distance. Not *proving* a short time frame, but definitely removing one solid case for great distances and billions of years
That's right if I allow what I think you mean. The z value rests on some assumptions that could negate the claims by enthusiastic astronomers. Physics work the same throughout all 'creation'. That does not mean we know for sure that the z=n value needs no asterick for distance.
Im not sure about red shift and all of that, but haven't some physicists altered the speed of light? Alerting the speed of light as in slowing it down as well as speeding it up, means it is not always constant. It would follow that God can create things in a mature manor instantaneously just as Jesus produced wine with the appearance of age (perfectly aged at that). If Christ can perform the miracle of turning water into aged wine at a small wedding, then surely He can create an entire universe with the appearance and complexity of age that reaches well beyond our finite, limited minds.
@@MCDubaree
Keep telling yourself all that & you'll be able to hold onto your ridiculous warm fuzzy feeling.
When do stop making excuses & trying to bang your square pegs into secular science's hard earned round holes & objectively research how *NOTHING* in the bible tallys with science.
Just because your pitch, in making supernatural claims, is as wide as your imagination & your god the greatest goalpost mover known to mankind along with the all time champion at hide 'n seek doesn't mean you have a shred of *REAL* evidence!
Interesting.
@N/A the earth is young whether you like it or not... (deffo not sarcasm)
I would love to ask Ken why he accepts an Ice Age in the past. Where does he find that in the Bible? Does he suddenly accept evidence through 'historical' science?
He doesn't deny historical science.
Be careful don't bare false witness.
@@danielmann5427 I am very familiar with the YE arguments. Evidence from so-called 'historical' science is denied if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. There are hundreds of examples from astronomy, geology, palaeontology etc. The existence of an ice age is an example where YE creationists accept evidence from 'historical' science. In other words evidence is accepted, but only if it can fit into their picture of the universe.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 - any belief system has that so called problem . There have many things that were laughed at and mocked , because Christians held to scriptures ABOVE so called archaeologist and scientists. Let every man be liar and God be true. Sooner or later science catches up and reaffirms the bible.
@@danielmann5427 Look closer and you will find that half of your "so called archaeologist and scientists" are Christians.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 - I highly doubt that. Is a deist or theist included as a Christian?
We may need to ask what is a Christian?
Can you back up your claim?
This is a very good discussion, with both participants doing well in the time allotted. And the moderator was excellent and fair. And the emphasis on the gospel and the agreement on that being primary was of key importance to both participants. We recently toured the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum, and I was surprised and impressed that the Good News was front and center and primary to the presentation.
I was a young earth creationist growing up. Later, I would say that I was an old earth creationist six days a week, and a young earth creationist on the seventh. Then I started reading old earth creationist literature and that was pivotal to becoming a solid young earth creationist again. The OEC position, particularly the biblical interpretation, seemed very weak to me, for many of the reasons that Ken Ham brings up.
A prior comment said that Ham doesn't acknowledge or ignores the hermeneutics. What did I find? Again, I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I can only assess the arguments of those who are. Yes, there are Bible believing Hebrew scholars with a high view of scripture on both sides of the argument. But I found that the arguments favor--and it seems to be strongly in favor--of a 24 hour, six day creation being what the text is saying (after many many hours of reading opposing viewpoints). Even non believing Hebrew scholars--who don't have a dog in the fight--have stated that the text is clearly saying six 24 hour days, even though they don't believe the account is true history.
John Lennox, an old earth creationist (whom I highly respect) says the days are six 24 hour days, but that they are not consecutive and may be many thousands of years apart. And all the Hebrew scholars I know--well all two--say Genesis 1 is clearly referring to 24 hour days.
I think it is telling that Zweerink says that the long age view of "days" is viable, but never says in this discussion that it is the best interpretation. Maybe that is his modesty because he is not a biblical scholar. I know from reading that Ham would not equivocate (and is he modest? He is also not a Hebrew scholar). Even Dennis Prager, who is Jewish and a Hebrew scholar says that he believes they are 24 hour days because that is what the Torah says, even though he doesn't know how to square that with the (materialistic) science narrative.
My first conclusion from reading extensively on both sides, hundreds of hours, is that OEC really are generally trying to square the scientific consensus of the day with scripture, not coming to the best interpretation of scripture first although they vigorously deny it.
My second conclusion from studying extensively (thousands of hours) is that molecules to man Darwininan evolution is contrary to the evidence. And many evolutionary scientists agree that Darwinism--natural selection working on random mutations and genetic drift, etc., is no longer a reasonable explanation and are looking for other mechanisms.
"My beliefs are in conflict with reality therefore I am more right"
Wowa... Well that settles it religion is a poison.
Evolution is the most tested scientific theory and has not been falsified, if you want to make up your own untested nonsense go for it, but you are going to be wrong.
@@AvNotasian Whoa. Not been falsified? What rock have you crawled under? Where does the initial biological information come from? Nobody knows, not even close. If you do, it's time to let the world know. How can organisms survive macro mutations in the early stages of development--where they need to take place to affect body plans. Well, nobody knows. How do neo Darwinian mechanisms overcome genetic entropy? Again, nobody knows. Get out from underneath your rock. Of course, someday somewhere someone may come up with those answers, but no one is anywhere close to having them. In the meantime, the only plausible answers come from ID.
Adherence to evolution is because of philosophy, not because of evidence. Let's see--Try these sources if you want to step into the light--Biological Information, Various, published by World Scientific, or the Synopsis and Limited Commentary of the same available free on line. Genetic Entropy, J. C. Stanford is another good resource. Try Doug Axe.
Also, try Darwin Devolves, Michael Behe, and on line, listen to Dr. James Tour. That one is devastating, from the smartest man in the room. Or of course, you could just wave your hand, and these will all go away and you can keep repeating your mantra--"Evolution is the most tested scientific . . . . . )
@@cewoldt The beginning of life is not part of evolution, like I said you are wrong.
I have absolutely no idea what you think you are talking about, evolution is a very gradual process undergone by populations not individuals.
Genetic entropy is not a thing...
ID has actually been proven false in a court of law.
O I see you are referring to a book of lies by a documented liar. You will note this book is not peer reviewed and as such is in the same category as harry potter or books on how the earth is flat.
Consider fruit flies, they can have hundreds of generations in a year and a similar mutation rate to humans, so why haven't they degraded into nothing?
The answer comes from
Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection
Science 19 October 2001:
Vol. 294 no. 5542 pp. 555-559
That paper is important as it demonstrates via experimentation that recombination hastens both the extinction of detrimental mutations and the fixation of beneficial ones.
So literal experimental evidence showing the man on the couch writing about impossibilities wrong.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Conclusions of the court case
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
But considering there are over 100 pages where ID is ripped apart from this court case you will understand if I don't paste it all here.
But I note your appeal to authority fallacies, how cute. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are or what your name is, if your theory disagrees with experiment its wrong, and what these charlatans are proposing flies in the face of over 100 years of accumulated scientific evidence.
@@AvNotasian NotAsian== I guess I coulda written this myself. Evolutionists replay the same arguments over and over. The first "get out of jail free card" that evolutionists are likely to play is the "The beginning of life is not a part of evolution" card. But now that we are emerging out of ignorance, we now know that information is an important part of life, perhaps the most important component. Evolution can't even begin without biological information. But materialistic evolutionists like to wave their hands like magicians and poof, there is information and evolution is on its way.
Second “Get out of jail free” card. You all like to refer to a court case--yeah, a court case--where even prominent evolutionists agree that one of their "expert witnesses" lied when they said that ID isn't science. Yeah, once a judge has ruled, you can point to that forever to "prove" that ID isn't science.
Next GOOJF card: If it’s not materialism, it isn’t science. Basically, the judge defined science as materialism--only materialistic causes can be appealed to. Anything else is religion. But in so saying, he belies that this is not a discussion of evidence, but of philosophy. Science is forever tethered to philosophical naturalism. No intelligence need apply. Naturalism can't explain the origin of biological information. ID can. But naturalistic scientists will forever be foundering around looking for a naturalistic explanation, because intelligence is--"religion"--and regardless of the evidence, can't be used as an explanation.
On to other tactics: Attack the person, and by all means avoid addressing their argument. You call an author a "documented liar." I have no idea which author your are referring to, but why don't you interact with the ideas rather than name calling. Again, by hand waving, the concept of genetic entropy is dismissed. But what about the concept fails to pass muster? Have you read the books or articles or watched the videos. I have, and they make a great deal of sense. But if you can wave your hands, you don't need to interact with ideas.
If you could tell me, and all of us, where the author is wrong, that would be helpful and educational. But for now with the name calling, all we are getting is more heat and no light.
Next tactic can be called, “debate an evolutionist.” Wherever the non-evolutionist enters the argument, the person in the debate doesn’t hold “that view” of evolution. So they can label their opponent ignorant, biased, unscientific, ad naseum because the opponent is not addressing their particular view. In this case, you don’t need to address the problem of the accumulation of small mutations that are effectively invisible to natural selection and may not affect reproductive success but weaken the genome as they accumulate. You just call those who note the problem “liars” and “ignorant.”
"Evolution is about populations, not individuals." Wow, so are you saying that within the population, all the genetic variety for new species already exists? Natural selection just sorts through them based on what gives the advantage in a particular environment? That is what creationists believe!
No mutations are needed for new body plans to arise? All the genetic information already exists? Whoa!! As I understand evolutionary theory, a mutation starts in an individual and then moves into populations because the mutation gives the individual a reproductive advantage. But maybe not in your particular evolutionary community.
So whenever your views are challenged, just go to the Kitzmiller v Dover case and the 139 page ruling (or book), and then you will feel better. The judge defined science as naturalism only, closing the door (in his view) to alternate explanations.
A question was asked on the forum, although I can't easily find it as to whether Ken was addressing the science of origins. My answer is that no, this was not a discussion of the science of origins, but about the biblical narrative. Ken discusses the science in other books and articles.
Regarding the distance light travels from the stars to us as evidence for the gap theory, the Bible says 17 times, “God stretched out the heavens” which easily explains why we can see starlight from far away and yet the earth was created around 6000 years ago.
It's impossible.
If the starlight billions of light years away was only 6,000 years old you wouldn't be able to see it because it wouldn't have had enough time to reach us yet.
The earth cannot be only 6,000 years old. Isotopes with half-lives in excess of billions of years can't exist in an environment that is only thousands of years old.
Aaron Kellett When the heaven and the earth were created they were “complete.” When Adam And Eve were created they were adults not infants. When the plants were created they were “complete.” Adam & Eve did not need to wait for the vegetation to mature before they could eat, therefore, it was all created mature. The animals were created mature. All of creation was created mature/“complete.” Even isotopes were created mature. This includes the heaven (space, planets, stars, & galaxies.) God “stretched out the heaven.”
This is a logical explanation if “God created the heaven and the earth.”
From my point of view, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” From your point of view, in the beginning nothing created everything, which by the way is a scientific impossibility and is also NOT science since you cannot study it, test it, demonstrate it, or observe it.
What you believe in my friend is as much a religion as Christianity since you have to have “faith” to believe either. I believe it’s far more logical that God created everything in a fine-tuned way vs. nothing created everything in a fine-tuned way. But once again, both positions take faith to believe since neither is testable or observable.
I hope your eyes are opened to what is true vs. what is not true. May God bless you.
It's impossible.
If the stars were visible to Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago but are now billions of light years away then they have receded at many times the speed of light, disappeared outside our cosmic horizon, been red shifted into oblivion and become invisible.
You wouldn't be able to see distant starlight billions of light years away if it was only 6,000 years old.
If everything has been created 6,000 years ago (even with the appearance of being old) then the furthest starlight would only be 6,000 light years away.
The reason why it looks old is because it is.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".
The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours.
Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Ken is very clear, and his no nonsense approach to scriptural authority, and reliability is refreshing ..... a true apologist for the word of God
Ken is a danger to the public he literally makes up science to fit what he interprets the Bible to be people like that are dangerous and they will destroy the world
And a true liar concerning science
Reliable? 😂
@@travisbicklepopsicle I didn't hear a scientific lie from Ken.... what science fact did he lie about, with the time stamp so I can check it
@@paulwood6636 sure, when I get some time later today or tomorrow I'll list some of his lies concerning science. As far as time stamps go, I wasn't only referring to this particular video, I meant pretty much every time he talks about science. Also, saying the Earth is 'young' is a lie right there, so basically this entire video is anti-science.
Please also keep in mind that he runs Answers in Genesis, and they have a statement of faith on their website which reads, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'if any data or evidence from any field of science contradicts scripture in any way, then it is false', period. That right there is an admission that AIG misrepresents science.
Ken does a good job showing how important Genesis is to take seriously
Lol
@BradClaps I agree
Everyone takes it seriously.
There is ambiguity to the meaning of the world Yom, Christians have always debated that.
If we look at creation, we see consistent and separate lines of evidence for a universe that is billions of years old.
The debate is about to what extent our observations of patterns in creation should inform our interpretation of Genesis.
The bible also uses language like 'the circle of the earth', or the 'four corners of the earth'. Does Ken 'take God at his word' on those parts too? Surely God could have said sphere instead of circle. And how does a sphere have corners?
We all allow our observations of the world to inform our interpretation of where the bible is making a poetic description vs a scientific description. Both interpretations hit the same important notes - God created the world - they just disagree on how.
I watched this podcast with an open mind to both views. Clearly, Jeff Zweerink was very evasive and I have to say that Ken made a much stronger case for his position.
Agreed I had hope for a much better from Zweerink I did not find any of his talk, convincing or logically consistent, and as you said, he refused to answer questions directly, was very evasive much like our politicians. Very disappointed in him.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Never heard a better advert for atheism yet!
Then you're stuck with nothing.
@ghost L well it's better than nonsense
I actually have more respect for Ken than Jeff, and I'm athiest!
At least Ken is consistent in his stupidly ridiculous position.
Jeff looked at the science, realised that the bible was crap and still tried to hang on to the belief in a God.
Nicely done, Jeff. You were respectful and level-headed while maintaining your sensible Christianity, while marrying your argument with well-established science.
Well said in few words. Sensible Christianity. Jeff is definitely a Christian believer with a strong faith, and a God given inquiring intellect.
You either buy into the bible or science. The two are totally contradictory & incompatible!
@@pup1008 what a silly comment
@@athonyhiggins3117
Why?
@@pup1008 If God created nature and the universe, then His attributes pierces through it. That is why Jesus often look to nature to make points. Nature can teach of God because it is from God's essence. So if science is the study of God's creation, it can't be a contradiction. The problem with the scientist is their interpretation of what they find. Centuries ago Christians refuted scientist about the Sun being the center of the universe. Look how that turned out. If the scientist have facts and evidence then we must listen. ONLY if they are true facts though.
Jeff “I haven’t devoted my whole life to studying and understanding the word and hermeneutics”
Ken “I have”
Ken published creation science magazine here in Australia many decades ago. it was a monthly magazine and even for an atheist there were many things in it that raise questions he interviewed artists recreating hominids and the artists did indeed admit to making them look more like they would be transitional, one of the more interesting ones was stalactites, he published pictures of man hole covers with six foot long stalactites, and even more interestingly a beer bottle covered in a stalagmite, which given the accepted age of growth of them would be aged at tens of thousands of years old but it was a pickaxe bottle from the west end brewery, so a decade or so old.
Trouble is Ken has not studied physics where Jeff has. So Ken is happy to ignore the evidence from physics, where Jeff has the guts to wrestle with it
@N/A you have made a good point Ken published pictures of a 6 foot long stalactite in queensland Australia that was on a manhole cover. several issues with that are high mineral concentrations combined with high rainfall produced them. even if they found dinosaurs in the congo that doesnt prove god it proved those particular species survived somewhere, like the coelacanth has.
@@ProfYaffle Actually, Ken studied and taught physics/science for years.
Ken has no formation on Hebrew. Ken is reading his modern western scientific worldview, culture and language back into the Bible (Hebrew, Ancient Near East).
Ham and Zweerink sounds like names in a Dr. Seuss book
🤫 don't say _"that name"_ in 2021, if you don't want to get canceled...
@@wagnerbertolino2 lol
Did you hear anything from the discussion?
That’s your takeaway????? How cute.
Ken ham helped me leave young earth creationism. I saw extreme intolerance for how others that thought different than young earthers. From my perspective to some young earthers made how old the earth was an issue salvation. It became the more important that any other aspect or part of the Bible.
Read A matter of Days by Dr.Hugh Ross and 7 days that divide the world by John Lennox, i learned so much from them.
I would caution you against 2 things. 1. Blaming someone else’s actions as your reason to lean against God’s word, as that will not stand up on judgment day. And 2. It is a very serious topic that literally causes millions to question or even disregard God’s word. Of course it’s often a topic he touches on. Also he is very respectful and makes clear boundaries. Look again. He will never concede and agree with the opposite thinking…. That’s not wrong. The other side often refuses to concede to his point… would they too be intolerant or just Ken? Double standard??
@@dsparkletear314 I feel you need to learn to embrace fellow Christians and not blame or judge them based on a particular dogmatic interpretation of the bible over matters that none of us will be judged on by Christ. Christianity and biblical authority is not undermined or challenged by divergent views on these matters. One must be able to mesh what one sees in God's natural revelation with the written revelation in order to worship God with all your mind, body, soul and spirit. Many folk who are happy to pigeon hole science and nature as a peripheral thing in their life can happily live with a literal 6 day creation which is a populist evangelical interpretation.. Folk who are professionally engaged in or think seriously about these issues must find other ways of interpreting Early Genesis and creation's message while being true to their intellect and spirit. None of us are questioning God's word. We are simply questioning specific interpretations of God's written word when they clash with what is revealed in nature just as Christians did when confronted with the idea of the earth revolving around the sun.
You’re doing the very thing you claim Mr Ham is doing: being intolerant. You said “Folk who are professionally engaged in ir think seriously about..” - so by your definition you yourself are ruling out those who differ from your opinion.
And you let someone else’s “attitude” on a matter let you change your mind on something rather than the material itself. Seems childish and myopic.
Whether you agree with him or not, the simple truth is that it IS an issue that people question. Who are you to say that it doesn’t undermine biblical authority? Maybe for you it doesn’t. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t for anyone else.
@@jamaicanyoute Your comment in your first 2 paragraphs are simply playing on or responding to my choice of words so I'll let them flow under the bridge. The key issue is our reverence for God's revelation, in both nature and the bible. Biblical authority and our holding this as paramount. When our exegesis of the bible is correct it will clearly be mutually supportive of God's revelation in nature, natural reality (cf postulation or theory).
What I say doesn't matter. The fact that leading Christian apologists through the centuries have had different interpretations of the Genesis account and ae capable of objectively discussing them without affecting core truths like the identity of Christ, salvation, redemption and integrity of scripture, demonstrates that that, yes, there are differing interpretations on Genesis that exist without undermining biblical authority. The fact that Ken Ham and many who support his view think that it does undermine biblical authority to look at Genesis with a mindset that is something other than a 20th century literalistic expectation. Other great minds and believers over the centuries thought and think differently. They see is is more exegetically consistent to look at it through different eyes, given that the text of Genesis 1-11was written in ancient times as a collation of stories and genealogies of the past handed down from antiquity, for the purpose of setting God's people apart from the surrounding heathen beliefs.
Humility is called for rather than dogmatism. This is especially so when there are huge logical and factual challenges from God's textbook of nature when interpreting God's miraculous creation as a seven 24 hour day event or interpreting Noah's flood as a global event, both of which can be deduced and defended from scripture, but both of which can be discounted from a different exegesis of scripture.
When we interpret God's text on nature (scientific observation of nature) and God's text on God-man relationships (bible) both correctly, the two will of course be in harmony.
Exploring this is a privilege, and the different understanding of sound Christian leaders though time demonstrate that such different interpretations can and do exist without impacting on our reverence for the authority of scripture or of the truths of core Christian beliefs: God the Creator, Christ's identity, Salvation, redemption, etc.
Humility rather than dogmatism is called for on these deep issues of the past.
I have been a preacher of God's word for 40 years and there is nothing in the Bible clearer than that God created in six days and sent a worldwide flood. It is not about the meaning of the word 'yom'. Genesis 1 includes day and night, evening and morning as well. There was astounding unity among Christians on six day young earth creation. The NT addresses "Christians" doubting many issues including the resurrection, the humanity of Jesus and his deity. Only since long age geology have significant numbers doubted six day young earth creation. Augustine was a young earth Creationists, and he castigated those who did not believe the world was less than 10000 years old. He tentatively suggested instantaneous creation because of his Greek philosophy, but backtracked on this when challenged.
I have spent many years leaning towards Jeff's position but considering it not critically important. I have also always considered Ken to be a bit obstinately dogmatic and unimaginative. But I have say that I have found Ken's arguments very compelling here. My faith is in a nutshell believing the unbelievable because of how God has revealed himself to me. Why should the creation story be any different? I have seen and experienced things in life that no one would believe except that they know me. How much more would that apply to God
Really, compelling? Ken is aggressively it odds with even the most basic of scientific concepts. I’m curious what you found compelling? Was it just his theological stance?
Well you just said it.... "Creation STORY", they just made it up, or at least modified it from creation myths from other religions.
They had little scientific knowledge or technology to explain how the world is as it is, so this is the best they could do.
They saw creation everywhere, so a creator would make sense back then.
But there's little need for one now that we have explanations for most things
😁 congrats! You're a brainwashed moron!!!
So you let Ham brain wash you , yes?
@@celticviking3150 : So, you just say what ever dumb crap that runs across your brain without knowing anything about anything, yes?
Here I thought this was going to be arguments for and against young earth and old earth theory. In reality this debate was Ken arguing that "this topic is not debatable if you're a Bible believing Christian" and Jeff defending that his argument is valid and worth having within a Christian context.
I feel like they just repeated themselves over and over because they couldn't agree on whether it's a valid debate or not.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
This doesn't happen on my home planet Orion 3.
One of the difficulties facing those who do not hold to a young earth is the question: Why is Genesis 1 written figuratively? What is the purpose behind figurative rather than literal language?
The answer, I believe, is that Genesis 1 is a 'Temple Text'. To take such a view respects the cultural and religious context in which it was written and avoids the assumption that the original readers would have been asking the same questions as 21st century westerners. There is a far more important question than "What does the word 'Yom' (day) mean?" and that is "What does the word 'Bara' (create) mean?" It had a very different meaning to the ancient near east than it does for the modern west - and I've never heard Ken Ham address it on this level.
For the interested reader, please see The Lost World of Genesis 1 by John H. Walton.
It is not figuratively.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
I wish someone other than Ken Ham would be the spokesperson for new earth theory. Ken Ham mostly just makes the argument an ad hominem attack on the character of his opponent, in this case over and over again impugning the motives of Jeff Zweerink. This keeps the conversation from being able to make it's way into very much science.
Furthermore, Ken Ham pits natural revelation against special revelation: something to the effect of "you can't trust what the natural world is telling you because it was corrupted by the fall"; whereas, on the contrary, Psalm 19:1 says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." Romans 1:20 says "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." Ken Ham believes in the perspicuity of the special revelation of Scripture, so why does he pit it against natural revelation when Scripture itself says that natural revelation is perspicuous.
Jon Cawthorn - careful in bearing false witness. You trying to put words in his mouth.
I don't think you know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Ham gave reasons why he holds what he holds too. He counter argued as well.
@@danielmann5427 I am not sure what words you think I put in his mouth in accusing me of being a false witness. At the one hour mark Ken Ham says "Creation is cursed. It's under the judgment of sin. All creation groans. And man's interpretation of a fallen universe and trying to interpret the past is completely different than a written revelation that is God breathed. All Scripture is God breathed. This is the infallible word of God, as God says in First Thessalonians 'It is in truth the word of God'. That's very different. You can't in any way equate the written word of God with the revelation of nature which is a result of God's creation and now suffering from the effects of the fall, of sin and the curse."
An ad hominem fallacy is an adjective describing an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. I believe I used that correctly to say that Ken Ham makes the argument an attack on the character of his opponent and thereby keeps the conversation from being able to make it's way into very much science.
@@joncawthorn8201 -Ken Ham speaks correctly, all creation is cursed, it is all under judgement. It all groans for redemption. For it is not ken ham who spoke it but the scriptures, it's not an interpretation the bible is plain in words.
Romans 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
The so called attack was related to the subject at hand. And he gave sufficient reasons for his postion and why he is against his opponents postion. I do not see this often over used term ad hominem being used.
It's not natural theology and natural revelation is not the same thing. Its usually called special and general revelation in Christian circles. They are not pivoted against each other and ken ham does not do so.
@@danielmann5427I am not disagreeing with what the Bible says about the world being under a curse. I just don't think that Ken Ham is justified in using that to say that the world God spoke into existence disagrees with the Scriptures that God breathed.
Ken Ham says Jeff Zweerink is accusing God of being responsible for death and suffering. He also accuses Jeff of not taking God at his word and of compromising the word of God. Although the attacks by Ken Ham on the character of Jeff Zweerink were related to the subject at hand, they are almost certainly false, they distract from the subject at hand and they are very uncharitable. In the other Ken Ham debates I have listened to he used ad hominem there as well; you might say he "over used" this base debate tactic. This tactic is a turn off and it implies that he has no substantial argument to lean on. If your a young earth creationist you should want someone more winsome for your side, and if you are not you definitely want someone who brings you better reasons to believe in that so that you can judge the argument on substantial merits. Because he does not bring good arguments and because he is so uncharitable, I don't think Ken Ham is the young earth theories' best foot forward, at least I hope not.
I was a Christian Creationist until I watched Ken Ham and Bill Nye Debate, then I had to accept evolution. Overtime as I studied Genesis and my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture I began to formulate how to understand Genesis in a middle place between allegory and literarily.
My question for Ken Ham has always been the same, what does he do with the Theologians before modern Biology who also did not read Genesis 1 literally? Because he seems to claim that those who do accept evolution force science into, but these early Theologians would not of been able to do that. Examples would be: Irenaeus (130-202AD); Origen (184-253AD); Gregory (329-390AD); Augustine (354-430AD)
You compromise the bible with evolution. How sad is that. I am sorry for what happened to you.
Egieboy Macatalad Don’t engage the content in his comment, that’s fine.
@@CoverBeats46 I don't think I'm compromising with evolution, but compromising with the great Early Church Father's who had many conversations and disagreements before we knew of biological sciences on whether Genesis should of been read literally or not. I think I look to early church to shape how I should understand the modern church.
TIM Smith- you went a Christian.
Did you know Jesus?
@@danielmann5427 Absolutely! I began to personal know Jesus Christ as the one true God made flesh on November 13th, 2011. Since then, He has done so much in transforming my heart, soul, mind and strength through the process of discovering what it means to call Him my Lord and my God. I was part of a Non-Denominational Church from 2009-2014, then was in a Nazarene Church from 2014-2018. Currently been moving around the past year+ so have not been in once place. But yes, I do know Jesus and know greatly of his wonderful grace.
Yay!!! A comment section that isn't disabled! Ken Ham can finally face some criticism without blocking them out. Answers In Genesis pisses me off so much because of that.
Why ? Is your philosophical views false?
@@richardpoole40able, get your head out the sand and learn some science. Or keep paying Ham like the sheep you are
Ken Ham is a grifter and deserves a special place in hell
(09:26) Zweerink - "... as I was studying or preparing for my scientific career, I realized that as I tried to *_integrate what I was finding in creation with the Bible_* that an old Earth position did that the best ..."
Notice that Zweerink makes a distinction between "what I was finding in creation" and what is in the Bible. It's rather subtle but you can see through it if you look carefully. Zweerink's professors and fellow students were telling him a very different narrative than what the Bible tells him and he compromised. In his heart, he was embarrassed about the Biblical narrative. His professors sold him a bill of goods and Zweerink became convinced they were wise and knew what they were talking about. Zweerink bought into the lie. It's happened to many, many Christians.
The key to understanding Zweerink's position is in the highlighted words above. He thinks the creation and the Bible do not agree with one another and must be reconciled. He does not recognize the absolute authority and accuracy of the Bible (though he will tell you otherwise) and therefore he does not see that it is the Bible that interprets creation and not that the creation should interpret the Bible.
If you think the creation is telling you something different than what the Bible is telling you then you have misinterpreted creation. You should not reinterpret the Bible based on something you think the creation is saying. If the Bible tells you the stars were created on the fourth day then you need to interpret creation as though the stars were created on the fourth day. If the Bible tells you the Earth and all that is in it were created in six days then you need to see the Earth and all that is in it as having been created in six days and adjust your _interpretation_ of the evidence accordingly. Gᴏᴅ does not lie nor make errors when He speaks.
I was in secular college, in the 'divinity', and within the introduction to Old Testament, Liberal theology raised its ugly head. I hear the same taint of Liberal thinking in Zweerink replies. He races to secular viewpoints as you correctly say and does not answer Ken at all.
There was the 1) religious tenant that everything in space revolved around the earth 2) the earth was the center of the universe 3) the most gifted scientists like newton, copernicus, Galileo and others all held back there awareness that the planets had many of their own moons revolving around not earth but the other planets. Today the vatican astronomers have agreed with the earth revolving around the sun which revolves around the milky way. The observable universe stretches with the expansion of space and the observable universe is now about 92 billion light years across. These figures come from anilizing the red shift of most all the stars and galaxies in the universe. This expansion could not occur in a short period of time as promoted by a short creation period. The events described in genesis are in error as the events are somewhat backward. Light cant appear before the sun was created. The sun is where we get 99% of all light. The first galaxies we're not formed after the earth. The earth was created billions of years after most of the galaxies were created. Listen to renoun astronomers and their comparison of biblical creation vs modern cosmology.
@@mikelevitz1266 - "In the first period, the universe grew from an almost infinitely small point to nearly an octillion (that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros) times that in size in less than a trillionth of a second."
"... nearly an octillion (that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros) *_times that in size_* ..." "... less than a trillionth of a second."
That's called cosmic inflation. It's an idea that is part of the standard cosmological model. Your notion that the universe cannot grow by unimaginable amounts in an unimaginably short period of time is not what the secular cosmologists are teaching. The conclusions you reach with your common sense are incorrect.
I see "cosmic inflation" as day four of creation week. I think it's a pretty good fit. You should listen to renowned cosmologists like Alexei Starobinsky, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde.
Keep in mind that the Earth was created 3 days before the rest of the cosmos was created and cosmic inflation occurred. The God that can create the entire universe can shield one small planet from the dangerous effects of cosmic inflation. It's not hard for Him.
When I flip a switch on the wall, I get light that doesn't come from the Sun. C'mon, dude! You can do better than that.
Can you tell me what caused the universe to come into existence?
----------------------------------------------
When a play is being presented on a stage and there is a forest scene, does the stage manager grow all the trees? How do the trees for the scene get on the stage? When a movie is being filmed in a forest, do the movie people plant the forest and wait for it to grow before making the movie?
This is all a drama being put on by God. He prepared the stage and then put the actors in place. You are one of the actors. Smile for the camera 😁
@@mikelevitz1266 - **tenet**
Very well said. It really is that simple. It’s sad to see so many Christians compromising on this to appear less “crazy” to the world.
When you believe God came to earth in human flesh, died & rose again - believe me, they already think you’re “crazy”
With a topic heading titled, “Do we live in an old or young Earth?” I expected actual evidence for each position to be presented. But all was discussed was how to interpret the Biblical claim of the Earth’s beginning. Very disappointing, cover it, but maybe backing up with evidence could strengthen either position’s viability.
Excellent point
What evidence did you expect?
Once you have a supernatural event in the mix, "scientific evidence" is meaningless at best, misleading at worst. (For the life of me, I don't know why this point is so often ignored)
The question then becomes "as God was creating the heavens and earth, when did the supernatural events stop and natural events begin?"
No science anywhere can (ever) answer that question.
Maybe Scripture can.
Gen 1:1 describes a supernatural event.
How about the rest of Gen 1?
That is the million dollar question.
And no science anywhere can answer it.
@@timffoster Genesis 2 tells you when the 'supernatural' events stop, after the sixth day. Although, in a sense, it is all supernatural.
The evidence is either equivocal or conflicting. We have strong evidence for a young earth, the recession rate of the moon, the decay of the earths magnetic field, a galaxy filled with comets...these all point to a young earth/universe. There is evidence that could support an old earth...the inferences produced by radiometric dating, the size of the universe and the starlight that fills it, etc. So those are the conflicting evidences. There are equivocal evidences (evidence that could support both explanations). The existence of biological life (naturalists have their warm puddle or ocean vent, and creationists have a super intelligent creative being that explains both the material and informational components of life). I'm sure there are other such equivocal evidences. So my point here is that "evidences" are not clear and not conclusive. It comes down to whether or not you "believe" in the naturalistic story, or if you "believe" in the supernaturalistic story.
Ken Ham is a refreshing primer as to why a literal reading of the Bible is nonsense. Problem is, once you drop a literal reading, it mostly falls apart. So credit to Ham in that respect.
That's' why I never use the Bible in reasoning with atheists like you.
I am a Christian who converted to Old Earth Creationism after listening to Ken Ham. LOL. I wouldn't criticize him if I were you though. Atheists actually believe that all the complexity in life arose out of mindlessness. It's absurd that Theist Apologists have to even exist, the probability of all the order of the Cosmos and of human life without God is infinitesimally small, if not impossible. The best argument Atheists have is the Hiddness of God which when you think about it isn't much of an argument at all, nothing more than a temper tantrum, anger at God for creating the world according to his will and not their's. Ken Ham has an IQ of 1000 compared to you!!!
@@20july1944 I'm a huge fan of your work!
@@michaelsayad5085 Sa-LUTE, Michael Sayad!
This depends a lot on what you mean by "literal." People like Ken Ham and yourself tend to claim that the Bible must be either literal or metaphorical, but that is a false dichotomy.
Think of the first time you saw the solar system portrayed on a poster in elementary school. Was the depiction literal? What does that even mean? The scale was most likely way off. The orbits were probably simplified. On the other hand, the solar system is literally heliocentric, and the ordering of heavenly bodies moving from the Sun outward was literally correct. Was it metaphorical then? No, the planets are real, so it clearly wasn't a metaphor. Was it inaccurate? Absolutely. Was it a lie then? Not really. Does this mean the person who authored it didn't know any better? No, not necessarily. So then, how can we categorize this poster?
It was a model. A model, by definition, is not the real thing. Models are almost always simplified which means they are, by nature, inaccurate. Because the author doesn't know any better? Not necessarily. Models are almost always simplified in order to teach a particular concept to a particular audience in a way that is pedagogically appropriate. In other words, if models were not simplified so that the audience could grasp a particular concept, then a _pedagogical_ error would have been committed. A very knowledgeable author might create a very simplistic model based on the targeted audience.
My view of the Bible is that it is (at least at times) neither literal nor metaphorical. I believe that it is inerrant in the sense that the Author unfailingly hits the target for which He is aiming, but I also believe that it is often inaccurate in the sense that the lessons are often models of truth that are simplified for human (even ancient human) consumption. It would be a mistake to relegate the entire Bible to a collection of metaphors because a lot of what is being said is quite literally true. On the other hand, it would also be a mistake to insist on a ultra-literal interpretation of every phrase because that's simply not the way we communicate, especially when we are trying to teach complex concepts to those who haven't even formed a basic understanding with the appropriate foundation for grasping anything complex.
The problem with Ken's approach is while he builds on the authority of scripture which is right, in reality though, he is actually building on his subjective interpretation of scripture.
@Dion Sanchez True, but aren't all interpretations of scripture subjective?
Huh? No he's not.
No, he's reading the words and presupposing them to be true, as well as written to be easily understood by an illiterate, largely oral population. But he also doesn't rest on that presupposition, but tests it with science as well. When other scientists disagree on "the science," he analyzes what those scientists claim as axiomatic, and has found significant flaws that actually can be reconciled with the Biblical presuppositions instead... Secularism is wrong in how they've interpreted the data to support the wild pontifications of a 19th century dolt who believed the European man to be more evolved than the African man, and that women's brains are just marginally more developed than a children's brains (inferior to men). At the bare minimum, they are treating their theories as facts, and then citing those theories to validate other conclusions. None of which is fact, but actually belies what the facts indicate. Microevolution is impossible, and even the carbon dating methods are rife with presuppositional assumptions that cannot possibly be true... to the point where they manipulate and discard data to fit their hypothesis instead of adjusting their hypothesis to fit the data.
Not really.
Ha. I love this. You talk about subjectivity, and seem to recognise it so clearly in others, but then baldly state that scripture is right. Has it ever occurred to you that scripture may not be right? In fact, has it ever crossed your mind that scripture may just be like all other religions - bogus?
Wow ken is so confident on fire for the Lord I love it when he explains the word and puts it in context translation from the Hebrew word wow 😊
This debate is what made me go from young earth to old earth. Ironically, Ken Ham is actually the reason I'm not young earth anymore because he makes a lot of inconsistent points. What I heard was Jeff say that there are plenty of complex issues and that he doesn't know everything. What I heard Ken say is if you disagree with me you disagree with God. He tried to make a point that Christians believed that the earth was young, but when that argument didn't work, he started talking about fallibility even though that would apply to everyone not just the people he disagreed with. The worst point is that he asks why the average person can't just read the Bible without going to a scholar of different languages. Well, because it had to be translated into English, so technically no, the average person can't necessarily read the original scriptures because the average person doesn't read those languages.
But the words have been translated for the very purpose of eliminating your need for an interpreter every time you pick up your bible. This should allow you to read it and interpret it for yourself. It like you going to a foreign country with your interpreter and complaining that you need a interpreter to interpret your interpretor's words.
And Ken is absolutely, completely at odds with science.
I agree, my concern about Ken is that he wants to make this debatable issue into one that splits the church over inspiration of Scripture. He essentially says, “Interpret this my way or else.” Here’s my biggest issue - why hold this strict interpretation of one word, yom, and not apply the same principles of interpretation to the rest of the Bible? How is Ken not required then to believe in a flat, Earth-centric world? For example, there is no other way to interpret the words except that the sun must literally “rise in the east.”
I think your full of beans, old beans, not young ones because your wrong, but I love you
This should have been a heartfelt, earnest discussion amongst brothers, but instead it was a debate where winning was more important.
Anyone who genuinely wants the truth doesn't care what the answer is.
Ken Ham was quite hostile in his approach, using hyperbolic language and seeking to undermine Jeff, who he attacked as an opponent. Very ugly and such a bloody shame.
Stop with the infighting, for Christ's sake, and just talk it through. If you can't agree, then agree to disagree bless each other and move on, just like Christ said to do.
Focus on the big picture; becoming an expert in loving God above anything and anyone (obeying from the heart), then loving your neighbour and brother-even the difficult, stubborn ones.
That's only because Ken knows the truth and is trying to reciprocate that to Jeff. Jesus sure wasn't polite and welcoming when he turned over the money tables now was he?
@@rachelbrewer9578 there is a huge difference between a den of thieves being allowed to set up camp in God’s house and a brother who has a different opinion .
I hope you can see that.
@DavidKnowles The bible is black and white, not grey. It teaches what is right and what is wrong. A thief manipulates the weak and easily deceives. The Bible is so telling when it talks about how many will simply be blind to the truth. Not difficult to understand.
@@rachelbrewer9578 The truth is black and white.
The Mosaic law is black and white.
However, the correct way to interpret and faithfully apply both is not always black and white at all.
Jesus illustrates this clearly when He was asked to apply the law to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11). The law is clear; the woman must be stoned! It’s black and white, and there is no wiggle room! Easy to understand.
Yet Jesus did NOT cast the first stone, nor any stone, even though He is without sin.
This shows your contention, ‘the Bible is black and white’, as at best, overly simplistic.
Jesus fulfilled all the law, always, including in this situation by applying the great commandment justly; He loved her as Himself. He refused to write her off and He gave her room to repent.
Have you written off Jeff? Have you grouped him and other old-earthers with the blind and the ‘thief that manipulates the weak and easily deceives’?
I’m convinced you mean well and, with Ken Ham, earnestly desire to walk in love and truth. So do not make the mistake of labeling everyone you disagree with as an arch enemy intent on evil.
Remember, believing in a young earth is not a life-and-death criterion for Christ’s salvation. Please don’t confuse salvation issues with side issues.
It’s ok to disagree on side issues because none of us know ALL the truth, ALWAYS, in ALL circumstances. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says we’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. (MSG). This ‘is’ black and white and true for you, me, Ken, and Jeff.
God bless you, sister.
I am Christian … but people like Ken are ignoring reality. There are literally TREES that are older than people like him thinks the age of the Earth is…
There is a lot of scientific evidence that proves that you can't count rings on a tree to get its age, doing so can get you off by a factor of two
I have a question for you. So when Jesus died and rose 3 days later was it literally 3 days or 3 thousand, million or billion years later.?
And the bible states that men will scoff at the truth. There are alot of comments in here that scoff at the truth. But that's ok. Jesus always wins. Ken is fighting for the truth. That's all.
Thank you for the debate. I personally didn't find Jeff to be particularly good at articulating an argument. I didn't find calls to authority outside of the Bible to be compelling. God bless!
At about the 37:23 mark, Justin asks Jeff Zweerink to explain death before sin (which theistic evolution requires). I listened closely to Jeff Zweerink's response, and essentially he seems to be saying that whether death came before or after the fall is, in a sense, irrelevant, because the doctrine of redemption from death through Christ's sacrifice on the cross remains unaffected. But the order is in fact critical, because this is the order that Genesis clearly teaches, i.e. that sin brought death into the world. The only reason that so many try to shoehorn theistic evolution into Genesis is because ultimately they allow the secular models of origins to pervert what the Scriptures clearly teach. Prior to the advent of naturalism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism, there was broad agreement in Christendom as to a young (@ 6000 year old) earth.
I think you’re right, underneath it all there seems to be a cringing embarrassment from old earth creationists to accept the Genesis account..
Oh yes, he sure fudged on that one. And avoided the 4th commandment.
Romans 5:12 “Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed to all mankind in turn.” This is clear death came to “all mankind”, not animals. Why would God kill animals due to man’s sin?
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".
The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
@@djsarg7451 replying to your first comment, animals’ death is due to sin. If this was not the case, then that would mean that it was like that since creation and if that’s the case, then when God said that everything was very good, he would be calling death good which goes against his character. God does not kill animals because of sin, it is just a byproduct of man sinning.
The problem with Ken Ham is that he thinks that you can move from text to understanding _without_ interpretation. In fact this is a good definition of fundamentalism. The fundamentalist always thinks that his interpretation is coterminous with what the Biblical texts "say"; and it is always a consistent message. The Bible is not a book but a library containing different genres of literature, so the first thing we need to ask when reading a book of the Bible is: what genre is this? Ken Ham doesn't do that. Genesis is clearly written in the language of mythology (which is not the same as "an untrue story" but rather an imaginative narrative which tells the truth in non-literal, metaphorical, symbolic form). We know that the Genesis myth was in part derived from Babylonian sources.
I disagree. I believe Ken Ham did look at the text and ask, how should it be read? Which is why he points out that Genesis' days has evening and morning in the same sentence to be sure that we read it as 24hr literal days. Nothing in Genesis suggests that the days are metaphorical, in fact the opposite is found.
Just to put it into context... ALL mythology stories derive from what the Bible is explaining in Genesis 6. Angels (gods) procreated with women which produced the mighty men of mythology. The Bible gives you the entire picture to see how things were corrupted, not a mythology of "gods" (fallen angels) who tricked people into believing that THEY were in charge.
Jessica H Ken Ham has completely misunderstood Genesis. The genre is not history but mythology. A talking snake? God walks in the garden? The light was created before the sun? It is clearly the language of mythology. This was recognised in the 2nd century by Christians such as Origen.
Cosigner22 Mythology existed before Genesis was ever written. I find it difficult to understand how people can seriously believe that we live in a universe which is only 6000 years old! All of the evidence is against you! Genesis is clearly not history but myth.
Blind leading the Blind, its contagious not sure if you can be inoculated but it sure would be nice, zombies everywhere I look around and see nothing but worn out faces
It's so frustrating to see Kent arrogantly assert that he is the best interpreter of scripture and then accuse any humble and questioning approach as not believing God's word.
It is because I revere God's word that I'm doubtful of my ability to fully understand it without careful exploration and seeking correlation with the "testimony of creation" and the guidance of the holy spirit.
Dogmatism to ones own interpretation is not honoring scripture, it is self worship.
I disagree.
I was a so called old earth agnostic for almost 40 years. Taught as a secular scientist. I couldn't believe Genesis and it's claims.
Multiple Creation Ministries have revealed alternative theories that actually make logical sense compared to my previous suppositions.
@@knightclan4 I don't necessarily disagree with his interpretation.
My objection is to the instantiation of his own opinion as dogma.
Then there is yours.
@@davidbrenneman1574
Ken Ham u are on POINT. Clear crisp and refreshing with BIBLICAL TEXT. Jeff days it so well I believe in millions of year because someone said the bible might say this. Jeff u need to read it for ur self it is clear. Ur stances Jeff eliminates free will
So he knows how to read somethings out of an old book written by a load of itinerant desert sheep herders? So what?
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours.
Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
The number of humans on this earth, and the rate in which it is growing, debunks an old earth. Thank God for Ken Ham.
you win the stupid comment of the week award...... or possibly the year.
@@reverendbarker650 Let snapshot of true history place in check your ignorance and arrogance:
5554 BC - Creation
3298 BC - Noah's flood (4 pairs of human beings survived)
2850 BC - Tower of Babel destroy (approx. population 12 million)
2750 BC - Egyptian Dynasty 1 founded by Menes/Narmer
2166 BC - Abraham born
2067 BC - Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed
1886 BC - Joseph made ruler of Egypt
1446 BC - Moses at 80 led ~2.5 million Jews out of Egypt & crossed Red Sea
1052 BC - Saul became 1st king of Israel
960 BC - Solomon completed building 1st Temple
776 BC - 1st Olympic Games
586 BC - 1st Temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar
515 BC - 2nd Temple built
333-323 BC - Alexander the Great ruled Jerusalem
221 BC - Great Wall of China built
2 BC - Jesus of Nazareth born
33 AD - Jesus Christ crucified & resurrected
70 AD - 2nd Temple destroyed by Romans led by Titus
476 AD - End of Roman Empire
927 AD - Kingdom of England founded
1206-1260 AD - Mongol Empire flourished
1371-1433 AD - Admiral Zheng He (Cheng Ho) lived
1478-1834 AD - Spanish Inquisition
1619 AD - Slavery began in America
1776 AD - U.S. Declaration of Independence
1876 AD - Telephone invented
1886 AD - 1st motor car by Karl Benz
1914-1918 AD - 1st World War
Huh? I don’t understand. Please elaborate
This guy is a great mediator in debates... And Ken is spot on with his defense while the other guy stumbles and makes little sense in my honest opinion, which stems from my own studies.
You believe the earth is 6500 years old & everything alive today came of a boat 4500 years ago? Did you "studies" also conveniently omit that the bible tells us the world is flat?
your lost, click your heels together and say theres no place like home
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours.
Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Zweerink isn’t qualified to sit with Ken Ham. He talks and talks without saying a thing. Backs up nothing by Scripture, which really is the point.
Literal interpretation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of an oral myth written in a now dead language versus all of the combined knowledge of every discipline we study. This shouldn’t still be a debate in this century.
Ken im LDS and a Buddhist Monk!!! I love you BROTHER!!!
Just watched the debate again. Thank you Ken for standing on the word. Praise the Lord.
Jeffery Dahmer could write a book that would be factually more correct than the bible & stand by every word but does that make him or the bible right?
@@pup1008 how so? What makes the Bible less factually correct than other books please present your reason I'm curious
@@felixostman8569
I didn't compare it to other religions, they are all equally deluded.
At least the Hindu scriptures actually got the age of the Earth pretty much spot on!
Ken ham cannot now that he is presenting his bias toward Godism/creationism. He is incapable of relying on evidence. Just claims and his persuasions
Praise the lord???? Which one? Lord Voldemort? Lord Sith? Maybe an en English lord???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
As a person unconvinced by the Christian claims, I am more impressed by the consistency of the Ken Ham position in just rejecting all scientific evidence. Jeff Zweerink seems to sit on the fence in trying to reconcile the literal truth of bible scriptures as the word of his god with the 'obviously' allegorical nature of many bible stories. Maybe his brain contains religion and science in two compartments, each of which has access to his speaking voice but without access to each other? For me that is a bigger mystery than the age of our planet.
Scientific evidence according to their interpritation
The difference is that Jeff is using the "two books" model in which the "book of creation" (what we see when we study the natural world) can inform our understanding of the "book of revelation" (the Bible). Though this idea has a history going back to the earliest days of Christianity, Ken does not like this model and dubiously asserts that it is a cowardly concession to materialism.
Ken Ham cherry picks as well. They all do. They cherry pick which Biblical stories to believe and which scientific pieces of evidence to believe. He accepts most science until it contradicts a part of the Bible he thinks he's familiar with. Hell, the Bible has at least three creation stories, the second of which, on the SECOND PAGE OF THE BIBLE, flatly contradicts the first. He ignores it. There are two Flood narratives that are mutually incompatible. He ignores this. He takes his kids to the doctor. He flies on planes. All of this is fine. When science helps, it's right. When it makes him feel bad, it's wrong.
Jeff 100% trust the Bible.
YEC is not a rejection of evidence.
It’s a rejection of opinions about the evidence.
This is going to be awesome! Please have Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson on one day!
I like what Ken often say in his talk, (he didn't say it here) but I like what he says that if death and suffering has always been around before the creation of the world, then the death and suffering of our Lord Jesus is redundant. The reason why Jesus came to die for us is because of our Sin, and death is the wages of Sin, therefore Jesus came as a redeemer to reverse the curse that was brought by the disobedience of our first parent Adam and Eve!
Love the channel and these types of conversations. However, this Jeff guy is not equipped to debate this topic very well. I love that he loves Jesus! I would love to see someone debate this topic that knows all the different positions of “old earthers” and can defend them well. Add an British accent, too ;)
Maybe Jeff should really know the position of the Young earthers well then he wouldn't be making such a clod of himself. If you're going to debate someone, at least do them the honor of studying their position well.
kevin ruiters why? The earth isn’t young. You have to be stupid or delusional to believe it is.
Should get William Lane Craig to debate Ken Ham... if you can get the good doctor to lower himself. He would wipe the floor and blow Kens objections to dust when it comes to interpretation of scripture.
@@kevinrtres Jeff used to be a young earth creationist.
Its not an actual 'debate', Ham couldn't possibly hold his own in any real debate. He already lost this debate many times,
This 'conversation' is obviously skewed to the ..lol..'christian perspective'...
He says that you can’t see age and you can’t see the start of the universe. Yet you can’t see god either.
Yes - that was my thought too. There were a few arguments that Ken used that I thought could have been used against him aswell
What is so hard to believe about the fourth commandment? For in 6 days God made the heavens and earth.
You can’t have long ages between the days.
Way too many symbiotic relationships that can’t be separated by millions of years.
Flowers(day 3) and insects (day 5) must be days not long period of time.
Old earth believers are left wanting.
LeeTubular
You still need faith to believe in your theory.
Amazing how many nonbelievers misinterpret scripture. I’d be happy to clarify any curious or skeptical questions you have.
I didn’t believe that book for 40 years , especially the Genesis.
Don’t close your mind to it until you’ve had it explained by someone who is qualified to explain it.
LeeTubular
Qualified enough to realize I was blind to the saving faith of Jesus, and now I see .
A non believer will not comprehend until they realize that they need a Savior.
Good luck Lee
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
I just heard in the last week that Augustine felt that God could have completed creation in one 24 hour day with no problem! My feeling is the best way, was the six day, morning & evening, day He did it. He created a man & a woman, not infants, He created ALL things in a mature state. It made the best understanding of creation by an unlimited and powerful God according to His own good pleasure.
As a young man I believed in theistic evolution. It was only after 10 or 15 years of actively reading scripture and. seeing that creation could not for example been "very good" if the evolutionary process of "kinds" and such, would create huge theological problems regarding sin.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
@@djsarg7451 Seventh Day is not still ongoing!
The Bible does clearly indicate that God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago (all one needs is to be able to add, or at least use a calculator). Genesis 2:1-3 states that, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” He ceased His work of creation the seventh day after creating everything in six days. He does NOT continue His work of creation, now is not the seventh day of creation. He only rested (ceased) His work of creation. He isn’t still “resting in a seventh day”, He is still working, (but not in creating. That is what He ceased from.). John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. Obviously God has not ceased from other works, the seventh day rest mentioned in Genesis 2 was only from the creation that was completed after 6 days. As you referred to Hebrews, 4:3 tells us that God’s “works were finished from the foundation of the world.” How could it be more clear that God stopped creating after a flurry of supernatural activity in the beginning? Also, the NT says the world was created-in the past-through Jesus (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), and this is distinguished from His present work of upholding the universe (Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.).
Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 both refer to a corresponding possible rest - the Jews’ and ours, if we obey, that we can obtain. It does not tell “us that the seventh day has not ended.”. It does not mean that “Each believer are [sic] to enter day 7.” (I guess if everyone is ready to stop creating a universe from nothing they could do that. But that is not the case!). Heaven will be a rest/cessation of our work here on earth.
You say “there [sic] no ‘evening or morning’ for the 7th day”. So, by your logic, since there was no start to it, how do you get that it’s still going on??
You say that, “Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary”. There were plenty of other Hebrew words that God could have had Moses use which refer to a long period of time! These include qedem which is the main one-word term for ‘ancient’ and is sometimes translated ‘of old’; olam means ‘everlasting’ or ‘eternity’ and is translated ‘perpetual’, ‘of old’ or ‘for ever’; dor means ‘a revolution of time’ or ‘an age’ and is sometimes translated ‘generations’; tamid means ‘continually’ or ‘for ever’; ad means ‘unlimited time’ or ‘for ever’; orek when used with yôm is translated ‘length of days’; shanah means ‘a year’ or ‘a revolution of time’ (from the change of seasons); netsach means ‘for ever’. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning ‘seasons’ or ‘festivals’. And your usage of the English word day with various meaning corresponds to the Hebrew usage. It is obvious from context which meaning is being conveyed.
(Deuteronomy 33:15 with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills, Habakkuk 3:6 He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook the nations; then the eternal mountains were scattered; the everlasting hills sank low. His were the everlasting ways. What does this have to do with God ceasing His creation on day 7?)
Finally, your interpretation of Genesis 2 makes no sense of Exodus 20:9-11.
‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work.’
‘But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. You shall not do any work …’
‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.’
The six days of creation and day of rest are exactly the same as those of the command to work six ordinary days and rest on the seventh. The passage is certainly not teaching an eternal weekend.
I'm an Athiest and I respect the young earth creationist as he doesn't waver from his beliefs, he believes the bible as it's written and not try to make it something it isn't like the new christians who say 'well it's just poetic'
Thing is both young and old earth creationists have enough in common to co-operate
lol, thats why I watched this, for a good laugh
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Ken Ham: "I don't like being called a Young Earth Creationist ... I wanna be called a Biblical Creationist..." Thereby annulling, a priori, the arguments of every believer that disagrees with him -- because that's not disingenuous at all! I'm a believer that holds the position that creation is old, and I would maintain that arguments for OC are far more "biblical" that are Ham's. However, I could be wrong in my understanding of scripture.
Yeah shame some omniscient diety did such a terrible job in giving us what some proclaim to be the most important message ever that 2000 years later fools like you have to argue about some ridiculous text that most sane people filed away as nonsense years back.
If you want clarity maybe become a Hindu, they got the timeline & events of the Big Bang pretty much spot on with no ambiguity! Better still - grow up & put away imaginary sky fairies!
Even if you tried to smack your puerile square peg into secular science's hard earned round holes on the creation myth how do you explain away what can now be proven to bunkum in the rest of the bible like the Ark story when you have cultures that were around at that time like the Chinese, Egyptian & Native South American cultures making no mention of it, modern geological evidence, pardon the pun, blowing it out the water & irrefutable DNA *PROOF* making you all look a laughing stock?
@@pup1008
Yup, you're the fool.
You obviously haven't felt the holy spirit.
So you blab about the Bible being irrelevant and outdated.
Wow, will you be surprised.
The Bible isn't done yet.
Flip to the last book.
Then turn on your TV..
You don't see the world looking for a world leader to make things the way you want?
Just hang on for the ride. You keep going the way you're going it will be quick for you.
@@Alec_Cox
*"Revelation?"* You know that was even talked about & imminently predicted in biblical times right?
You know that idiots like you were claiming *The Plague* (a totally naturalistic event) as the end days & at least they had something to base that on as it wiped half of Europe! Probably from every century, you could & people *DID* look at their situation & say *"The end is neigh!"*
What about in *1914 & 1939* shouldn't those two great world wars have been a clarion call for your flavour of god & Jeepers to come & take all you "good people" up in the rapture?
We are probably now living in the best of times *EVER!* Secular science, free from the dogma & confides of religious maxims, has progressed & cured many ills, our technology brings us abundant food in most countries, the level of violent crime is at an all time low in the West.... Yeah there's tinkering but there has *ALWAYS* been the need for tinkering!
Nah. This discussion proves that the name Biblical Creationist applies to Ham.Because he always stood by the authority of scripture. Jeff sounded really weak on authority of scripture and spent the whole time citing what other "experts" say. So if this interview is anything to go by, Biblical Creationist applies to AIG
@@MrEKEN7 Your argument is a joke. Anyone can claim to be a "biblical creationist" since there is no authority on wtf that ridiculous fairy tale states.
Jeff was on my show discussing the rise of flat earth theory and how to handle these conversations.
So I just heard Ken say that you can be a Christian AND believe in evolution or an old earth. Talk about eating crow. It's just not his theology. I'm glad Justin put him on the spot cause I think he has too many people duped into thinking it's all or none and that's never been the case until about 70 yrs ago. Ken isn't the ultimate authority on scripture. Neither he nor Jeff have a theology background yet Ken continues to act like he has God's ultimate revelation on the Genesis account. So sad. Even his ark encounter is very inaccurate yet he elevates himself as an authority. C S. Lewis said that, "the sins of the flesh are bad but the utmost evil is pride". And pride goes before a fall. I think Ken needs to read what his Bible says about it: Prov 11:2, 16:18, 29:23. That's what caused lucifer to fall.
I have a question to Ken, when he is talking about the Hebrew word for day, evening and morning is always talking about a 24 hour period. My question is this:
If the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, what defined the evening and the morning of the first 3 days??
Oh thats a good one I may steal that.
I always wondered how plants could be created first on a planet without a sun considering space without the suns warmth is near absolute zero.
You have some frame of reference wrong. Also Genesis is not the oldest book of the Bible, Job is, so to understand Genesis, must read Job first. 1) Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testa , always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. 2) The Genesis says "let there be light", the word create is NOT in the text. Job tells us what is "let there be light". Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness. The cloud make it dark, Genesis 1:2 tells you the frame of reference above the waters on Earth. So the two tell use the cloud went from dark to lighter. The clear sky does not come till " moon to mark the seasons" now with have blue sky.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".
The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
WLC Vs. Penrose? When is it going to be uploaded?
That's gonna be great
October 4th!
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Is that a firm date? Great to know!
@@20july1944 That's the date given by Justin :)
That's why I came here too. LOL.
When Ken reads in the Bible that the earth is unmoving on its foundations, or that it has four corners, does he take that litterally or apply some... hmmm... interpretation?
Excellent point. Businessman like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind that make a very good living off their " interpretation" of Scripture like to be dictators of the Truth. Its fascinating that Ken and Kent make a living off of a hotly debated TRANSLATION of GENESIS. Genesis is an ancient HEBREW jewish text and if you ask ancient HEBREW experts, the Creation story can be understood several different ways. Its fascinating to me that fundamental Young Earth Creationists have ignored this fact.
The part that really bothers me is they are willing to present lies as scientific fact to an audience (market really) that cannot discern lies from truth. Its sad....
Actually he understands there are different literary styles. Don't confuse being able to see analogies or euphemisms or poems or parables with strictly interpreting what written words actually say. This is not "fours corners" versus "young earth". It's that "four corners" actually means FOUR, not four years or four ages or "four" the prepositional term. If you can't interpret "four" to mean there are a numerical four corners, then you can't interpret the Genesis "day" as being an age or a time, or an actual 24 hour period, etc.
You have to know what a word means before you can "interpret" the sentences it appears in. You have to know that four means four and corner means corner before you can interpret that "four corners" is a literary device. Likewise, we need to know what the words "evening and morning were the first day" means before we can figure out the literary device. If "day" is millions of years, then what does it mean to suggest millions of years are contained in a single evening and single morning?
It's a conversation about word translation, word meaning, sentence interpretation, contextual interpretation, and logical reasoning.
@@vigilantezack You took a long time to say he interprets it.
@@ryry854 Ken spends a lot of time on the translation of "day", not its interpretation. If the translation is "standard 24 hour day", then you can worry about interpretation.
May God give us more leaders with the integrity of Ken Ham.
Also, it's important to note that one of the reasons Augustin was perplexed by the 6 days is that he treated one of the apocryphal books as canonical and had trouble reconciling part of it to genesis. If he had the correct cannon, he may have read genesis in a more straightforward way.
Totally brainwashed XD
In my opinion, reading genesis 1-3 as a literal account is equal to reading the psalms and thinking that trees have hands that they clap.
It's simply not how good scholarship and exegesis works. You find out the historical context and compare it to the literature of the day to find out what is being communicated.
If they took their exegesis to the logical conclusion, they would believe in a flat earth, held up on pillars, under a dome with water on top that has windows which open and cause the rain.
Finally, someone who gets it.
@Paul Morgan almost cut myself on that edge
Surely tree with hands is independently verified by Lord of the Rings, and talking donkeys by Shreck.
So when exactly do you take the Bible at it’s word? Moses? Abraham? Jacob? Jesus?
This is illogical. Genesis is history, it’s written as history, and you’re not intellectually superior for rejecting it. You’re actual prideful.
psalms is a poetry style book, genesis is historical. You cant compare the two
I found it interesting that Ken Ham did not give an example of fake news.
It could be because his works are steeped in fakery??
“For us to be definitive and dogmatic is something we need to avoid.” Jeff Zweerink 35:47
lol nice pick up
Agreed. That’s why I have the reference time.
Is that something he is definitive and dogmatic about? 🤣
Thank you Unbelievable? For hosting this debate.
And thank you Jeff Zweerink for further confirming my confidence…in Biblical Creationism and a young earth.
This is a topic I’ve studied in-depth for a few years, and I can say it’s more intellectually satisfying than a old earth position. As Biblical Creationists, without question we have scripture on our side, but additionally there’s a lot that’s on our side scientifically as well (I wish I had space to elaborate).
Regarding Mr. Zweerink, from Reasons to Believe, I was surprised at how weak his arguments were. I’ve found two observations from Christians in a science career regarding the age of the earth:
1) They’re under tremendous pressure to comply with millions of years
2) As a result, their view of scripture is one of “Allowance”. How to allow for millions of years.
Hearing him talk, I heard the same things. At 9:25 he mentions that his conversion to old-earth was “As I was preparing for my scientific career”, and “was trying to integrate what I was finding in creation with the bible”.
And for the rest of the video, regarding him accepting an old-earth, I kept hearing one theme: That there were others that accepted old-earth, and that there seemed to be ‘differing views’. That honestly seems to be the bulk of his arguments, simply that differing views existed (or supposedly existed to him).
Quite frequently I heard “room for” and “disagreements” existing, and example of other Christians compromising on age. Consider these statements:
(9:45) “So that’s kind of why I landed on an old-earth position because I think there’s room in the church, we, In the Church we have a disagreement on how old things are.”
(17:16) “So part of why I think that Big Bang cosmology is sound is that I know people who are Christians who think that that's the best explanation”
(24:25): “ I disagree with Ken’s position that this is a settled thing”
(24:50): Mentions three ‘pillars’ of faith and says “and they all three held different views”
(37:10) “when it talks about the days and how long they are, there’s a diversity of views”
(43:35) “There’s room for places where Christians can disagree” and that Christians have “come to different viewpoints there”
My conclusion, two things:
1) Being in a scientific career field, he felt pressure to ‘integrate’ it with the bible. His justification for ‘allowance’ for millions of years: the fact that there seemed to be others that have, and that there seems to be “room for” and “diversity of views”. That’s all the justification he needed. That’s pretty much it.
2) No one doubts that differing views have crept into the Church today. But he is being disingenuous when he tries to picture these ‘differing views’ existing in the early Hebrew scholars and the early church.
3) The 'existence of differing views' is a poor hermetic. With that thinking, he should likewise accept evolution, and deny the resurrection.
BTW I have to commend Ken Ham for the following:
(14:50) “The point I’m making is we don’t take man’s secular ideas and try to fit them into the bible, we take what God’s word says and judge man’s ideas against that.”
AMEN!
I’m saving the link to this video: It’s added to my list of “reasons to believe” in Biblical Creationism and a young earth!
Truly more intellectually fulfilling.
Thank-you. Well articulated.
A LOT OF WORDS SAYING NOTHING TO CONFIRM THIS YOUNG EARTH NONSENSE !
You don't believe a word of that & I can *100%* prove that!
@@pup1008 Such sapient acumen renders me sans rejoinder other than "No contendo!"
@@jeffb1106
OK... Thanks for at least admitting that.
Great job Mr. Hamm!
Try getting your heroes name right & then actual research the nonsense he comes up rather than believing it blindly!
@@pup1008 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” c
20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
@@kevinrtres Blah, blah, blah
@@kevinrtres Did nobody tell you that you cannot convince someone with Bible quotes who does not believe in its veracity to begin with?
ugh... I’ve watched numerous debates featuring Ken Ham and other folks from AIG and they have shown themselves utterly inept in defending their perspective. Every single one of them resorts to the same tactics: paint your opponent as mistrusting God’s “plainly written word”, painting scientists as hostile humanists or naturalists, frame anyone with a dissenting opinion as a person of questionable faith or commitment to the authority of Scripture. If they really had anything of substance to offer, why do they keep resorting to attacking other peoples’ faith?
Amen.
There is also a young earth and infinite universe position not represented. Justin Brierley made it sound like the only positions are everything is old or everything is young.
Hamann9631 who would be a leading apologist who takes this position, I’d like to hear more.
I always wondered what was here during the fall and during the preadamite world.
@@sharplikecheddar2 Anyone consistent with the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should take that position. Our leaders spend more time telling people how to be forgiven than details about earth's past.
Here are specifics. The word used in Genesis means to create from existing matter. That is reaffirmed in the teachings of Joseph Smith Junior. We believe God has reconciled Genesis 1 and 2 by telling us that Genesis 1 was "spiritually" and Genesis 2 was "naturally" Moses 3:5. D&C 77:6-7 are clear about the earth having a 7000 year existence. The Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenant encourage us to read and believe The Bible. Bishop Ussher's calculations are approximately right and don't leave room to believe Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution in my opinion.
What young earth position and both scripture and scientific wise infinite universe was disproved
It canbe both.
A seminary professor I had named John Sailhamer wrote I commentary on Gene'sis and also a specific book on this issue entitled, Genesis Unbound. He takes these texts of Scripture very seriously and provides a potent argument that addressed these issues Biblically.
Great points by Ken Ham! Definitely enjoyed listening to him and so thankful for the Answers in Genesis ministry!
You're being *ironic* right?
Blind leading the blind
Light takes a long time to travel but if I creat a beam of light and fix it between point A and point B, then it didnt even take a instant to travel. Its like the chain on a bicycle. It takes time to circulate the sprockets but before its even in motion it is already connected to the peddle and the wheel. The time the chain takes to make a revolution can be calculated but it should have no influence on our understanding of the how long the bicycle has existed. Think of the universe as a mega clock. All the components were arranged in the positions for proper function and the it is plugged in. While every sprocket takes time to complete its revolution, that time has no influence on the age of the clock.
If God created the light between stars and the earth, given their distance, because it is Light and Light has a direct relationship to Time, it will age the Universe. The light is not just a beam, it is a history of the star. Did God create a false history? The universe is very old just like Adam was not an infant.
Biblical Hebrew a small vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago.
I wish Jeff had used science to back up his claims rather than getting caught up in a hermeneutical argument which he was not really equipped (as he said several times) to have.
Jeff couldn't rely on science to support his claims, because the latest science does not provide adequate evidence of deep time. Science does not imagine answers and then look for evidence to support those imagined answers. That's how cults and religious sects operate.
For example, radiometric dating cannot reliably date anything. The most reliable method is Carbon-14, but it is very limited in application. Even so, diamonds allegedly millions of years old still have Carbon14 in them. Mount St Helens put the final nail in the coffin of radiometric dating being used as scientific dating of things. Sedimentary rocks created by Mount St Helens in the early 1980s were dated as 2.3 Million years old. Clearly a problem here.
Looking out into the Universe, the idea any light arrives at Earth after traveling through space for billions of years is laughable. No experiment validates such a wild and irresponsible claim. Red Shift? Please. Why is every galaxy red-shifted as seen from Earth? Does that not put the Milky Way galaxy at the center of the universe? How does this affect time at our advantaged position? Einstein's Relativity equates a few days to billions of years, depending on one's inertial reference point. Therefore, a few days on Earth can be identical to a few Billion years at the edges of the universe (i.e. the event horizon for the Big Bang).
@@danweaver4304 The science you reference is beyond my current ability to understand, so i'm unable to personally interact with your argument, but i'd be interested in seeing how Jeff has responded to similar objections in the past. Do you have any articles which would explain your position in greater detail or interact with any of Jeff's work on this topic?
Bruce Baker - let's look at K40-Ar40 decay as an example (widely used method for dating rocks with no organic material content). K40 is Potassium-40, which makes up 0.012% of any sample of Potassium (K39). The half life is 1.25 Billion years, which means half of the K40 will decay and become Argon-40 (Ar) which is a noble gas, with a stable nucleus , that is, non-radioactive. However, Ar40 produced by radioactive decay of K40 is in an excited state, and must emit a gamma photon to become truly stable. Thus, after 1.25 Billion years, one might expect all K39 would be composed of just 0.006% K40. One might also conjecture the original K40/K ratio at the formation of the Earth must have been about 0.1455%, or slightly less than four half lives 4.5B/1.25B = 3.6 half lives, or about 2^3.6 = 12.126 x 0.012% = 0.1455%. This all assumes the Earth is truly 4.5 Billion years old. Let's set aside the fact that no one knows what the actual abundance of naturally occurring K40 was when the Earth was formed - this is not possible to determine after a period of 4.5 Billion years. Let's also set aside the fact that no one knows if K40 decay rates have always exhibited 1.25 Billion year half-lives over the past 4.5 Billion years. They may have decayed faster or slower as a consequence of higher or lower radiation exposure (Early Earth conditions are thought to have had much higher radiation exposure at the surface due to a lack of atmosphere).
Let's just look at how to measure the age of a rock sample containing 1% Potassium. To keep the math simple, let's make our sample have a mass of 39 grams. That's about one mole (molar mass) of Potassium, but our sample isn't pure (it would ignite/explode in the lab on contact with moisture). The sample is only 1% Potassium. You have about 4x more Potassium in your body than this (150 - 180 grams), but it too is heavily diluted.
Our 39 gram sample should then have about 9 atomic decays per second, on average. This can be easily verified by anyone with a reasonably good grasp of the subject (and a slide rule or calculator). We don't know where in the sample those 9 decays will occur. Some may occur near the surface, and thus, detectable by laboratory instruments capable of counting each neutron disintegration. Others may occur deep inside the sample, and have the decay event particles absorbed before being detected, which would tend to make the sample appear older than it is. This is why many labs crush the samples to be measured, maximizing the surface area of the elements making up the rock, and separating out the Argon gas.
There were many problems with K40-Ar40 dating. The method required splitting up the K and Ar in the sample into two groups, so the quantity of Ar40 could be measured through decay and emission of a 1.46MeV characteristic gamma photon. Without an exact record of the amount of Ar40, the amount of K40 is very difficult to establish. You may or may not know the third largest constituent element in Air is Argon, so Ar40 is a very problematic contaminant in the lab. Air is nearly 1% Ar40.
I should mention: counting a radioactive decay event due to a specific decay type is complicated by many other contaminants in the sample (other radioactive material), in the handling of the sample, and in the laboratory (both room & instruments). Most testing is done in carefully calibrated vacuum chambers.
BTW: 9 dps = disintegrations per second = 9 counts per second = 9 Becquerels (Bq). At this rate, it would take 1.25 Billion years = 3.945e+16 seconds to accumulate a half-life's worth of daughter elements (3.945e+16 x 9 = 3.6e+17. Our sample has 1% K (incl K40), or 0.39 grams = 1% of one mole of K. Each mole of atoms is 6.022e+23. So 1% of that is 6.022e+21. The radioactive bit is 0.012% of that, or 7.23+17 atoms of K40. Half of that (one half-life) would require 3.6e+17 atoms to decay.
The background radiation varies from 0 to 4 Bq. Our generous lab sample in this example would be expected to "measure" 9 Bq, based on current ratios of K40 to K39 (contamination which can't be easily eliminated during radiometric sample measurements). So what is the margin of error in every test? Given the fact that the lab instruments may miss half of the 9 counts expected, the error ought to be posted as +/- 9 Bq. The sample itself may exhibit 4 - 9 Bq. The lab could subtract from 0 - 4 Bq due to background contamination. Thus, results could vary from 0 to 9 Bq. No reasonable lab personnel would consider a sample with zero counts to be "valid", but I hope you can see the error is enormous in this example: readings from 1 to 9 can be correct, or off by 900% (count of 9 when it should have been 1, or vice versa).
Now, what labs typically do is demand to know the source of the sample (what geographic location & level was the sample removed from)? This is done to enable the lab to toss out invalid counts. See the problem? If the sample is dated within the range expected, then it is considered "plausibly correct". Researchers then substitute the word "likely" for "plausible". Sorry, but if I did my Physics or Chemistry research like that, I'd have blown myself up long ago.
Truth is, those who work in the field abandoned K-Ar dating methods quite some time ago. But other methods suffer from other false assumptions. I've picked on one, here, because it was so widely used to "establish" the original ages for geological strata. If all of the original dates are unreliable, then how reliable is the deep time originally hypothesized by Buffon, Lyell, LaMarck, Hutton, Playfair, Werner, Cuvier, Darwin, and others? These early thinkers had no knowledge of radioactivity, let alone the methods used in radiometric dating. These men were credited as being "great scientific minds" of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, when in fact, we can now criticize them as simply more misguided souls who thought they could contribute to scientific achievement by imagining potentially plausible things.
Their ideas were actually ridiculous (as declared by their contemporaries -- real scientists, like Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Liebniz, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Maxwell, Mendel, Gray, Stokes, Kelvin, Planck, Millikan, Compton, Lemaitre, Boyd, Collins, Morris, and Ross, to name a few).
I have the same belief with you, Bro Ken. I don't believed that the earth is a millions years old of age. Thank you for standing up and speaking the Bible truth. Thank God for people like you who are an inspiration for others to boldly speak the Bible truth and not be intimidated, nor swayed to speak up.
Praying for you and the whole family. To God be all glory and honor.
It isn’t millions of years old: it’s BILLIONS of years old. And guess what! You don’t have to believe it. The good thing about science is that it’s true….whether you believe it or not.
It really doesn't matter how the old the earth is. The bible nor science nor anybody knows how old the earth exactly is. We were not here when it was created. The only thing that matters is that it was created by God. You do know that until the late 1700's the calendar had 13 months in it? For thousands of years a 13 month calendar. And thousands of years other various calendars. The 12 month Gregorian calendar was only adopted in the 1790's. Just like how Christians go to church not on the Sabbath (Saturday), but the first day of the week Sunday they can and do quite often get things wrong. Just like you cannot accurately figure out time lines accurately because the "yearly" calendar has changed many times. take care
Keep up the good work Ken! You are deconverting more people than anyone I know!
Lmao
lol
Honestly Ken was a catalyst in my deconversion.
I could actually argue that young earth theory is a giant strawman argument meant to help people lose their faith.
@@interwebslinger
😁👍
The one thing I like about Ken Ham is one of the qualifies I like about myself were stubborn about things we care about like he's not gonna let someone get away with something . One thing I like about Jeff is he seems very genuine, idk but he seems that way
Being stubborn when you're wrong isn't a good quality. I don't know about you... but Ken is definitely wrong.
@@nooneofconsequence1251 Ken is definitely wrong?? Do you know that? How?
@@NoContextRDH because of science... Ken has asserted that the book of Genesis is literally true and he has attempted to prove this by appealing to things like evidence and the scientific method... but he completely fails to understand how those things works due to his willful ignorance and bias. He has admitted to his own bias, and tried to assert real scientists who come to different conclusions are just as biased as he is. He is obviously wrong. Science doesn't work by starting with a conclusion and then working backward to try and cherry pick data you think supports your conclusion. It works by gathering evidence and seeing where the data leads. It works by making hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses to try and disprove them to see if you are wrong. Real scientists do this. Ken does not. I used to actually get his newsletter and CDs and stuff and believe in the story he's pushing... but... as I learned more about science I eventually had to concede that Ken was, definitely, absolutely, wrong.
i love Ken Ham he says calm while defending his point and gives easy to understand evidence. I personally agree completely Ken and believe in a young earth. I don't see why if it wasn't a 24-hour day back then then why do we have 24-hour days now? it also feels like Zweerink takes God's word in some parts like Jesus death but not creation.
I am quite often called a fool for not believing in the god of Israel.
Yet these people also believe that I was very carefully designed !
Perhaps they haven't thought enough about it.
I was disappointed...but in Jeff. He was way too wishywashy. Ken was adamant and Jeff was being a nice guy. A different well versed Christian who believes in science and would be more forceful would be a welcome debate.
I wouldn’t let confidence in belief be a determiner of truth, a person can adamantly claim that we have a fire burning inside of us and that’s why we are alive, but it doesn’t matter if they refuse to back down.. they don’t get any more “right” because of it.
In fact Ken Ham’s adamance is what’s so off-putting to me.
Ken ham doesn’t “believe” in science now?
What do you mean "who believes in science"?
@@Xenosaurian there a lot of Christians who subscribe to a 6000 year old earth. That is not science. Science dictates a 3.8 billion year old earth.
Should have had Francis Collins
We don’t have to necessarily understand scripture but we need to believe it by faith. Otherwise we will always struggle.
I agree
I don't believe in scripture....where is my struggle?
@@ThyBountyHunter - You believe in a falsehood. Your struggle will be when you leave this Earth and are brought before the Holy God to give an account for yourself.
@@rubiks6 You believe in a falsehood."
What falsehood is that? As I never stated what I believe the only thing you can do is assume what I believe.
When you assume you are only making an ASS out of U not ME.
@@ThyBountyHunter - You don't believe God's Word.
I struggle to know how to take Genesis 1-3 and by extension 1-11. Ken Ham makes some very good points. My current position is that Genesis 1-3, possibly 1-11 tells the story of history, not as hostorical narrative but as a representative story of some kind. In other words we read it as writtenso as to understand it's revelatory points. But Ham's challenging implicit point is that, if scientists concluded that the earth / universe was only about 6-10,000 years old, then we would all say Genesis 1-11 is literal - I think that is true. This means Science has made me take another look to see if it can accommodate millions of year. The point Ken Ham fails at making is the use of scholars. He asks, 'do we need scholars to understand the bible?' That's not so simpple a question to answer. Eg, we are all utterly depend on scholars for everything biblical, they are the ones who translate the Bible from Hebrew, in translating it they vary quite a lot. Also we depend on scholars for interpreting the Bible - hence we used to take the analagous approach but now we know much better how to interpret it.
The trouble with biblical scholars is their need to include cultural elements into their scholarly work. There is not a hint of a few billion years when we look outside our window. That comes from a pagan belief system accounting for its religion and it has no place in biblical believers 'scholarly' interpretations. As you say though, they are the ones whose interpretations get passed down and it is clear to me, we must cut away the unbelievers from the raw data interpreted through pagan lenses. Most of them I suspect, including this guy.
@@billhesford6098 the ancients believed the universe was eternal. so how could you say there isn't a hint of a few billion years lol
@@jaaaaysselam3372 I don't really care what the ancients say. Show me this evidence for an old earth. You did not watch the video, did you.
@@billhesford6098 i did watch the video.
you should care what the ancients say, because you're the one who made the claim that you can't find evidence in nature. you should also care what the people in the ancient near east believed because that's the cultural backdrop for which the israelites would have received God's word for. do you read the illiad with an american lense, or with a greek lense?
The evidence is plenty if you look and dont just make up conspiracy level theories to fill in the gaps that no one in academia accepts. You can believe the earth is only 6k years old if you like, and force your model to fit because you don't want to accept observable evidence. no one is stopping you.
@@jaaaaysselam3372 all evidence is interpreted through a lens. I remember when a scientist held up a big bone in front of a picture of a dinosaur. He asked how old was the bone? Most there assumed at least 64 million years because the fact was well known. A huge comet wiped out the dino's 64 million years ago. He then told us he bought the bone at the local butcher's shop.
Scientists have their own lens reinforced by whatever learning institutions handed out the phd's. A model constructed, repeat after me to get your phd.
Experts contradict each other as well as those scientists of the past. Do these experts have it right, finally? Tomorrow's experts will no doubt call out error after error. But you think these never-ending changing ideas have finally been proven? Just gullible is all I can say.
Conspiracy theorist is little more than a modern colloquial put down to shut people up who are often rightly suspicious of the authoritarian model being pushed.
Even if one accepts the big bang theory, the assumption about the time it takes light to travel becomes relative does it not? If some mass of matter exploded beginning the expanse and the expansion of the universe, would not the light have emanated from the mass and therefore travel away from it at whatever speed the parts of the mass were moving. No one can know how fast that mass would have been travelling. Further, the relationship of the light to other pieces of the exploded mass would be dramatically different in every case, so light time travel would be impossible to estimate.
Big bang is a bad name...nothing exploded...it was an expansion of space itself
When I saw this I was like "No Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay." Excited to see this debate.
Ham and eggs, Ham and eggs...
Paulagia fan? I am too.
Same here!
@@pup1008 Paulagia is a Meme god.
Flip 'em, flop 'em, flip 'em, flop 'em: Haaaam and Aiiiiigs!
I am a Christian that’s believed in a old earth.
Then you’re not a Christian
Richard Poole you’re not GOD!! You have no right to judge me!! Judge not lest ye be judged! Mathew 7. Get thee behind me satan! Mathew 16 verse 23!!
Paul Morgan well done 👍 real intelligent argument from a atheist. I thought you atheists are smart 🤔🤔😜😜
Paul Morgan you’re truth not mine.
Paul Morgan that’s opinion not facts. Sorry to burst your bubble. The problem with a atheist is no matter what scientific evidence I show you for the existence of God. You’re mind is already made up. You could say that about me. But here’s where you’re wrong. Even with all the knowledge you have, you can’t say you know everything. No one can!! So to say that you absolutely know there is no God is absurd! You don’t know that for sure! You can’t possibly prove without a shadow of doubt that God doesn’t exist. Even Agnostics understand that. Agnostics will usually say something like they don’t see evidence for God but it’s still possible. Also before you say that it’s not possible for me to know if God exists because I don’t know everything. Maybe you should consider that people have personal experiences that aren’t proven through science. For example if Jesus makes a personal trip to a person. That person can’t prove that through science. Many people have had personal experiences like these and through prayers. And make sure to be an adult instead of insulting by saying something stupid like we’re on drugs. We’re not all on drugs. Maybe if you open your mind instead of looking to science for everything you might just have a experience that you can’t explain. I happen to very much enjoy science and understand it well. Just because I believe in God doesn’t mean that I’m ignorant. Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t mean you always will think like that. You can’t possibly know your future regardless of wether you think so or not. Remember the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would do unto them. That’s not a religious rule. That’s a universal rule. It might be of interest for you to do this. Have a intelligent conversation instead of insulting!
If God is all powerful, He is not bound by natural processes, He can change growth rates of plants, cancel gravity's pull, etc. He is not bound by the processes that He created. I agree with Ken, let's believe God's word first, not man's word first.
I enjoyed the debate but am surprised the issue of genre wasn't mentioned.
Me too. It seems such a strong argument for why we can treat Gen1-11 as not literal but the resurrection as literal
Actually, a research initiative launched years ago found that Genesis 1:1-2:3, by looking at the finite Hebrew verbs, that the passage was 99.99% likely to be historical. Why would you think it isn't literal? @@ProfYaffle
@heidingai5378 because it obviously isn't. Why should it be?
"A research initiative..." what about all the research that shows it isn't literal. Do you just ignore that?
Literalists make Christians look stupid and ignorant
God bless Ken Ham
Or, God teach Ken Ham. He often speaks about subjects he knows nothing about (or pretends to know nothing about, since he's been corrected countless times but keeps repeating the same false info..)
I'd like to see some honesty and integrity from him, but, being a young Earth creationist, that isn't likely to happen.
He needs that blessing since he is most definitely going to hell.
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 ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Keep giving Ken a platform. The more he talks the more reasonable people walk away.
That’s the idea. Fundamentalists put barriers for people to come to Christ.
@@Solideogloria00 Those who hold to the fundamentals of Christianity put up no barriers to people coming to Christ. The barriers are already there.
No one becomes a Christian of their own free will, indeed, everyone is the enemy of God by nature.
The Bible tells us that the Father has to draw people to the Son before they will become Christians, that those who do become Christians were chosen before the foundation of the Earth & are the gift of the Father to the Son.
What? Are you fearful of someone who takes the word of God for what it really says? Did Moses really mean it when he literally says, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth." (Ex 20:11)? Do you think the Israelites hearing that sermon would have believed Moses to be telling the truth or veiling an understanding that really meant billions of years. Was he lying to the Israelites knowingly? Was he just not enlightened enough for God to explain to him as he was getting revelation that "Really, it is long periods of time and even though I have painted a picture of a perfect earth for you, Moses, there was death and sickness and disease in animals and hurricanes and floods and mayhem before I made Adam and Eve. And all those things are "...very good..." as I declared them. Until old earth creationists come up with a theological position that can answer that problem, they make the God of the Bible the creator of those evils. Those are the clear implications. Rightly can the atheist then say to Christians, "Your God is the source of evil and I want nothing to do with that God." This issue is more important than you think. Already Mr Zweerink has been convinced to call the scripture untrue when it talks about the whole earth covered even to the tops of the highest hills. That's compromise and one who is driven by his modern scientific understanding, not the scripture.
@@martinploughboy988💯
@@RealRadNek💯
Zweerink doesn't debate, he merely plays a shell game here., laying down the "Golly gee, I'm not a Hebrew scholar" card whenever confronted with issues he cannot defend, which suddenly becomes irrelevant when he makes other bold doctrinal opinions. He also is not being honest when he states that the Old Earth point of view has been debated since ancient times. The vast majority of Christian theological opinion has always been Young Earth (Calvin and Augustine both held young earth points of view, btw). The old earth opinion did not gain any steam until it became a popular theory in academic circles. Lastly, are we supposed to just ignore the elephant in the room that were Zweerink to be public with Young Earth creationism, his job as an astrophysicist would be ended?
He plays ads for his own show on his show. What?
Yeah, that's how he funds it and you get to watch it for free.
money money money
We need more people like Ken who love and respect God
And are pushing more & more Christians to agnosticism & atheism through their arcane batshittery! 👍
I agree we need more people who love God, but Ken causes many to leave the church because of his anti scientific idea.
Ken worships a book, not god.
Luckily we are going in an opposite direction because we are finally beginning to see through the bs
@@subswithnovideos-oz4zo wdym the bs?
Imagining Justin’s thought life when he realised Zweering was only going to provide variations of one answer to every question in the discussion 😬😬😬
Because he doesn't have any other answer...
I like how you say this about Jeff but ken is a one trick pony in every debate. “I’m a biblical creationist”, “bdb lexicon”, “cancer in bones”, “big bang = naturalism”. He used the same points against hugh ross, Walter Kaiser, here with Jeff, and on tbn. So who’s really the one trick pony here? I think the guy who makes genesis 1-11 a salvation issue but what do I know?🤷🏻
Ham would at least offer distinct answers to the various objections raised against him, though. I don’t share his view of Genesis 1-11. But I think Zweering could have offered a lot more than he did, unfortunately.
Yea, the evolutionist just kept saying he knows experts and lots of so-called "Christians" who do not believe in the truth of six literal days for creation. To that I say, so what.
Young Earthers ALWAYS argue from the "plain interpretation of Scripture". Seemingly oblivious that elsewhere in Genesis the same word for day (yom) is used to mean an age. Both interpretations of old vs young are LITERAL, and both are "plain interpretations of Scripture". IMO both are valid, but because one cannot be ruled out (by Scripture alone) we simply cannot use the Bible to accurately date the age of the Earth. We will find that answer in the Book of Nature. Being dogmatic on this topic is foolish I think.