I love this ministry! Thank you for bringing the truth to TH-cam! I pray that many will listen and realize how great and awesome our God is and that Jesus died for our sins.
@@cardcounter21 Supposedly an omnipotent creator god can do anything-- which is very convenient for those making claims about what he's done and how he did it.
@@cardcounter21And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Revelation 19:6
The way this presentation ended made me strangely emotional. Some parts of this speech was heartbreaking to listen to, especially the impact that humanistic worldviews that are so quick to change is taken as ultimate authority when so much “evidence” keeps getting revised over time and God’s true word is left at the curb. An eye opening presentation, thank you very much. God bless you AiG Ministries. Thank you for all that you do!
Thank you Answers in Genesis. Your ministry is one of the main reasons my faith has grown and been restored. You are doing the work of God. Please never stop. Thank you Lord for Answers in Genesis!
Reading all these comments and listening to Ken is mind bogling. Just as it is mind bogling that others say there is no God. Why should it matter how old the earth is, or on what date God created Adam? To me at least, what matters is that God created all there is, that His Son Jesus paid for my sins, making it possible for me to to gain everlasting life through Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit is with me, every moment of my life to remind me of these facts. There are things we humans are NOT suppose to know, and in gaining that forbidden knowledge we will suffer the penalty as Adam and Eve did.
When I look up into the night sky, it makes me wonder. We are built as creators, and it feels good to create. Our creations fall short of the glory of God's, but it's wonderful to create and figure stuff out and see the results of our creations. Adam and Eve didn't bring sin into the world through just any knowledge; it was the knowledge of good and evil. Ultimately, the difference was being accountable to one's actions, and to this day we are still suffering from this. Using science to battle fake sciences that try to draw children and adults away from the Lord seems like an adequate use of our time. We can't all be as empathetic as those who can minister directly; some of us have analytical minds that the Spirit can use in other ways to bring people to Christ.
What is the point in having lots of knowledge when every bit of it is wrong. So many different fields of science show that the earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old
@@truthgiver8286 "What is the point in having lots of knowledge when every bit of it is wrong" It does not need a POINT. Many things are desired just because you desire them. A good science fiction story has a completely fictitious world, but if the world is *consistent* within itself, you can have a great story and the moral of the story will be the point. This is certainly true of parables, fables and metaphors. The Earth is ancient by scientific means; but if you don't care about "science" and your life is that of a blue collar worker and your entire world is about 50 miles across, what difference does it make how old is the earth? It *can* make a difference with regard to people's willingness to participate in social experiments, conservation programs for instance. If God created fossil fuel, he can simply create more! And while that's true, it appears to have required a few hundred million years to accomplish it. So wait around for the next batch. But I think there isn't going to be a next batch.
@All About Britain currious, what scientific evidence do you have that the universe is billions of years old? What evidence do you have that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? I will tell you the answer, NONE! I have researched this topic at nauseum and was once a believer that Genisus was an allegory for creation; the more I researched, the more I learned that blind faith was required to believe in the science of creation than to believe in God. Please dont take my word; feel free to research it yourself. Matter was created from nothing; nothing filled the universe, and nothing created the earth, from nothing organic life came to be! You need to have more faith to believe in this than to read and believe in the word of God.
No, the "appeal to authority" fallacy is what people give who have no evidence. E.g. There's "consensus" that we evolved from a primordial soup! Do I have any evidence of this? Transitional fossils, perhaps? Well, no. But, it's agreed upon by several people with degrees!
Just had a 'Revelation' of my own Ken as I was listening and watching this lecture. It happened just after you produced the horrible textbook and read the first statement! Earlier you explained how cleverly God had given us the age of the earth. 'The Revalation = The years of the earth's longevity stated clearly in the Bible, STARTED with Adam, but ENDED with JESUS! GOD KNEW THE FUTURE so He knew that Christianity would grow as it has: He knew that we Christians would begin Our Own recording of time from the date of Christ's birth, which then would last until the end of the era, when Jesus returns! ' PROOF OF GOD in my eyes! ONLY GOD KNEW THAT TIME WOULD BE SO RELEVANT TOWARD THE END OF THE AGE, so in HIS OWN inimicable way, through His words in the Bible, HE provided irrevocable proofs of earth's timeline from the beginning of creation. Furthermore, He's still doing it! I was in BC Canada 500 miles north, when Mount St Helen's erupted. Upstairs, walking along the carpeted floor in the main hall of my home, I suddenly felt light tremors under my bare feet! As the house was built on solid rock, I didn't know what to make of this, but clearly remember feeling anxious at the time. It was later that I heard the news of the eruption. The information that has been amassed in the years following that eruption has provided so much evidence, in ALL spheres of science, geology, Biology etc., to show that Biblical truth is to be absolutely trusted against anything man can put forward. God knew what would be needed and provided in a timely fashion AND also with minimal loss of life! I do like the way God works. Thank you Ken and your team, for following God's guidance, our own, modern day Noah! I'll continue with the lecture now.
@@kirkkirkland7244 You really should research a little Ron Wyatt is a well known charlatan that all the churches have distanced themselves from he has claimed to have found at least 100 artifacts from biblical times including Noah's Ark which was rock formation and no fossilised wood at all the ark of the covenant which he has shown to no one. Try reading his wiki page. You have to wonder how an amateur archaeologist finds just about everything under the sun yet the dozens of professionals struggle
@@truthgiver8286 he doesn't say there are no ant queens he says they have no chief or ruler. And a ant queen does not control or tell or rule over the other ants and what they do. so not a chief or ruler. the ants literally do their work without instruction. it may be more accurate to call the queen ant the baby making factory that needs to be kept care of for the health of the colony.
In Hebrew we learn that words get their meaning from their first usage (amongst other ways), often by the first time a situation arises they create a word to resemble it, and so with the naming of newborns like Isaac and Ishmael coming from the situation of their birth, both names meaning types of laughter/jokes. And yet in Genesis 1, the word DAY is first used in reference to "and God called the Light Day" and in that same verse "and the evening and the morning were the first day". But that's also where we get the first use of the word "call". So to call something or as it is otherwise translated elsewhere to cry, read or proclaim something, is to make one equal to another, and so the end of the verse and the start of the verse, if you take it deep enough, because "and the evening and the morning were the first Light", because he called the light day. So everywhere you see the word day, it is the name for the light. But if you translate "he called" as the one word it is, well, "he" is not capitalised, so perhaps it was "man" that named light. "God called the light day and he called the darkness Night", and they don't have punctuation so it could also be "God called the light day; and he called the darkness Night" as in, where God sees light, man sees darkness. As the word "he called" is nowadays also translated as "biblical scholar" or "gourd" or "pumpkin" or "squash", but most commonly "read". So: "and God read the light day". And if you remove the "call" from the full word meaning "and he called" you just get "and". "God and read the light day". There's no capitals in Hebrew, so it may not be about naming the light as day, but it's also about 'reading the day of the light.' When you learn Hebrew from Hebrew readers, you learn that it is both figurative and literal, and there's a lot more meaning in the words than in what we read in english. So if he called the darkness night, and then in the same verse it says "the evening and the morning were the first day". Why is it not "the morning and the evening" as we know of it today? Because it is figurative and symbolic. If you order things from taking the darkness of life into account and dealing with it before looking at the light, then that itself is a light in and of itself. And so if it was also good. And if each "day" or "light" of creation is good, then "the light is good", so "seeing the darkness before the light" is good. Which is the order of creation, when darkness existed before God created light. But God still created darkness, it's just that darkness did not exist until when? Until God created the Earth, which was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. But darkness also means "secrecy" and face has no "the" and like that it is only and never otherwise translated as "penny", and the word "upon" is hyphenated with "penny", and also means "about". And the word "formless" means "wonder" but if you take away the last inflection of the last letter it becomes "confused", take the letter away and it becomes "tea". Each word in Hebrew is built out of other words, and each letter has a name which is itself a word. For the word "formless" it's first letter is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet and the last letter of the hebrew word "truth", which is made of the first, middle and last letters of Hebrew, it is the number 400, and when you spell it's name out with other letters it is the word meaning "theo" or "note", and the second letter is the first letter in the word for GOD (Elohim), when it is at the beginning of a word it can either mean "the" or the beginning of a sentence to signify asking a question, or it can also mean "who", and as a word it means "here is" or "to be disturbed", and is pronounced "hey", it is used twice in the name of GOD (YHWH) where the first letter means "hand" and the other letter means "and", so "hand of god and god", and that last letter of "formless" is that same letter meaning "and". So "formless" becomes "note of God and", and to spell the last letter meaning "and" you just write two of itself "and and" and means "hook" or "hasp" or "wow". "Note of God and be hooked", or "note the wow". The idea of studying Hebrew and the word of god, is not about who wrote what or what is written, but what can be written with it and what it can mean and what you can interpret from it. When you learn Hebrew from Hebrews it's always about the connections between all the possibilities and what lines up. Not about taking a hard line towards one single way. For everything there is a season. But that being said, 6 days, is the way.
The Bible is inspired by God, your limitations on the language are incorrect. The law of first use is not without deviation. The word definitions are indicative of how many different ways a single word is spelled. There are over 8 different ways to spell "darkness", and each has a different meaning. The first time it shows up it is unique, only appearing a second time in Jeremiah. Don't forget that God is in control of his revelation to man, not some scholars.
Why is the age of the earth so conflicting? Creation took place in eternity, before the fall, where events happen at a much quickened pace, thus the age of the earth will seem much older from the perspective of our laws of physics in time/space, compared to that of eternity.. It is like comparing apples to oranges! Why does this simple explanation elude just about everyone? The answer to this question is so simple and everyone makes the answer so complicated!
I don’t have enough faith to believe in Darwinian Evolution. The existence of the DNA code is enough to show that someone WROTE that information, as it is a recognised language, having an alphabet, grammar, and syntax, all of which cannot possibly exist by chance. You supposed faults in the design of humans is based on thin air, as any study of cellular processes will show complexity that still isn’t totally comprehended by biologists. To believe that this complexity could arrive by chance is like believing a fairytale.
Why can't young earthers admit that things "appear" to be very aged but God could cause that through a miracle. Old earth creationist would probably go hmmm, that's possible I guess. And they could move on happily together. Most young earthers can't be content with that like an old earth creationist and I think it's odd that they'd rather have friction than say God could do that if he wanted.
What an excellent defense of the 6 days of creation & 1 day of rest. I wasn’t as informed as this man to defend it, but I was aware of the significance for why he chose 7 days, that ties into everything as the reason, but it always amazes me that anyone who believes that God is omnipresent,omniscient, all powerful, who created time and is outside of time, would have been hamstrung by time that he created, as if he needed any time. Or that he had problem communicating what he wanted us to know for how long it took, so it must’ve been misinterpreted in translation, or he was mistaken, because we know that he couldn’t have created everything that fast. It’s absolutely absurd, especially coming from people who should know better.
So, if god is omniscient, how come he did not anticipate that his creation would end up so badly? Why give Adam and Eve a test of obedience when he knew they would fail it? So much nonsense in one book.
@@tcrown3333 He knew what they’d do before he ever created Adam & Eve, but I’m not going to give you an entire Biblical history lesson to answer your question, because you were so convinced that it was all a bunch of malarkey, that you felt no need to research scripture to find out what it did say, it was just a waste of time and all lies anyway. I’d hate to have someone like you to be the judge on whether I committed a crime worthy of death or not, because you already made up your mind, that didn’t require researching any evidence. You might read read Genesis 3, 1 thru 24, to at least have some idea what’s going on. I will give a little of the plot away to say that he already had the antidote prepared before the disease ever got started.
The only thing that confuses me when people say sin is what brought death is Gen 3:22-23. The bible says the tree of life is what would have allowed Adam and Eve to live forever. Which leads me to think if they wouldn't have eaten of it, even if they didn't sin, they would still have died. Evil already existed, because of Satan decision. It wasn't mankind's sin, but it was still sin. The bible says the Tree of life will be in the New Jerusalem in Rev 22. Which makes me think that is what will allow us to live forever again. Otherwise what is the point of having it in the garden and also in the new Jerusalem. This is where my brain goes when I read this. Maybe it is to technical, or a wrong interpretation on my part, but everytime I read it I question why preachers only preach that sin is what caused death. Not the fact that being separated from the tree is what caused death. I would like to appreciate a loving response to this. Lol whether agreeing or disagreeing. This one point always makes me think about things a little harder. To me it seems like sin didn't really cause death, but it led to a consequence of seperation from the source of life. Death could have still existed though. If a decision was made not to eat. Am I thinking to hard about this?
The way I understand Gen 1:1 is that God created Earth when he created space. It just says it was "in the begining". And then it says it was empty and desorderly and the Spirit of God moved about on the abyss. Then it proceeds to explain the 6-day creation. Earth could be a zillion years old, we dont know because God didn't say, He just said "in the begining". But the organization, the inside creation, and the functionality of Earth was created in six days, according to scripture.
Very well put. That is how I see it as well. But definitely not a zillion years 😊. Science very recently “will not go into detail” puts it around 13.8 billion for the universe. But I really see this as a non issue. Our faith does not hinge on this
@@dayair1 Thanks 😊Well, I say a zillion as a stretch, off course, but it might as well could be, as God is eternal and time is not a constrain to Him, nor he mentions time when he made space and Earth. Yes, faith doesn't need evidence. On the contrary, sometimes evidence is a stumbling block to faith!
@@annuitcptis3032 I think young earth creationism is a stumbling block for scientists, but I now believe in old earth creationism and that would explain 65-million-year-old dino bones. It wasn't until the fall of man that death was introduced. Mankind was created 2nd after the animals were created in the beginning of day 6. When Adam and eve joined the fallen world there were other people living on the earth which explains how Cain found a wife in a different land. They used to think that we came from incest which poses another stumbling block for many. 6,000 years I believe is the bible timeline after the fall not the age of the earth.
The sun was created after vegetation on the earth . How did the vegetation survive millions of years with out the sun's light? God does things contrary to the wisdom of man. To expose the vain philosophy of man which is contrary to the so called wisdom of man !
This is constructive criticism from a Christian and I really don't know the answers to these questions, but they are concerning: 1.) In Genesis 1:1, all of the matter in existence was created before the advent of light itself, and the division of day from night. Plainly Scripture then is saying that the first day was longer than 24 hours because a full day and full night follow after the initial creation of everything. 2.) Also, in Genesis 2:4, the Scripture refers to the singular day ( ἡμέρᾳ) in which the earth was made. This is conveniently edited out of the NIV, but is there in the interlinear text. Here the rationalizing Protestant translators who want the Bible narrative to support their pet theology save us from wondering whether Scripture is commanding us to believe that the Creation days were exactly 24 hours long. Which is literally true: Genesis 1 or Genesis 2; since one says say six days and the other one day? In my opinion, the only way to harmonize both statements is to interpret the word "day" to mean something like "back in the day", rather than like, "Tuesday." It is facially and literally self-contradictory otherwise and we can't have that - and the act of removing the offending text from the translation is not a legitimate solution. 3.) In Genesis 1:28 God instructs man and woman (not named Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and multiply and spread over the earth before then calling all good and resting. Yet in Genesis 2, Adam and Eve do not have children until after the Fall and being cast from Eden. So were man and woman disobeying God by not reproducing during the sixth day, in which case how could God have said it was good? Or were Adam and Eve not the man and woman referred to? 4.) In Genesis 1:26 the interlinear text uses the word "ποιήσωμεν" for the verb "create, make" man and woman. In Genesis 2:7 the Greek word is "ἔπλασεν," or "shape, form" Adam. These are clearly distinct in their meaning, where the first refers to the act of creation of something that previously had no existence, and the second to working on something that exists already. What mystery is being concealed here? The standard Orthodox Christian answer is to read the Holy Fathers and to believe as they did. I tried this, but the mystery only got deeper. The patristic authority would be St. Basil's The Hexameron (The Six Days). That sounds like it would have an answer but in fact it only covers the first five days because St. Basil died before.completing the book. Making this even more mysterious was the story that he has a vision from God in which he was told aforehand that he would not reveal the mystery of the sixth day before he died. So what I am saying to you is that there are great mysteries still to be fathomed in the Creation of both the world and Man, and as tempting as it is to want to have a pat answer for the sake of defending the faith, one must sometimes allow the mystery to be.
You said it yourself Ken. "It was good!" Then " it was not good." Well it wouldn't be very good if it went from good to not good at the very time he was finishing. It was probably good for some time. An undefined amount of time. Then Adam was put in a garden 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Don't lump me with them. Millions of years is preposterous. But I don't cut out the change in Gods attitude toward his creation like it took no time at all . Eve was confronted on the firs day after her creation. That dosent sound good. You give God no time at all to enjoy the good he created, that dosen't sound good. I think you're off as well. By some undefined, realistic amount of time. I enjoy your work greatly. You've been blessed. Keep it up.
I would enjoy a compelling refutation of the argument that the LXX gives the correct ages between Shem and Terah, because the work done by Nathan Hoffman and Doug Woodward on this topic is extremely persuasive. Why is the Masoretic text deemed by AiG to be more likely correct?
Rather than looking for compelling refutation of things, maybe look for compelling confirmation of things. There is a raft of evidence to demonstrate the age of the earth being significantly older than 10,000 yrs, With the Universe being a lot older than that. If YEC can get credible evidence to support their claims, then they would be taken a little more seriously. I doubt this will happen though.
There is just ONE problem with this, and I don't know the answer, but there is reliable information that the original scriptures indicated from the chrono-genealogies in Gen 5&11 that there are an additional 1500 years which the Jews removed from the scriptures. This probably happened at the time of the council of Jamnia under Rabbi Akiba. The Masoretic text, which consists in the Aleppo and Leningrad codexes, dates from around AD 1000, and therefore contains the shortened timeline along with some other corruptions. How do we know this? The Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Josephus and other ancient witnesses such as Demetrius and Eupolimus all refer to the additional years in the timeline. Note that the Septuagint was completed with all of the Tanach included by 200 BC at the latest and is therefore from older source documents than the Masoretic text. This makes it more reliable in many respects, despite not being in the original language. This corruption by the Jews was done because the Jewish tradition expected that Moshiach would come between 5000&6000 AM (anni mondi - year of the world, from creation). The extra years place Jesus at around 5500 AM. This is why the early church expected the return around AD 500 to 1000. This would now place us around 7500 AM! There has to be an explanation, but I just cannot figure it out. Shalom.
@@seanA416 the Bible does not say either way! And it wasn’t intended to. It’s crazy. It’s not a science book. And the idea that “historical science” is used here is laughable.
I get your point Ken and commend you for your argument! ! Given this point, do you observe the Sabbath day in honour of GOD having made everything in 6 days and rested and sanctified the 7th day ? And as the 4th commandment tells us to do ?
Dear @Eleazar, You may decide to observe the Sabbath in the 7th day if you wish, and it is good to have a day of rest, (I take at least two days of rest per week). Some Christians do not observe the Sabbath and that too is OK. We have to remember the Decalogue is part of the Mosaic Covenant given to the Israelites as a sign of the covenant Yahweh made with them in the wilderness (see Exodus 31). Christians are not under the Mosiac Covenant and the Mosiac Law. That covenant has been "brought to an end" and we are now under the "ministry of the Spirit" (2 Cor 3) Those who to demand that gentiles act like the Jews following the Mosiac law are what the Scriptures call "judaizers" (Gal. 2:14). At the council of Jerusalem, as described in Act 15, the apostles met to determine what parts of the Mosaic law should gentiles be obligated to obey. They never mentioned that gentile converts to Christianity must observe the Sabbath. If observing the Sabbath was so important to new covenant Christians, then why is it not mentioned that gentile converts should observe the Sabbath. That is probably why there is no instructions or commands in the New Covenant Scriptures telling us we should observe the Sabbath or how to observe the Sabbath, and probably why there are no examples of New Covenant Christians observing the Sabbath. If you choose to observe the Sabbath, you may; .. and if you choose not to observe the Sabbath, you may. Be Well, DZ
Read what the new testament has to say. We are under the new testament or covenant, not the old. Romans 14:5-6 [5]One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. [6]He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Colossians 2:16-17 [16]Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: [17]Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
What about Exodus 31:16-17? For the jews not the gentiles. The Mosaic covenant is everlasting. Anyone who says otherwise is going against Torah. The gentiles aren't obligated but Jews still are.
Dear@@cmdb582 Thanks for the comment ! Let's look more closely at your claims. I gather that you claiming to be a Jew, under the Mosaic Law, and that is why you claim that you must keep the Sabbath. I also understand that you are saying that gentile Christians are not obligated to keep the Mosaic Law. I do have a few questions that needs clarification. 1. Are you a Christian Jew, believing that Jesus is the messiah and provided final atonement for our sins on the Cross ? 2. Do you consider the New Testament Documents to be God-breathed Scripture ? Be Well, DZ
Since Sun does not exist before creation, I rather believe a Milky Way rotation, 1 rotation = 250 Million Years. That time includes collecting pre-earth debris from somewhere else (Earth core is believed to be Fe-Ni, a dead star remnant, end of burning cycle H, He, Li, C-N-O cycle), so earth is older than our Sun ! Astrophysicist believed that heavy element on earth (heavier than Fe-Ni) were a debris of Supernovae explosions, the r-process in Universe.
@@abrahambaktiar2548 Your statement didn't make sense but it sounds like your saying it took a long time for gases of hydrogen3 and helium to cool and bind together to create stars which is the light. The bible described ALL of creation within 21 verses and when you peel apart the Hebrew, it's astounding how much is within those 21 verses.
@@d.s.8733 beresheet bara Elohim et Hasyamayim et Haaretz (note: Hasyamayim= Universe(s)). Scrutinizing James Webb Telescope findings and other Telescope data, it is recently concluded that other Universe(s) was (were) already exist before the Big-Bang. At the moment, Big-Bang is believed as a start of our Universe (up to redshift ~ 20) 13.8 Billion years ago. Latest space telescope JWST find multiple Universes !
I do believe in God’s word, and really like your videos… you follow the Bible and have helped me in dispelling a lot of ‘fairytales’ from my childhood/Sunday school days. HOWEVER, would you please never say ‘second coming’ again as it is not in the Bible… Jesus says, …when I return…
My faith and belief took a major leap when I came to the place where I could believe the Bible 100% As my children were growing up I mainly tried to teach them that it was a book that could truly believe, no matter what anybody says or what comes along to try and disprove it. I believe you said at one point that the virgin birth was not important for salvation and I have to disagree with you. The Messiah, the Savior could not have a father of the descendants of Adam or else he would have inherited his sin nature. Virgin birth - fathered by the Holy Spirit of God was immensely important.
I had the same epiphany as you! The Bible losses its strength when we explain the book of Genesis to be an allegory for creation! Nowhere does the book speak in riddles. The RCC made a colossal mistake in adapting God's Word to fit Science. Science has now evolved to the point where it is pointing to intelligent design, not random spontaneous creation from nothing into something! God works in such miraculous ways! RCC has damaged its credibility as a religious organization, while the Bible has strengthened my faith in God and his word!
@Eric Scaillet are you referring to the blind faith required to believe the big bang occurred spontaneously from nothing to form the universe? Or the blind faith needed to believe organic life was spontaneously created from matter? Not sure if your statement was sarcastic or not.
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 there is no area or field of science that has ever demonstrated or claimed the Big Bang 'created' the universe from absolutely nothing, or that spontaneous generation of life is actually a thing. Sheesh, the Big Bang model doesn't even describe the very 'beginning' of the observable universe..Pasteur falsified spontaneous generation quite a long time ago. None of the abiogenesis hypotheses involve spontaneous generation. If you need to strawman these subjects, that means there's a problem with your own position(s) concerning this stuff.
Here's my issue from a hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) stand point. Six days is one thing. The Bible clearly says "first day", "second day", etc. However, nowhere does the Bible clearly state the age of the earth. People got that by adding up the ages in the early Genesis genealogies. However, I don't believe the /purpose/ of the genealogies was to give us the age of the earth. After all, if God really wanted us to know the age of the earth, He could have put "and the world was X years old when Y happened". So should we really be using biblical texts to answer a question that God wasn't addressing? What if God didn't give us enough information to know the age of the earth because us knowing the age of the earth wasn't one of His priorities? WE care about the age of the earth in modern times because of evolution. But that wasn't a concern when the Bible was written. I don't think God was thinking "I'd better be sure the earth is young, because thousands of years later, mankind will come up with a theory of evolution which excludes Me, and the only way Christians can defend Me is if there's not enough time for evolution to happen". Isn't it adding to Scripture to assume that it must be answering our modern questions? What if instead, we read it to find out the questions that God is actually answering, and we made those questions and answers our priorities as Christians?
Yepp, I was thinking how star trek used to have star dates. he created light and darkness on day 1 his days and nights could be like a macrocosm, and we are the microcosm ?? A thousand years is like a day or 65 million years, it makes no difference to God.
@@JamesBrown-fd1nv "Lucifer CAUSED darkness when he fell from grace." Darkness has no cause. LIGHT has a cause; dark is just a word for the absence of light. Perhaps you go to Home Depot and purchase a "flashdark"? No? Dark is not created, it is not projected from the lens of a flashdark. How can Lucifer "fall from grace"? Perhaps God made a mistake in creating Lucifer? The mold was defective? Perhaps the Mormons are correct, the arrogance or evil of Lucifer (and anyone else) is eternal and immortal, not created by God but always existed and will always exist. Good cannot be destroyed, neither can evil; but humans are free to choose which one to be.
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR.” (Romans 3:4) “That by two immutable things, in which it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE” (Hebrews 6:18) “Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH.” (John 17:17)
Debunk the word of God ? Your human he’s God repent and turn to Jesus Christ for faith in what is not seen. He can change your thoughts on trying to debunk the Bible. He rose from the dead and he loves you and wants you to be in his kingdom.
@@GLORYFORCHRIST I have no problem with Jesus. Only with some of the gospels forged to fit a Jewish narrative, some of Paul's and the whole nonsenses of the OT. Can you prove the bible is the word of a god?
@@eprd313A building is proof of a builder. A painting is proof of a painter. Creation is proof of a Creator. The Bible is the inspired Word of the Creator God. The Israelites brought Jesus into the world. His cousin, John, saw Him and said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Why did he say that? Because when the Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt they were instructed by God to put a Lamb's blood on the door post of their homes, and the blood saved them from the death angel. It passed over them. PASSOVER. WHEN JESUS'S COUSIN JOHN SAW HIM AND SAID BEHOLD, THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD WAS THE BEGINNING OF JESUS'S MINISTRY ON EARTH. HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING; HE WAS GOD. HE WAS GOD INCARNATE. JESUS CAME TO SAVE US. THE NEW TESTAMENT TELLS US HOW HE DID IT.
@@margiecarol2944 ok, first, if it was that simple, philosophers and theologians from all around the world would have already stopped questioning such basic fallacious argument. So drop the Dunning Kruger first. Your conjecture fails, because you are assuming that we're living in a creation and therefore it needs a creator. Your reasoning is completely circular, and you are also making a false equivalence, because we know paintings are made by paintings. We *see* painters paint. We know of no other mechanism for a painting to occur. But we do know there are physical and chemical processes that can totally explain the formation of life and the universe. But if you still want to believe in a creator, then you must at least conclude that it's a mediocre creator who made an imperfect world. I have to repeat. There's no evidence that this flawed world was created at all. None. Not knowing how something happened doesn't mean that your arbitrary guess about how it happened is true. Projecting your limited knowledge onto the functioning of the universe isn't an argument either. Also, if you indulge the hideous narrative of the murder of innocent kids by yaweh, I must begin to question your discernment and ethics. Jesus was a nice guy apparently. The god of the old testament is a narcissistic bloodthirsty temperamental imperfect creator.
The Lord our God made a covenant with the darkness that it can not remain when we pray that our flight will not take place in winter or on the sabbath.
@@tcrown3333 It's very prideful for the creator of all things such as the Heavens and the Earth to step down from His majesty for 30+ years being Worshipped on a Heavnly throne by All Angels to go into human form not as a king but a Peasant carpenter most of the time homeless and living a perfect sinless life that we all wish we could obtain, whilst being spit on and ridiculed than dying the worst imaginable death possible and being humiliated all because He loves you and sacrficied Himself for you. very very prideful. LOL hope my sarcasm didn't go over your head.
@@Grimblee- No, I just about managed to get it. 😉 Well, Dizzy, it depends on if you live in a reality that recognises the scriptures as fact or, as I do, seeing them as Bronze Age man's first stab at a philosophy in order to make sense of his environment. This, included the heavens (sky) and the question of the origins of everything.
@@tcrown3333 You believe everything came from nothing and complex information came into existence without intelligence and you mock those that believe in a creator. In this realm, matter cannot be created nor destroyed, information ALWAYS originates from intelligence, and the only exception to this is the magical big bang and father time being a genetic engineer.
The Bible is clear. You learn every time you read. You either believe fully or you do not believe any of it, no grey zone. Taking the Bible out of context, is a big issue by those trying to make their point, not the Bibles. I fully believe the Bible, KJV.
99.9999% read the bible out of context since the original is Hebrew and we are so far removed from the culture. This is why we have over 33,000 different denominations
Don't forget way back in time, no one understood how everything worked, how everything got here, so the easiest thing to do was to say this magical entity created everything. Not only that, if you are bad to me, then after death this entity will bully you for eternity, because you bullied me in life. Then a version of Chinese whispers twisted these views in to what we have now. The only thing you can learn from the bible is how the human mind has tried to understand things, when we knew nothing to start with. As is was primarily formed by psychopaths, narcissists and influential schizophrenics, because these personalities are the most controling, and they will force their version of events the hardest. The evidence of these personalities is seen in how they have shaped the creul and barbaric nature of the bible. This speaker is very much in denial about science. Evolution is a provable theory, he has to mock it because it doesn't fit the religious narrative that he is talking about. Religion has held us back out of fear and control, just look at how mest up the middle east is. It got us out of the cave and to the start of the era of science. Allow science to take over so we can learn. Religion has excuses, science has the answers, we just have to find them. Religion needs to be archived in the history books, as an awkward but understandable footnote in human history. Science wins because it proves itself. Just look how vicious the church has been to early scientists, because they could prove things that contradicted the bible. This goes back to my earlier comment about the personalities that shaped the bible, and who control religion now, it's pure narcissism, they prefer a mask than accept the true nature of things.
@@jonwelch564 Skepticism is important. Majority of truths are in reality theoretical and misconstrued. Until it's understood, the intelligent design, completely beyond imagination. A closed system, the mathematical genius behind essentially everything. Our history is hidden from us. Most unfortunately believe we all stem from a big explosion and apes. The reality is we're all intelligently designed. Question is by whome?
@@JustMe.001 replying to your now deleted comment, just look a our DNA, we did indeed evolve from apes. If you took as much time to understand science as you do the bible you'd understand this. Intelligent design as you see it, is nothing more than evolution succeeding in the best way that that suited that perticular species, you just misinterpret it as intelligent design. Regarding your comment about the big bang. The red shift of distant galaxies does imply at an initial starting point. But interestingly the James Webb telescope is getting us to question the age of the universe and how it was created. This is the wonderful thing about science, it's open to new evidence that increases our understanding of how everything works. We have to keep questioning everything to increase our knowledge. This is where science a religion differ; science questions and will celebrate new knowledge, where as religion is rigid and resists change, it will vilify you for questioning it. Again I'll refer to my earlier remarks about the personalities that formed religions. They can't handle criticism, because it's all about control.
The actual reason that secularists (scientists?) "get emotional" (as Ken puts it) about the age of the Earth is because of the overwhelming evidence there is for the date. It's not because we "need billions of years". We are astounded that Ken can say that it is not true without ever providing any contrary evidence. He points to texts as if they constituted evidence, they don't, they are simply ideas.
Of course, you need billions of years! How else could one explain organic life coming from non-organic matter? How else can you baffle brains with the origins of matter do not matter without billions of years? How else would you led them down the path of evolution? People hear billions of years and stop thinking. We are too lazing to spend energy thinking through topics!
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 Ken thinks that we invented the notion of billions of years because we have to have them to support evolutionary processes. But, what we actually did was to measure the ages of things, geological and astronomical and we discovered that objects such as rock layers and stars are old. The idea that things are old arose because we measured their ages, not because we "needed" them. Indeed, before the early 1800s most everybody in the Western world believed that the Earth was young based on the Biblical interpretation (of patriarchal ages). It was only through the work of early geologists like Charles Lyell that we realised the opposite.
@keitho Hi Kei, With all the science, my faith in God only becomes stronger and deeper! Many great scientific minds believe(d) Science leads to God. Lord Kelvin; If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God. The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism. I believe the more thoroughly science is studied, the further it takes us from anything comparable to atheism. As for your claims for Radiometric dating being accurate - lots of examples where scientists have had to twist their theories on the age of newly formed rock samples to justify the results and variation found in results from the same sample! Here are some papers supporting the errors in Radiometric dating; -Vernon Cupps, a nuclear physicist, is the author of a new book "Rethinking Radioactive Dating - Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist" -Radioactive ‘dating’ failure. Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years -The Truth About Radiometric Dating William M. Overn -Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano by Steven A. Austin Why my strength in God grows with Science; Science can not explain; Where did the original matter come from for the big bang? Where did the original energy come from that initiated the big bang? How did organic life come from inorganic matter? If the earth is 4.567 billion years old, how are comets still orbiting our earth? Why is there no evidence of evolution, one kind forming from another kind? Why is there no example of spontaneous creation in nature - assuming the big bang was the first, why is there no evidence of a second? I believe in science, but real science, not fake science. According to the Oxford dictionary, Science is "knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example, by experiments."
The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s. Water is made up of two Hydrogen and one Oxygen atom. These are scientifically proven because they are either observable or reproducible through experimentation! This is all Science, and all points to an intelligent design! All of it supports God as the author of creation and I understand why atheists get upset when challenged. They know their blind faith in fake Science is falling apart! The more science they present, the stronger God becomes! Going back to Lord Kelvin; Studying science deep enough and long enough will force you to believe in God. The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism. I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further it takes us from anything comparable to atheism.
The young earth argument is ridiculous for Christians to use. The fact is, we don’t know. Ken Hamm is taking the proverbs 30:5-6 out of context. The Bible is being interpreted from Greek and Hebrew. It could be a bad translation. A prophetical year is different from our year. The saying of day has different meaning. What does “back in the day” mean. “The day of the lord”. So Saying that we may not understand what a day is to God is not taking it out of context. It says morning and evening. Not 24 hrs. In the beginning. Well Ken tell us when the beginning was? Man wasn’t created until the fifth day. We can know how long man has been on earth but we have know idea how old earth or the universe is. And this is not a salvation issue. It’s a secondary issue. Dr. Frank Turek explains this in great detail. I’d advise everyone to watch his debates and listen or read his books.
There is virtually unanimous consensus among scientific experts that Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, with no vacillation or controversy. But Creationists cannot agree among themselves about Earth's age because they have nothing to go on but the vagaries of ancient Hebrew mythology and their own religious hangups.
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. “(Exodus 20:8-11). The writer of Genesis is using the creation account of 6 days work/1 day rest as the model of the Sabbath rest. I believe we take God at his word that it was 6 literal days.
do you have scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god? (PREDICTION: you will reject or avoid the question - but will not offer a straight answer).
You want scientific proof of a God? Look no further than your DNA. If I gave you a book, and told you it just happened to arrange itself that way, ink, pages, binding, letters into words, words in to sentences, and sentences into paragraphs. You'd call me a fool and ask who wrote it. DNA is like a language. It didn't just organize itself. We have never observed information being generated from non information. Scientists have been trying for decades to create DNA from base molecules, unsuccessfully because it didn't happen that way.
@@mattprater8828 DNA exists. We agree it exists. There's scientifically verifiable evidence for that. What does your claim of the failure (so far) of scientists got to do with anything other than the fact that DNA exists? Where's the god in DNA? As for your book, the content was written by a human (probably, but that's now becoming a genuine issue). The physical book itself was created by a human. There's scientifically verifiable evidence for that. There's even the possibility of forensic evidence to identify which human or group of humans did that. Do you recognize there you can examine two different kinds of things that exist? There's things that are manmade. There are natural things. You want to apply the concept of verifiable evidence for the source of manmade things to the source of natural things - but there is no verifiable evidence for the source of natural things, is there? What is your scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
The six day of creation is a reference to the fact, God exists moves and creates outside of the restraints of time. One day to Him is like a thousand years. It may aswell be a million or even a billion years. Time only matters to you. When God moves, He moves. The six days is a reference to the timeline He has set up for humanity.
Scientists (those inconvenient people, including the one who noticed global warming back in the 19th century) ask "What happened to the light that was created on Day 1? Astronauts know that outside the earth's atmosphere, there is only blackness, because there is nothing to disperse any source of light. In the time of Genesis, that was not yet known. Heat, which follows the same rules as light, works similarly. An astronaut who falls from his ship is instantly snap frozen. To this cult, ignorance is certainly bliss. The Moving Finger writes, and having writ Moves on, nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. You will be asked about it at the Pearly Gates. The only person who answers "It didn't happen" is Trump.
@@douglaidlaw740 Scientists do and say as they are told, they chase the money probably worse than anyone else. A few of them have the balls to stand up and go against the grain but only very few, they are attacked and ridiculed if they don't fall in line.
@@wrippley103 Covid was such an eye opener in this regard. There were many doctors and other scientists opposing the mainstream narrative, that lockdowns are counterproductive, that the new vaccine-tech isn't ready yet etc and they have been ridiculed and censored. It's the same in every field, money is the only god for so many people in charge :(
If we evolved in knowledge and our technology grew only in the past few hundred years , what was holding back mankind in the millions of previous years ? Thousands of years is more likely.
Yet the acts of man can not save nor condemn him, For man was condemned from the beginning, and Christ stated only the Father chooses who comes unto Christ 😬
Accepting millions of years, and billions of years, shows a serious lack of good mathematics in education. It also shows a lack of education in genetics, and willful blindness in geology.
Genesis 1:3 God said “Let there be LIGHT,” (initial light). Genesis 1:14 God said let there be LIGHTS (used the initial LIGHT to then make the sun, moon, etc) A lot like striking 'a' match and using it to set multiple fires.
Does it matter? Jesus was (probably) a bloke who was either born in the time of Herod's rule who died between 5 BCE and 1 CE as per the gospel Mathew, of go by the gospel Luke or he was born at the time of the census by Quirinius in 6 CE, so we have a 9 year varience if we accept the writings within the bible. All of this is inconsequential really, as what the relevant question is, did this Jesus bloke rise from being dead to become a god (again). Timings of the birth of this bloke, and the magical happenings associated with him are irrelevant, until it can be demonstrated that there is in-fact a Christ to start with.
Two issues are being conflated here. One is whether or not the six days are literal, and the other is the age of the earth. In six literal periods of day and night, God could have created the earth, and finished creating on the sixth day, making animals and humanity only about six thousand years ago, while the age of the planet we live on could be 4.6 billion years as we measure time today. The age of living beings could only be six thousand years or so, with no death prior to the seventh day, while the age of the planet could be in billions of years. All that would mean is that God miraculously had very few cycles of daylight and nighttime - what the Bible refers to as "days" in Genesis 1 - during the 4.6 billion year period. (The only reason we think the days couldn't have been that long, is that from man's way of thinking and from what modern science tells us about what a day is, we think a day has to take place in a certain period of time, with day and night based on the earth's rotation, and the rotation speed being calculable and consistent (predictable) according to modern science.) This logical possibility seems to be ruled out by Ken Ham at the beginning of the video, and I don't have much hope that it will be pointed out later on in the video either.
@All About Britain You are both historically right and wrong. YES for WRITERS, who by the way DIED HORRIBLY for their (written) testimonies about the life of the resurrected Jesus, including what they wrote. For more historical and scientific details, read or listen to ”The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, who was an atheist courtroom expert and tried while an atheist to destroy trustworthiness of Gospels. NO for ”We don’t have any eyewitness testimony”, because of above and tons of other evidence summarized by Lee, and thus we have the eyewitness testimony of Jesus, Word of God, of global Noah’s flood. In fact, Gospels are de facto the most trustworthy documented history in the whole human history. Jesus already existed when Noah lived and even before, and was One with Father God and full of Holy Spirit. If you deny the words of Jesus, then logically you must also deny pretty much all human history, including the foundations of modern science, which was built on the principles of Bible.
@All About Britain thank you for your sincerity! Are you saying you don’t believe the apostles of Jesus died at all, or? As far as I know, we have the best evidence for the deaths of Peter, Paul and James (brother of John), but there is also evidence of others as well, although not so certain. Lee Strobel interviewed many scholars of different expertises using the methods of courtrooms and these deaths were covered. There is also non-Christian account of Josephus about the death of James (half-brother of Jesus). There are also no secular sources that would compete with the Christian sources. No early non-Christian sources accuse the apostles of lying or recanting their faith. Or, what counter-evidence can you present? Obviously, I am not a historian, but a scientist in the field of nanotechnology, so this is the end of my knowledge, and as a non-historian it takes hours to verify everything strongly with two or three different sources. As a scientist, I’m oblicated to investigate the evidence, and so far I have found no good reasons to doubt these expert accounts. See, virtually _all_ knowledge is all about trust, isn’t it? Knowledge inevitably requires Faith, because we always must choose a set of axioms that we believe in. Hence, _choose_ to believe the evidence presented by the martyrs (not only the Apostles) and believe the Gospels, and allow simplicity of Faith in Son of God reveal all things to you by the Spirit. I truly testify to you that the Gospels are far more self-consistent than you make them appear in your writing. The accounts of crucifixions can be harmonized with no major issues when it comes to the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. There sure are weird things like Mary and others not touching Jesus before he has ascended, but not essential. Plus, the virgin birth miracle of Jesus is easy to Father God. Believing in it requires much less faith than the faith required to believe in, e.g., the materialistic miracle of abiogenesis of life. Like the apostles, having met my Lord Jesus Christ, who won my ”wisdom”, I’m now similarly very willing to lay my life for others, even as martyr, whatever serves the superior Wisdom of Father God.
24:00 Glad that someone has finally taken Pat Robertson to task. Pat is a good brother in Christ, but his view of and 'faith' in evolution is way off the mark. Ken is a blessing in Bible accuracy, and Pat would be better off if he listened to Biblical reasoning.
To man it's thousand years, to God it's a day. It still adds up to 6 days/6000 thousand years. It's probably more like 7000 thousand years. God rested on the 7th day.
I agree with your analysis but could the timeline at the beginning of your video be off? At 8:45 you state: “…God made Adam on day 6”. This is not what Genesis 6:27 actually says…”male and female created he them.” 6th day man was created before Adam. It’s not until 2:7 that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. After the 7th day is described. Not sure this matters to your timeline but wanted to mention it.
@@luvdomus The good news is that there are WAY more than just two or three, that was a scripture reference(and a good rule of thumb). I’ve studied this topic as a hobby for years, and there’s a category some call “geochronometers” that are measured and tested scientifically from many different disciplines that all point to a young earth. I.e. ocean salinity, the earth’s magnetic field, space dust, river delta growth, population calculations… that’s five and that’s just off the top of my head. I can keep going. The truth is, either it’s real science (testable, repeatable, and based on well established and proven natural LAWS) or it’s not.
@@guidos.6043 Pseudoscience is a hobby for crackpots who like to construct convoluted arguments for absurd claims while pretending they aren't motivated by a religious agenda. No one takes them seriously.
Two or three kooks is not enough to establish the age of Earth. Volumes of physical evidence establishes it at 4.5 billion years, and this is universally agreed upon by all scientific experts. Creationists can't even agree among themselves how old the Earth is, their claims vary wildly.
@@luvdomus Actually, the tide is slowly turning. More and more scientists are studying the facts themselves (and not the “approved” information), and are realizing that the Emperor indeed has no clothes. When pressed, every evolutionist I’ve spoken to, admits that the “overwhelming evidence” they have is fossils. But the only evidence fossils are, is that the creature lived; no tag is included to say how long ago, or that it had offspring. Usually they point to the geologic scale, which is supported by evolution, which is supported by the geologic scale, which is supported by evolution, which is… circular reasoning, NOT evidence. True, the professionals mostly agree on the 4.5 billion years, but this has not always been so. This number is more speculation and consensus than actual data. Interestingly, the drive behind current secular scientific study is THEORY focussed, rather than EVIDENCE focussed, but to secure funding, they need to inspire investors with the promise of future discovery, NOT with evidence that they already have. Makes sense. The current evolutionary statement of origins is essentially (paraphrasing) “everything came from nothing”, which is a scientific impossibility. You seem like an intelligent person. Are you buying it? I liken evolution to visiting a film set… if you look where the cameras are pointing, the environment appears believable. But, it doesn’t take much work to stray off the path and find that the pillars are merely fortified facades with little to nothing behind them to back them up. Evolutionists get very angry when they decide to see what the creationists believe (keeping an open mind) and realize that they have been “kept” and lied to by their peers for years. For the Big Bang to have occurred, there would have needed to be a betrayal of the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle’s Law, and various tenets of Newton’s Law and Inertia, but what do I know?
Thanks for being calm about this. But here is a question for you. According to Genesis, God didn't create the sun, moon, and stars until the THIRD day. We all know a literal day is defined by one rotation of the earth (or if you're a flat earther, one rotation of the sun around the flat disc of earth). So IF the first couple of days happened before the sun was created, how were those days defined? And the earth was created BEFORE the sun? That's what the bible LITERALLY says. HMMMMMMM. Jesus also said that if "The Temple were torn down he would rebuild it in three days". Is this the literal temple or a figurative one? The literal one took 46 years to build the first time. Jesus also said Pete was the rock upon which he would build his church. Is Peter, the literal rock, typical Judean limestone or more durable granite, or is this a symbolic reading??
What is wrong with this idea: that in Genesis 1:1 we have a bare statement that created the heavens and the earth, then in vs two, attention is turned to earth, a darkened and empty unfinished earth. For six days, then, God outfits the earth to be a habital place for man as it reads in the rest of the chapter. The appearance of the moon, sun, and stars would simply be the removal of the darkness enshrouding earth to make the sun and moon and stars created in the verse one statement.
they use the argument that we cant use our perception of time now to assume things about the past but how do they explain how we use our perception of time now to accurately predict things in the distant future
For your information: "thorns and thistles" does not apply to plants and animals, but to man only. Gen.3:17-19 was address to Adam by God. Please, dont deviate from what was subject of the paragraph.
Who gave them the authority to date number and time anyting how do they know they were not here and how can you determine that something is a billion years old how do you have the mathematic the technological and the scientific knowledge to do that you don't have that authority to decide how old something is and what it shouldn't should not be
What's weird is God created day and night before the sun. So now when I look at His creation and see how day and night works by the sun, it doesn't make sense. His word is pure and creation is corrupt, but I cannot see how sin corrupted day and night to depend on the sun.
I believe God gave us the sun and moon to keep time. And the sun, moon and stars weren’t created until the fourth day. Prior to that days couldn’t have been ordinary, not that God couldn’t created everything in six ordinary days as he is all powerful. However I also believe that our mind and God’s are completely opposite. Furthermore, can we even comprehend God’s experience of time at all? As a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. All in all our experience in this time is finite. So take from that what you will.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven will enter." Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't mean they are.
"Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't mean they are." And just because someone claims you are NOT a Christian, does not mean you are NOT. Christ will decide who is Christian.
Now here's where I don't agree with our brother, when he says the virgin birth is not tied to our salvation. You see, it is important that Jesus is born of a virgin because if He is born the same way as all of us, of a man and a woman, He cannot save us; because He would have inherited the Adamic sin nature and if He is tainted with any sin then He would not have risen. Also how can we trust God to save us if He has lied through the mouth of His prophets and told us about the virgin birth; may it never be indeed. "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" Galatians 4:4-5
I used to believe in the millions of years, but it was so difficult to comprehend and it didn't lineup with scripture. This is what I was thinking about when I was 10-11-12 years old! I came to realize in my late teens that there was no missing link and that Jesus is the only link that we need or have to the father. I recently have fully embraced and believe that we've been here for only 6000 years based on scripture, my faith, and the geological evidence left behind, as that evidence is what makes sense to my scientific mind and my soul. This is a Faith issue, but people need to have brains to see and correctly evaluate the evidence God left for us and realize that the scientists who are proposing millions of years are ridiculous! God and his truth is much more interesting than the 'scientific' garbage people propose to eliminate God from his creation and to further their own self righteousness and career/sell books/make a name for themselves! It is false doctrine that the Bible warned us of too!
The question I ask is if it was a twenty four hour day then in the day Adam and eve ate of the forbidden fruit that would of been the end for them but scripture says Adam lived over 900 years less then a thousand years as scripture also says a thousand years to God is one day and one day a thousand years so I think a creational day is not twenty four hours God created time for man not for himself the other reason is God tested on the seventh day but yet her we are living and God is still working s Amount man so God has not really rested from all his works
There is no definitive way to know what time schedule God operated on at that juncture but it seems there was periods of work followed by periods of rest...although he seems to rest on the seventh day after 6 days of work...but either way there is a time separation of some sort...first he did then then next day this...why would you seperate the days though is all the work was together....but anyhow...if God was subjecting himself to our time frame..couldn't he have been working on sections of creation for eons?
Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. God is not the author of confusion. That problem emerges from elsewhere. Paul warned in his letters to Timothy that there would be apostasy, brought about by different groups forming around doctrines that appealed to them, and teachers willing to make popular compromises. As Paul also wrote in "chapter 2" of his second letter to the Thessalonians, the lovers of truth are those who do not fall for these deviations from the traditions that had already been established by Christ and His apostles ...who based their revelation of the Gospel on the proper interpretation of the Old Testament, (the Law and the Prophets) including Genesis. At the end of the day, believing and speaking the same things regarding His word is not only possible, but expected. And no, it's not a matter of choosing the right extra-biblical institution to tell us, and calling the collection of them "the Church" as if this is what Jesus built. We know what an evening and morning cycle is. The question is, how many other compromises occurred across history to bring us to the point where it's difficult to understand what a day means? Posting this comment three years after this lecture, we find confusion in the culture over how many genders exist. Surely, none of the various apostate "church" organizations would adopt that confusion... and we're right back to Rom 1.
Thank you. As a Christian, I agree. The way I see it, there are 3 options for us Christians. I think there's either one true church on the Earth, the true church *isn't* on the Earth, or the concept of a true church isn't true/the Bible is the "true church".
Question. Are "all" the words in the Jewish book the words of God? [2] What proof have you apart from blind belief? [3] What is the story of Chapter 6 of Genisis? [4] Dates of the written history' of the many races of humanity. [5] How long did it take to populate the earth? [6] How long did it take for the various species of man to evolve. [Not from monkeys] For example In Africa alone there are at least four. For once you know, you can then possibly calculate the date of the flood and then the date of creation' commencement. For all the above had to happen some months before the above taking place. To get started Mesopotamian written history and all writings since, right up to today in that area of the world, commenced around 6000 years ago. Jewish history was put into the writing around 2600 years ago. But if the flood was localized in say the lowest point on the planed, that is the Jordan River valley which comes to an abrupt ending at the western edge of the Dead Sea, all is possible, possibly? Oh, and forget about fossils and the first reference to the ARK related to an oblong four-sided box with a flat bottom to carry legal documents in. So that could be the design of the craft Noah used to save himself, his family and their livestock?
KH never seems to really get to the theological implications of the 6 days of creation. | They are the orientating basis for our understanding of God, the creation and ourselves in the creation and in relation to God. God shows that he is not distant but near to us, executing the creation in the days he made for our fellowship with him (and this flows onto the grandeur of the Sabbath in the Covenant with Israel); he also shows that his word is the immediate cause of the creation. This demonstrates direct connection with the creation and gives force to the 'good's, and the final 'very good', further reinforcing God's intimate connection with the creation which culminates in Genesis 3:8 with God actively in the garden seeking Adam and Eve in fellowship. This is utterly different from any pagan myth. | The days, being 'in our terms' are clearly located in real history, our history. But they do more: they underscore that they are in the concrete reality of the world we are in, (contrary to monist dreams), they form the intellectual basis for our understanding of reality (contrary to materialist dreams), and show its goodness for our habitation and care (contrary to pagan spiritualism, platonic mind games, and Gnostic deceit). | Proverbs 3:19-20 underscore the attributes of God demonstrated in the creation. Nothing like any pagan myth. | The immediacy of creation also side-lines any notion of secondary or intermediate causes, either of which push God away from his creation and denigrate it's spiritual (godly) significance as the place of fellowship and where man reflects God's image and of us. Psalm 8 celebrates this intimacy that results.
In the 1st line it is already mentioned that heaven and earth were created. Is there an explanation for the 1st line in the Bible and the 5th line? In the 5th line it had been evening and there was morning, the 1st day. What then happened between the 1st line and the 5th line if the 1st day is only mentioned in the 5th line?
Good question. Actually I have the same question. Ken Ham’s 6000 years started with the first day of creation. But it seems to me that the heavens and earth were already created before the first day of the creation of light in verses 1 and 3. I wish these creationists can address that.
@@dipBigLeaf You are right, because that 6,000 years is based on adding the ages of generations and has nothing to do with the age of the earth. That the creation is also 6000 years is simply assumed without thinking in my opinion. I would also like to hear comments.
I believe God could have created the world in 6 ordinary 24 hour days and I believe God could have done it in 6 periods of time that were more than 24 hours (what if they were 30 hour days back then?), and I believe God could have created an old earth such that it is physically older than it really is. For example, when God created Adam, I assume he created him as a full grown man that would have the markings of someone in their teens or 20’s, but was actually just one day old. I don’t believe this is something we need to be dogmatic about. As Paul said, we should not argue about words. Let’s focus on Jesus Christ, His Lordship, His death and resurrection, His payment for all our sins, wiping them out from our records, Our worship of Him, Our service to Him, Our fellowship and love for one another.
yes it really matters the age of creation because everything that was created by God is for his Son Jesus as an heir. The universe was created for Christ
![[Part 1] รักมาไม่ทันตั้งตัว❤ หนุ่มสาวโสดถูกจับมาแต่งงานกันกะทันหัน แถมเธอยังเป็นหัวหน้าของเขา?!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y2pOOMkuFI0/mqdefault.jpg)
![MV วิถีชีวิตใต้ - ผา อัยย๊ะ [Official MV HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nODlkOUu9B0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love this ministry! Thank you for bringing the truth to TH-cam! I pray that many will listen and realize how great and awesome our God is and that Jesus died for our sins.
Your "sins" do not have anything to do with the 4.5 billion year age of planet Earth.
Ham said God could have made everything in just one second! Where in the bible does it say this?
@@TheShinedownfan21 so which side of your family looks most like an ape your mom or your dad? Lol
@@cardcounter21 Supposedly an omnipotent creator god can do anything-- which is very convenient for those making claims about what he's done and how he did it.
@@cardcounter21And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Revelation 19:6
The way this presentation ended made me strangely emotional. Some parts of this speech was heartbreaking to listen to, especially the impact that humanistic worldviews that are so quick to change is taken as ultimate authority when so much “evidence” keeps getting revised over time and God’s true word is left at the curb. An eye opening presentation, thank you very much. God bless you AiG Ministries. Thank you for all that you do!
Spot On! God's Word ❤❤❤
Thank You Ken!!! ❤
Thank you Answers in Genesis. Your ministry is one of the main reasons my faith has grown and been restored. You are doing the work of God. Please never stop. Thank you Lord for Answers in Genesis!
This is so excellent.
You are so right. Pastors need to educate themselves and their youth on this topic.
Thank you very much,...like always very eyes opening. Let God be with us!❤
This is a very powerful presentation. Thank you for this exposition.
This is very interesting and I've always wondered about this. Thank you
Reading all these comments and listening to Ken is mind bogling. Just as it is mind bogling that others say there is no God. Why should it matter how old the earth is, or on what date God created Adam? To me at least, what matters is that God created all there is, that His Son Jesus paid for my sins, making it possible for me to to gain everlasting life through Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit is with me, every moment of my life to remind me of these facts. There are things we humans are NOT suppose to know, and in gaining that forbidden knowledge we will suffer the penalty as Adam and Eve did.
Where did you get it that there are things we are not to know.
@@johnmorris1637 looking at all the fools around this comment section maybe that outlook is not such a bad thing , but a sad thing yes.
When I look up into the night sky, it makes me wonder. We are built as creators, and it feels good to create. Our creations fall short of the glory of God's, but it's wonderful to create and figure stuff out and see the results of our creations. Adam and Eve didn't bring sin into the world through just any knowledge; it was the knowledge of good and evil. Ultimately, the difference was being accountable to one's actions, and to this day we are still suffering from this. Using science to battle fake sciences that try to draw children and adults away from the Lord seems like an adequate use of our time. We can't all be as empathetic as those who can minister directly; some of us have analytical minds that the Spirit can use in other ways to bring people to Christ.
I wish I could live in a DAY where at least one world leader could have the knowledge that this guy has 😢
Satan will have this knowledge but he won't have wisdom (applied knowledge)
Be vigilant ❣️
"where at least one world leader could have the knowledge that this guy has"
Joe Biden!
Knowledge!!!???!!! Hm!
What is the point in having lots of knowledge when every bit of it is wrong. So many different fields of science show that the earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old
@@truthgiver8286 "What is the point in having lots of knowledge when every bit of it is wrong"
It does not need a POINT. Many things are desired just because you desire them.
A good science fiction story has a completely fictitious world, but if the world is *consistent* within itself, you can have a great story and the moral of the story will be the point. This is certainly true of parables, fables and metaphors.
The Earth is ancient by scientific means; but if you don't care about "science" and your life is that of a blue collar worker and your entire world is about 50 miles across, what difference does it make how old is the earth?
It *can* make a difference with regard to people's willingness to participate in social experiments, conservation programs for instance. If God created fossil fuel, he can simply create more! And while that's true, it appears to have required a few hundred million years to accomplish it. So wait around for the next batch. But I think there isn't going to be a next batch.
I believe that God creates in 6 days. This is a faith issue.
And facts issue also! Definitely He created the whole world in 6 days.
faith is the excuse people give when they don't have sufficient evidence.
I believe you’re a total clown. This is a faith issue.
@All About Britain currious, what scientific evidence do you have that the universe is billions of years old? What evidence do you have that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? I will tell you the answer, NONE! I have researched this topic at nauseum and was once a believer that Genisus was an allegory for creation; the more I researched, the more I learned that blind faith was required to believe in the science of creation than to believe in God. Please dont take my word; feel free to research it yourself. Matter was created from nothing; nothing filled the universe, and nothing created the earth, from nothing organic life came to be! You need to have more faith to believe in this than to read and believe in the word of God.
No, the "appeal to authority" fallacy is what people give who have no evidence.
E.g. There's "consensus" that we evolved from a primordial soup! Do I have any evidence of this? Transitional fossils, perhaps? Well, no. But, it's agreed upon by several people with degrees!
Great job Mr. Ham. Keep it up.
Ken Ham and his entire ministry is a massive blessing for this age.
Just had a 'Revelation' of my own Ken as I was listening and watching this lecture. It happened just after you produced the horrible textbook and read the first statement! Earlier you explained how cleverly God had given us the age of the earth. 'The Revalation = The years of the earth's longevity stated clearly in the Bible, STARTED with Adam, but ENDED with JESUS! GOD KNEW THE FUTURE so He knew that Christianity would grow as it has: He knew that we Christians would begin Our Own recording of time from the date of Christ's birth, which then would last until the end of the era, when Jesus returns! ' PROOF OF GOD in my eyes!
ONLY GOD KNEW THAT TIME WOULD BE SO RELEVANT TOWARD THE END OF THE AGE, so in HIS OWN inimicable way, through His words in the Bible, HE provided irrevocable proofs of earth's timeline from the beginning of creation. Furthermore, He's still doing it! I was in BC Canada 500 miles north, when Mount St Helen's erupted. Upstairs, walking along the carpeted floor in the main hall of my home, I suddenly felt light tremors under my bare feet! As the house was built on solid rock, I didn't know what to make of this, but clearly remember feeling anxious at the time. It was later that I heard the news of the eruption.
The information that has been amassed in the years following that eruption has provided so much evidence, in ALL spheres of science, geology, Biology etc., to show that Biblical truth is to be absolutely trusted against anything man can put forward. God knew what would be needed and provided in a timely fashion AND also with minimal loss of life! I do like the way God works. Thank you Ken and your team, for following God's guidance, our own, modern day Noah! I'll continue with the lecture now.
Excellently said
yes and god knew there were no queen ants ooops! proof god didn't have a clue in my eyes
Check out the amazing discoveries of Ron Wyatt and see proof of God and the Bible!!!
@@kirkkirkland7244 You really should research a little Ron Wyatt is a well known charlatan that all the churches have distanced themselves from he has claimed to have found at least 100 artifacts from biblical times including Noah's Ark which was rock formation and no fossilised wood at all the ark of the covenant which he has shown to no one. Try reading his wiki page. You have to wonder how an amateur archaeologist finds just about everything under the sun yet the dozens of professionals struggle
@@truthgiver8286 he doesn't say there are no ant queens he says they have no chief or ruler. And a ant queen does not control or tell or rule over the other ants and what they do. so not a chief or ruler. the ants literally do their work without instruction. it may be more accurate to call the queen ant the baby making factory that needs to be kept care of for the health of the colony.
In Hebrew we learn that words get their meaning from their first usage (amongst other ways), often by the first time a situation arises they create a word to resemble it, and so with the naming of newborns like Isaac and Ishmael coming from the situation of their birth, both names meaning types of laughter/jokes. And yet in Genesis 1, the word DAY is first used in reference to "and God called the Light Day" and in that same verse "and the evening and the morning were the first day". But that's also where we get the first use of the word "call". So to call something or as it is otherwise translated elsewhere to cry, read or proclaim something, is to make one equal to another, and so the end of the verse and the start of the verse, if you take it deep enough, because "and the evening and the morning were the first Light", because he called the light day. So everywhere you see the word day, it is the name for the light. But if you translate "he called" as the one word it is, well, "he" is not capitalised, so perhaps it was "man" that named light. "God called the light day and he called the darkness Night", and they don't have punctuation so it could also be "God called the light day; and he called the darkness Night" as in, where God sees light, man sees darkness. As the word "he called" is nowadays also translated as "biblical scholar" or "gourd" or "pumpkin" or "squash", but most commonly "read". So: "and God read the light day". And if you remove the "call" from the full word meaning "and he called" you just get "and". "God and read the light day". There's no capitals in Hebrew, so it may not be about naming the light as day, but it's also about 'reading the day of the light.' When you learn Hebrew from Hebrew readers, you learn that it is both figurative and literal, and there's a lot more meaning in the words than in what we read in english. So if he called the darkness night, and then in the same verse it says "the evening and the morning were the first day". Why is it not "the morning and the evening" as we know of it today? Because it is figurative and symbolic. If you order things from taking the darkness of life into account and dealing with it before looking at the light, then that itself is a light in and of itself. And so if it was also good. And if each "day" or "light" of creation is good, then "the light is good", so "seeing the darkness before the light" is good. Which is the order of creation, when darkness existed before God created light. But God still created darkness, it's just that darkness did not exist until when? Until God created the Earth, which was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. But darkness also means "secrecy" and face has no "the" and like that it is only and never otherwise translated as "penny", and the word "upon" is hyphenated with "penny", and also means "about". And the word "formless" means "wonder" but if you take away the last inflection of the last letter it becomes "confused", take the letter away and it becomes "tea". Each word in Hebrew is built out of other words, and each letter has a name which is itself a word. For the word "formless" it's first letter is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet and the last letter of the hebrew word "truth", which is made of the first, middle and last letters of Hebrew, it is the number 400, and when you spell it's name out with other letters it is the word meaning "theo" or "note", and the second letter is the first letter in the word for GOD (Elohim), when it is at the beginning of a word it can either mean "the" or the beginning of a sentence to signify asking a question, or it can also mean "who", and as a word it means "here is" or "to be disturbed", and is pronounced "hey", it is used twice in the name of GOD (YHWH) where the first letter means "hand" and the other letter means "and", so "hand of god and god", and that last letter of "formless" is that same letter meaning "and". So "formless" becomes "note of God and", and to spell the last letter meaning "and" you just write two of itself "and and" and means "hook" or "hasp" or "wow". "Note of God and be hooked", or "note the wow".
The idea of studying Hebrew and the word of god, is not about who wrote what or what is written, but what can be written with it and what it can mean and what you can interpret from it. When you learn Hebrew from Hebrews it's always about the connections between all the possibilities and what lines up. Not about taking a hard line towards one single way. For everything there is a season.
But that being said, 6 days, is the way.
The Bible is inspired by God, your limitations on the language are incorrect. The law of first use is not without deviation. The word definitions are indicative of how many different ways a single word is spelled. There are over 8 different ways to spell "darkness", and each has a different meaning. The first time it shows up it is unique, only appearing a second time in Jeremiah. Don't forget that God is in control of his revelation to man, not some scholars.
The bible is truth it's GOD the LORD our SAVIOR word
Written by man nevertheless,man the liar and ignorant at the best of time
The bible is a collection of writings by men who didn't even know where the sun goes at night.
Excellent video💯👏
One word. Amen!
@@allaboutbritain3367haha
Why is the age of the earth so conflicting? Creation took place in eternity, before the fall, where events happen at a much quickened pace, thus the age of the earth will seem much older from the perspective of our laws of physics in time/space, compared to that of eternity.. It is like comparing apples to oranges! Why does this simple explanation elude just about everyone? The answer to this question is so simple and everyone makes the answer so complicated!
😂😂😂😂 you're joking, right?
We were not designed, we evolved, Fact, unless you are going to admit all the design faults with a human were intentional
I don’t have enough faith to believe in Darwinian Evolution.
The existence of the DNA code is enough to show that someone WROTE that information, as it is a recognised language, having an alphabet, grammar, and syntax, all of which cannot possibly exist by chance.
You supposed faults in the design of humans is based on thin air, as any study of cellular processes will show complexity that still isn’t totally comprehended by biologists.
To believe that this complexity could arrive by chance is like believing a fairytale.
Did you miss the sin part? I can't believe that even a lost sinner missed such a rudimentary fact.
Finally, after all these years, you answered my questions ! Thank you for sharing.
The Age of fhe Earth Kent Hovind
@@tamie2714 Thank you.
Why can't young earthers admit that things "appear" to be very aged but God could cause that through a miracle.
Old earth creationist would probably go hmmm, that's possible I guess. And they could move on happily together. Most young earthers can't be content with that like an old earth creationist and I think it's odd that they'd rather have friction than say God could do that if he wanted.
I hate follow up with another comment but I’m reading the Bible right now and in Genesis 42 it says “all of the world came to Egypt to buy food”
What an excellent defense of the 6 days of creation & 1 day of rest. I wasn’t as informed as this man to defend it, but I was aware of the significance for why he chose 7 days, that ties into everything as the reason, but it always amazes me that anyone who believes that God is omnipresent,omniscient, all powerful, who created time and is outside of time, would have been hamstrung by time that he created, as if he needed any time. Or that he had problem communicating what he wanted us to know for how long it took, so it must’ve been misinterpreted in translation, or he was mistaken, because we know that he couldn’t have created everything that fast.
It’s absolutely absurd, especially coming from people who should know better.
So, if god is omniscient, how come he did not anticipate that his creation would end up so badly? Why give Adam and Eve a test of obedience when he knew they would fail it? So much nonsense in one book.
@@tcrown3333 He knew what they’d do before he ever created Adam & Eve, but I’m not going to give you an entire Biblical history lesson to answer your question, because you were so convinced that it was all a bunch of malarkey, that you felt no need to research scripture to find out what it did say, it was just a waste of time and all lies anyway.
I’d hate to have someone like you to be the judge on whether I committed a crime worthy of death or not, because you already made up your mind, that didn’t require researching any evidence.
You might read read Genesis 3, 1 thru 24, to at least have some idea what’s going on.
I will give a little of the plot away to say that he already had the antidote prepared before the disease ever got started.
The only thing that confuses me when people say sin is what brought death is Gen 3:22-23. The bible says the tree of life is what would have allowed Adam and Eve to live forever. Which leads me to think if they wouldn't have eaten of it, even if they didn't sin, they would still have died. Evil already existed, because of Satan decision. It wasn't mankind's sin, but it was still sin. The bible says the Tree of life will be in the New Jerusalem in Rev 22. Which makes me think that is what will allow us to live forever again. Otherwise what is the point of having it in the garden and also in the new Jerusalem. This is where my brain goes when I read this. Maybe it is to technical, or a wrong interpretation on my part, but everytime I read it I question why preachers only preach that sin is what caused death. Not the fact that being separated from the tree is what caused death.
I would like to appreciate a loving response to this. Lol whether agreeing or disagreeing. This one point always makes me think about things a little harder. To me it seems like sin didn't really cause death, but it led to a consequence of seperation from the source of life. Death could have still existed though. If a decision was made not to eat. Am I thinking to hard about this?
The way I understand Gen 1:1 is that God created Earth when he created space. It just says it was "in the begining". And then it says it was empty and desorderly and the Spirit of God moved about on the abyss. Then it proceeds to explain the 6-day creation. Earth could be a zillion years old, we dont know because God didn't say, He just said "in the begining". But the organization, the inside creation, and the functionality of Earth was created in six days, according to scripture.
Very well put. That is how I see it as well. But definitely not a zillion years 😊. Science very recently “will not go into detail” puts it around 13.8 billion for the universe.
But I really see this as a non issue. Our faith does not hinge on this
@@dayair1 Thanks 😊Well, I say a zillion as a stretch, off course, but it might as well could be, as God is eternal and time is not a constrain to Him, nor he mentions time when he made space and Earth. Yes, faith doesn't need evidence. On the contrary, sometimes evidence is a stumbling block to faith!
@@dayair1 in the beginning God created the heavens 1st and the Earth 2nd you could see it that way.
@@annuitcptis3032 I think young earth creationism is a stumbling block for scientists, but I now believe in old earth creationism and that would explain 65-million-year-old dino bones. It wasn't until the fall of man that death was introduced. Mankind was created 2nd after the animals were created in the beginning of day 6. When Adam and eve joined the fallen world there were other people living on the earth which explains how Cain found a wife in a different land. They used to think that we came from incest which poses another stumbling block for many. 6,000 years I believe is the bible timeline after the fall not the age of the earth.
@@marcusmuse4787 few things in your argument dont make any sense.
Pastor Ken, Good morning. Thank you, emphasized that God creations are very important to understand what he did.
The sun was created after vegetation on the earth . How did the vegetation survive millions of years with out the sun's light? God does things contrary to the wisdom of man. To expose the vain philosophy of man which is contrary to the so called wisdom of man !
This is constructive criticism from a Christian and I really don't know the answers to these questions, but they are concerning:
1.) In Genesis 1:1, all of the matter in existence was created before the advent of light itself, and the division of day from night. Plainly Scripture then is saying that the first day was longer than 24 hours because a full day and full night follow after the initial creation of everything.
2.) Also, in Genesis 2:4, the Scripture refers to the singular day ( ἡμέρᾳ) in which the earth was made. This is conveniently edited out of the NIV, but is there in the interlinear text. Here the rationalizing Protestant translators who want the Bible narrative to support their pet theology save us from wondering whether Scripture is commanding us to believe that the Creation days were exactly 24 hours long. Which is literally true: Genesis 1 or Genesis 2; since one says say six days and the other one day? In my opinion, the only way to harmonize both statements is to interpret the word "day" to mean something like "back in the day", rather than like, "Tuesday." It is facially and literally self-contradictory otherwise and we can't have that - and the act of removing the offending text from the translation is not a legitimate solution.
3.) In Genesis 1:28 God instructs man and woman (not named Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and multiply and spread over the earth before then calling all good and resting. Yet in Genesis 2, Adam and Eve do not have children until after the Fall and being cast from Eden. So were man and woman disobeying God by not reproducing during the sixth day, in which case how could God have said it was good? Or were Adam and Eve not the man and woman referred to?
4.) In Genesis 1:26 the interlinear text uses the word "ποιήσωμεν" for the verb "create, make" man and woman. In Genesis 2:7 the Greek word is "ἔπλασεν," or "shape, form" Adam. These are clearly distinct in their meaning, where the first refers to the act of creation of something that previously had no existence, and the second to working on something that exists already. What mystery is being concealed here?
The standard Orthodox Christian answer is to read the Holy Fathers and to believe as they did. I tried this, but the mystery only got deeper. The patristic authority would be St. Basil's The Hexameron (The Six Days). That sounds like it would have an answer but in fact it only covers the first five days because St. Basil died before.completing the book. Making this even more mysterious was the story that he has a vision from God in which he was told aforehand that he would not reveal the mystery of the sixth day before he died.
So what I am saying to you is that there are great mysteries still to be fathomed in the Creation of both the world and Man, and as tempting as it is to want to have a pat answer for the sake of defending the faith, one must sometimes allow the mystery to be.
If God created the universe out of nothing just by His word, creating the world in 6 days is no problem!
Classic. Two wrongs don't make a right.
@@mavrosyvannah but three rights do make a left...
You said it yourself Ken. "It was good!" Then " it was not good." Well it wouldn't be very good if it went from good to not good at the very time he was finishing. It was probably good for some time. An undefined amount of time. Then Adam was put in a garden 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Don't lump me with them. Millions of years is preposterous. But I don't cut out the change in Gods attitude toward his creation like it took no time at all . Eve was confronted on the firs day after her creation. That dosent sound good. You give God no time at all to enjoy the good he created, that dosen't sound good. I think you're off as well. By some undefined, realistic amount of time. I enjoy your work greatly. You've been blessed. Keep it up.
I would enjoy a compelling refutation of the argument that the LXX gives the correct ages between Shem and Terah, because the work done by Nathan Hoffman and Doug Woodward on this topic is extremely persuasive. Why is the Masoretic text deemed by AiG to be more likely correct?
Rather than looking for compelling refutation of things, maybe look for compelling confirmation of things. There is a raft of evidence to demonstrate the age of the earth being significantly older than 10,000 yrs, With the Universe being a lot older than that. If YEC can get credible evidence to support their claims, then they would be taken a little more seriously. I doubt this will happen though.
Clear, concise and totally believable. The authority of the Word begins stands true. Thank you for standing for truth!
There is just ONE problem with this, and I don't know the answer, but there is reliable information that the original scriptures indicated from the chrono-genealogies in Gen 5&11 that there are an additional 1500 years which the Jews removed from the scriptures. This probably happened at the time of the council of Jamnia under Rabbi Akiba. The Masoretic text, which consists in the Aleppo and Leningrad codexes, dates from around AD 1000, and therefore contains the shortened timeline along with some other corruptions. How do we know this? The Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Josephus and other ancient witnesses such as Demetrius and Eupolimus all refer to the additional years in the timeline. Note that the Septuagint was completed with all of the Tanach included by 200 BC at the latest and is therefore from older source documents than the Masoretic text. This makes it more reliable in many respects, despite not being in the original language. This corruption by the Jews was done because the Jewish tradition expected that Moshiach would come between 5000&6000 AM (anni mondi - year of the world, from creation). The extra years place Jesus at around 5500 AM. This is why the early church expected the return around AD 500 to 1000. This would now place us around 7500 AM! There has to be an explanation, but I just cannot figure it out. Shalom.
Still not billions or millions of years
@@seanA416no, it’s definitely billions and millions of years. It does not have to disprove your faith is Jesus. We can have both. Ken is just wrong.
@@justinstewart3248 I believe the Bible. The Bible clearly does not tell millions or billions of years. Also, science can't prove that either.
@@seanA416 the Bible does not say either way! And it wasn’t intended to. It’s crazy. It’s not a science book. And the idea that “historical science” is used here is laughable.
@@justinstewart3248 if you follow the genealogy, it does, actually. Pick up a Bible and actually study it.
***it just do not matter, matter or not it will not add or remove one second to the age as "the universe unfolds as it should" ***
I get your point Ken and commend you for your argument! ! Given this point, do you observe the Sabbath day in honour of GOD having made everything in 6 days and rested and sanctified the 7th day ? And as the 4th commandment tells us to do ?
Dear @Eleazar,
You may decide to observe the Sabbath in the 7th day if you wish, and it is good to have a day of rest, (I take at least two days of rest per week).
Some Christians do not observe the Sabbath and that too is OK.
We have to remember the Decalogue is part of the Mosaic Covenant given to the Israelites as a sign of the covenant Yahweh made with them in the wilderness (see Exodus 31).
Christians are not under the Mosiac Covenant and the Mosiac Law. That covenant has been "brought to an end" and we are now under the "ministry of the Spirit" (2 Cor 3) Those who to demand that gentiles act like the Jews following the Mosiac law are what the Scriptures call "judaizers" (Gal. 2:14). At the council of Jerusalem, as described in Act 15, the apostles met to determine what parts of the Mosaic law should gentiles be obligated to obey. They never mentioned that gentile converts to Christianity must observe the Sabbath. If observing the Sabbath was so important to new covenant Christians, then why is it not mentioned that gentile converts should observe the Sabbath. That is probably why there is no instructions or commands in the New Covenant Scriptures telling us we should observe the Sabbath or how to observe the Sabbath, and probably why there are no examples of New Covenant Christians observing the Sabbath.
If you choose to observe the Sabbath, you may; .. and if you choose not to observe the Sabbath, you may.
Be Well,
DZ
Read what the new testament has to say. We are under the new testament or covenant, not the old.
Romans 14:5-6
[5]One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
[6]He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Colossians 2:16-17
[16]Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17]Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
What about Exodus 31:16-17? For the jews not the gentiles.
The Mosaic covenant is everlasting. Anyone who says otherwise is going against Torah.
The gentiles aren't obligated but Jews still are.
for the gentiles maybe but not Jews. We still are obligated to keep shabbat.
Dear@@cmdb582
Thanks for the comment ! Let's look more closely at your claims.
I gather that you claiming to be a Jew, under the Mosaic Law, and that is why you claim that you must keep the Sabbath.
I also understand that you are saying that gentile Christians are not obligated to keep the Mosaic Law.
I do have a few questions that needs clarification.
1. Are you a Christian Jew, believing that Jesus is the messiah and provided final atonement for our sins on the Cross ?
2. Do you consider the New Testament Documents to be God-breathed Scripture ?
Be Well, DZ
Thanks!
What was "morning" and "evening" before there was a sun?
Exactly, also that's 12 hours not 24, the Jewish Kabbalist knowing Hebrew stated it meant confusion becoming clear or chaos and then order
Since Sun does not exist before creation, I rather believe a Milky Way rotation, 1 rotation = 250 Million Years.
That time includes collecting pre-earth debris from somewhere else (Earth core is believed to be Fe-Ni, a dead star remnant, end of burning cycle H, He, Li, C-N-O cycle),
so earth is older than our Sun ! Astrophysicist believed that heavy element on earth (heavier than Fe-Ni) were a debris of Supernovae explosions, the r-process in Universe.
It was a rather slow process to collect a dense cloud of Hydrogen of a Sun mass. Ignition of Sun (creation of light) is a rather instantaneous..
@@abrahambaktiar2548 Your statement didn't make sense but it sounds like your saying it took a long time for gases of hydrogen3 and helium to cool and bind together to create stars which is the light.
The bible described ALL of creation within 21 verses and when you peel apart the Hebrew, it's astounding how much is within those 21 verses.
@@d.s.8733 beresheet bara Elohim et Hasyamayim et Haaretz (note: Hasyamayim= Universe(s)).
Scrutinizing James Webb Telescope findings and other Telescope data, it is recently concluded that other Universe(s) was (were) already exist before the Big-Bang.
At the moment, Big-Bang is believed as a start of our Universe (up to redshift ~ 20) 13.8 Billion years ago. Latest space telescope JWST find multiple Universes !
I do believe in God’s word, and really like your videos… you follow the Bible and have helped me in dispelling a lot of ‘fairytales’ from my childhood/Sunday school days.
HOWEVER, would you please never say ‘second coming’ again as it is not in the Bible…
Jesus says, …when I return…
My faith and belief took a major leap when I came to the place where I could believe the Bible 100%
As my children were growing up I mainly tried to teach them that it was a book that could truly believe, no matter what anybody says or what comes along to try and disprove it.
I believe you said at one point that the virgin birth was not important for salvation and I have to disagree with you.
The Messiah, the Savior could not have a father of the descendants of Adam or else he would have inherited his sin nature. Virgin birth - fathered by the Holy Spirit of God was immensely important.
I had the same epiphany as you! The Bible losses its strength when we explain the book of Genesis to be an allegory for creation! Nowhere does the book speak in riddles. The RCC made a colossal mistake in adapting God's Word to fit Science. Science has now evolved to the point where it is pointing to intelligent design, not random spontaneous creation from nothing into something! God works in such miraculous ways!
RCC has damaged its credibility as a religious organization, while the Bible has strengthened my faith in God and his word!
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 blind faith without knowledge is same as no faith and as dangerous as no knowledge .
@Eric Scaillet are you referring to the blind faith required to believe the big bang occurred spontaneously from nothing to form the universe? Or the blind faith needed to believe organic life was spontaneously created from matter? Not sure if your statement was sarcastic or not.
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 there is no area or field of science that has ever demonstrated or claimed the Big Bang 'created' the universe from absolutely nothing, or that spontaneous generation of life is actually a thing. Sheesh, the Big Bang model doesn't even describe the very 'beginning' of the observable universe..Pasteur falsified spontaneous generation quite a long time ago. None of the abiogenesis hypotheses involve spontaneous generation.
If you need to strawman these subjects, that means there's a problem with your own position(s) concerning this stuff.
Here's my issue from a hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) stand point. Six days is one thing. The Bible clearly says "first day", "second day", etc.
However, nowhere does the Bible clearly state the age of the earth. People got that by adding up the ages in the early Genesis genealogies. However, I don't believe the /purpose/ of the genealogies was to give us the age of the earth. After all, if God really wanted us to know the age of the earth, He could have put "and the world was X years old when Y happened". So should we really be using biblical texts to answer a question that God wasn't addressing? What if God didn't give us enough information to know the age of the earth because us knowing the age of the earth wasn't one of His priorities?
WE care about the age of the earth in modern times because of evolution. But that wasn't a concern when the Bible was written. I don't think God was thinking "I'd better be sure the earth is young, because thousands of years later, mankind will come up with a theory of evolution which excludes Me, and the only way Christians can defend Me is if there's not enough time for evolution to happen".
Isn't it adding to Scripture to assume that it must be answering our modern questions? What if instead, we read it to find out the questions that God is actually answering, and we made those questions and answers our priorities as Christians?
Given that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, these are clearly NOT 24 hour solar days.
Yepp, I was thinking how star trek used to have star dates. he created light and darkness on day 1 his days and nights could be like a macrocosm, and we are the microcosm ?? A thousand years is like a day or 65 million years, it makes no difference to God.
@@marcusmuse4787He did not create darkness.
Lucifer CAUSED darkness when he fell from grace. Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14:13-14
@@JamesBrown-fd1nv "Lucifer CAUSED darkness when he fell from grace."
Darkness has no cause. LIGHT has a cause; dark is just a word for the absence of light.
Perhaps you go to Home Depot and purchase a "flashdark"? No? Dark is not created, it is not projected from the lens of a flashdark.
How can Lucifer "fall from grace"? Perhaps God made a mistake in creating Lucifer? The mold was defective?
Perhaps the Mormons are correct, the arrogance or evil of Lucifer (and anyone else) is eternal and immortal, not created by God but always existed and will always exist. Good cannot be destroyed, neither can evil; but humans are free to choose which one to be.
Darkness is simply the absence of light. It’s like the hole inside the doughnut.
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR.”
(Romans 3:4)
“That by two immutable things, in which it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE”
(Hebrews 6:18)
“Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH.”
(John 17:17)
You are making your religion soooo much easier to debunk with these videos. Thank you.
Debunk the word of God ? Your human he’s God repent and turn to Jesus Christ for faith in what is not seen. He can change your thoughts on trying to debunk the Bible. He rose from the dead and he loves you and wants you to be in his kingdom.
@@GLORYFORCHRIST I have no problem with Jesus. Only with some of the gospels forged to fit a Jewish narrative, some of Paul's and the whole nonsenses of the OT. Can you prove the bible is the word of a god?
@@eprd313A building is proof of a builder. A painting is proof of a painter. Creation is proof of a Creator. The Bible is the inspired Word of the Creator God. The Israelites brought Jesus into the world. His cousin, John, saw Him and said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Why did he say that? Because when the Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt they were instructed by God to put a Lamb's blood on the door post of their homes, and the blood saved them from the death angel. It passed over them. PASSOVER.
WHEN JESUS'S COUSIN JOHN SAW HIM AND SAID BEHOLD, THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD WAS THE BEGINNING OF JESUS'S MINISTRY ON EARTH. HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING; HE WAS GOD. HE WAS GOD INCARNATE. JESUS CAME TO SAVE US. THE NEW TESTAMENT TELLS US HOW HE DID IT.
@@margiecarol2944 ok, first, if it was that simple, philosophers and theologians from all around the world would have already stopped questioning such basic fallacious argument. So drop the Dunning Kruger first. Your conjecture fails, because you are assuming that we're living in a creation and therefore it needs a creator. Your reasoning is completely circular, and you are also making a false equivalence, because we know paintings are made by paintings. We *see* painters paint. We know of no other mechanism for a painting to occur. But we do know there are physical and chemical processes that can totally explain the formation of life and the universe.
But if you still want to believe in a creator, then you must at least conclude that it's a mediocre creator who made an imperfect world.
I have to repeat. There's no evidence that this flawed world was created at all. None. Not knowing how something happened doesn't mean that your arbitrary guess about how it happened is true. Projecting your limited knowledge onto the functioning of the universe isn't an argument either.
Also, if you indulge the hideous narrative of the murder of innocent kids by yaweh, I must begin to question your discernment and ethics. Jesus was a nice guy apparently. The god of the old testament is a narcissistic bloodthirsty temperamental imperfect creator.
@@eprd313WHAT NONSENSE?
NO NONSENSE. HAVE YOU READ IT? OR JUST DEPENDED UPON STUFF UNBELIEVERS SAY?😊
The Lord our God made a covenant with the darkness that it can not remain when we pray that our flight will not take place in winter or on the sabbath.
I laughed so much; I nearly bought my own beer!🤣😂
Pride is the most prominent of them all.
@@wurzelbert84wucher5 In that case, Jehovah is royally stuffed!
@@tcrown3333 It's very prideful for the creator of all things such as the Heavens and the Earth to step down from His majesty for 30+ years being Worshipped on a Heavnly throne by All Angels to go into human form not as a king but a Peasant carpenter most of the time homeless and living a perfect sinless life that we all wish we could obtain, whilst being spit on and ridiculed than dying the worst imaginable death possible and being humiliated all because He loves you and sacrficied Himself for you. very very prideful. LOL hope my sarcasm didn't go over your head.
@@Grimblee- No, I just about managed to get it. 😉 Well, Dizzy, it depends on if you live in a reality that recognises the scriptures as fact or, as I do, seeing them as Bronze Age man's first stab at a philosophy in order to make sense of his environment. This, included the heavens (sky) and the question of the origins of everything.
@@tcrown3333 You believe everything came from nothing and complex information came into existence without intelligence and you mock those that believe in a creator. In this realm, matter cannot be created nor destroyed, information ALWAYS originates from intelligence, and the only exception to this is the magical big bang and father time being a genetic engineer.
What is the exact number of years that was round off to "..about 450 years" as stated in Acts 13:17-20 E.S.V.?
Better use the KJV
The Bible is clear. You learn every time you read.
You either believe fully or you do not believe any of it, no grey zone.
Taking the Bible out of context, is a big issue by those trying to make their point, not the Bibles.
I fully believe the Bible, KJV.
99.9999% read the bible out of context since the original is Hebrew and we are so far removed from the culture.
This is why we have over 33,000 different denominations
Amen!
Don't forget way back in time, no one understood how everything worked, how everything got here, so the easiest thing to do was to say this magical entity created everything. Not only that, if you are bad to me, then after death this entity will bully you for eternity, because you bullied me in life. Then a version of Chinese whispers twisted these views in to what we have now.
The only thing you can learn from the bible is how the human mind has tried to understand things, when we knew nothing to start with. As is was primarily formed by psychopaths, narcissists and influential schizophrenics, because these personalities are the most controling, and they will force their version of events the hardest. The evidence of these personalities is seen in how they have shaped the creul and barbaric nature of the bible.
This speaker is very much in denial about science. Evolution is a provable theory, he has to mock it because it doesn't fit the religious narrative that he is talking about.
Religion has held us back out of fear and control, just look at how mest up the middle east is. It got us out of the cave and to the start of the era of science. Allow science to take over so we can learn. Religion has excuses, science has the answers, we just have to find them. Religion needs to be archived in the history books, as an awkward but understandable footnote in human history.
Science wins because it proves itself. Just look how vicious the church has been to early scientists, because they could prove things that contradicted the bible. This goes back to my earlier comment about the personalities that shaped the bible, and who control religion now, it's pure narcissism, they prefer a mask than accept the true nature of things.
@@jonwelch564
Skepticism is important.
Majority of truths are in reality theoretical and misconstrued.
Until it's understood, the intelligent design, completely beyond imagination. A closed system, the mathematical genius behind essentially everything.
Our history is hidden from us.
Most unfortunately believe we all stem from a big explosion and apes.
The reality is we're all intelligently designed.
Question is by whome?
@@JustMe.001 replying to your now deleted comment, just look a our DNA, we did indeed evolve from apes. If you took as much time to understand science as you do the bible you'd understand this. Intelligent design as you see it, is nothing more than evolution succeeding in the best way that that suited that perticular species, you just misinterpret it as intelligent design.
Regarding your comment about the big bang. The red shift of distant galaxies does imply at an initial starting point. But interestingly the James Webb telescope is getting us to question the age of the universe and how it was created. This is the wonderful thing about science, it's open to new evidence that increases our understanding of how everything works. We have to keep questioning everything to increase our knowledge.
This is where science a religion differ; science questions and will celebrate new knowledge, where as religion is rigid and resists change, it will vilify you for questioning it. Again I'll refer to my earlier remarks about the personalities that formed religions. They can't handle criticism, because it's all about control.
I do indeed believe in six literal days.
The actual reason that secularists (scientists?) "get emotional" (as Ken puts it) about the age of the Earth is because of the overwhelming evidence there is for the date. It's not because we "need billions of years". We are astounded that Ken can say that it is not true without ever providing any contrary evidence. He points to texts as if they constituted evidence, they don't, they are simply ideas.
Of course, you need billions of years! How else could one explain organic life coming from non-organic matter?
How else can you baffle brains with the origins of matter do not matter without billions of years?
How else would you led them down the path of evolution?
People hear billions of years and stop thinking. We are too lazing to spend energy thinking through topics!
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 You didn't understand what I said. What we did was to actually measure the age of the Earth. It is about 4 billions years old.
@KeiTho , sorry, I still do not understand what you are trying to say.
@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 Ken thinks that we invented the notion of billions of years because we have to have them to support evolutionary processes. But, what we actually did was to measure the ages of things, geological and astronomical and we discovered that objects such as rock layers and stars are old. The idea that things are old arose because we measured their ages, not because we "needed" them. Indeed, before the early 1800s most everybody in the Western world believed that the Earth was young based on the Biblical interpretation (of patriarchal ages). It was only through the work of early geologists like Charles Lyell that we realised the opposite.
@keitho Hi Kei, With all the science, my faith in God only becomes stronger and deeper!
Many great scientific minds believe(d) Science leads to God.
Lord Kelvin; If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God. The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism. I believe the more thoroughly science is studied, the further it takes us from anything comparable to atheism.
As for your claims for Radiometric dating being accurate - lots of examples where scientists have had to twist their theories on the age of newly formed rock samples to justify the results and variation found in results from the same sample!
Here are some papers supporting the errors in Radiometric dating;
-Vernon Cupps, a nuclear physicist, is the author of a new book "Rethinking Radioactive Dating - Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist"
-Radioactive ‘dating’ failure. Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years
-The Truth About Radiometric Dating William M. Overn
-Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano by Steven A. Austin
Why my strength in God grows with Science;
Science can not explain;
Where did the original matter come from for the big bang?
Where did the original energy come from that initiated the big bang?
How did organic life come from inorganic matter?
If the earth is 4.567 billion years old, how are comets still orbiting our earth?
Why is there no evidence of evolution, one kind forming from another kind?
Why is there no example of spontaneous creation in nature - assuming the big bang was the first, why is there no evidence of a second?
I believe in science, but real science, not fake science.
According to the Oxford dictionary, Science is "knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example, by experiments."
The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s.
Water is made up of two Hydrogen and one Oxygen atom. These are scientifically proven because they are either observable or reproducible through experimentation!
This is all Science, and all points to an intelligent design! All of it supports God as the author of creation and I understand why atheists get upset when challenged. They know their blind faith in fake Science is falling apart! The more science they present, the stronger God becomes! Going back to Lord Kelvin; Studying science deep enough and long enough will force you to believe in God. The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism. I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further it takes us from anything comparable to atheism.
The young earth argument is ridiculous for Christians to use. The fact is, we don’t know. Ken Hamm is taking the proverbs 30:5-6 out of context. The Bible is being interpreted from Greek and Hebrew. It could be a bad translation. A prophetical year is different from our year. The saying of day has different meaning. What does “back in the day” mean. “The day of the lord”. So Saying that we may not understand what a day is to God is not taking it out of context. It says morning and evening. Not 24 hrs. In the beginning. Well Ken tell us when the beginning was? Man wasn’t created until the fifth day. We can know how long man has been on earth but we have know idea how old earth or the universe is. And this is not a salvation issue. It’s a secondary issue. Dr. Frank Turek explains this in great detail. I’d advise everyone to watch his debates and listen or read his books.
There is virtually unanimous consensus among scientific experts that Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, with no vacillation or controversy. But Creationists cannot agree among themselves about Earth's age because they have nothing to go on but the vagaries of ancient Hebrew mythology and their own religious hangups.
You're even misinformed and ignorant about the disagreements within your cult of scientism. So please first "educate" _yourself._
You've been bullshitted and now you're bullshitting yourself...
I love you too much to let you soil yourself unhindered and say nothing about it.
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. “(Exodus 20:8-11). The writer of Genesis is using the creation account of 6 days work/1 day rest as the model of the Sabbath rest. I believe we take God at his word that it was 6 literal days.
do you have scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god? (PREDICTION: you will reject or avoid the question - but will not offer a straight answer).
A very proof the existence of Holy Spirit, look at SCOAN Ministry, Nigeria, late T B Yoshua youtube
@@abrahambaktiar2548 thank you for confirming my prediction.
You want scientific proof of a God?
Look no further than your DNA.
If I gave you a book, and told you it just happened to arrange itself that way, ink, pages, binding, letters into words, words in to sentences, and sentences into paragraphs.
You'd call me a fool and ask who wrote it.
DNA is like a language. It didn't just organize itself. We have never observed information being generated from non information. Scientists have been trying for decades to create DNA from base molecules, unsuccessfully because it didn't happen that way.
@@mattprater8828 DNA exists. We agree it exists. There's scientifically verifiable evidence for that. What does your claim of the failure (so far) of scientists got to do with anything other than the fact that DNA exists?
Where's the god in DNA?
As for your book, the content was written by a human (probably, but that's now becoming a genuine issue). The physical book itself was created by a human. There's scientifically verifiable evidence for that. There's even the possibility of forensic evidence to identify which human or group of humans did that.
Do you recognize there you can examine two different kinds of things that exist? There's things that are manmade. There are natural things.
You want to apply the concept of verifiable evidence for the source of manmade things to the source of natural things - but there is no verifiable evidence for the source of natural things, is there?
What is your scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
Believing in God requires faith. Having faith in creation science is what is so bewildering!
The six day of creation is a reference to the fact, God exists moves and creates outside of the restraints of time. One day to Him is like a thousand years. It may aswell be a million or even a billion years. Time only matters to you. When God moves, He moves. The six days is a reference to the timeline He has set up for humanity.
Scientists (those inconvenient people, including the one who noticed global warming back in the 19th century) ask "What happened to the light that was created on Day 1? Astronauts know that outside the earth's atmosphere, there is only blackness, because there is nothing to disperse any source of light. In the time of Genesis, that was not yet known. Heat, which follows the same rules as light, works similarly. An astronaut who falls from his ship is instantly snap frozen. To this cult, ignorance is certainly bliss.
The Moving Finger writes, and having writ
Moves on, nor all your Piety nor Wit
shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
You will be asked about it at the Pearly Gates. The only person who answers "It didn't happen" is Trump.
@@douglaidlaw740 Scientists do and say as they are told, they chase the money probably worse than anyone else. A few of them have the balls to stand up and go against the grain but only very few, they are attacked and ridiculed if they don't fall in line.
@@wrippley103 Covid was such an eye opener in this regard. There were many doctors and other scientists opposing the mainstream narrative, that lockdowns are counterproductive, that the new vaccine-tech isn't ready yet etc and they have been ridiculed and censored. It's the same in every field, money is the only god for so many people in charge :(
@@wrippley103 ditto for most things,and religions.
18:36 "Where does the 7-day week come from?" - A phase of the moon.
If we evolved in knowledge and our technology grew only in the past few hundred years , what was holding back mankind in the millions of previous years ? Thousands of years is more likely.
Yet the acts of man can not save nor condemn him,
For man was condemned from the beginning,
and Christ stated only the Father chooses who comes unto Christ 😬
Accepting millions of years, and billions of years, shows a serious lack of good mathematics in education. It also shows a lack of education in genetics, and willful blindness in geology.
AIG continues make a great case for rejecting the Bible. Well done!
1 am..is it 'morning' or 'night'? If, it is 'morning' take a peep outside the window..darkness!
Genesis 1:3 God said “Let there be LIGHT,” (initial light).
Genesis 1:14 God said let there be LIGHTS (used the initial LIGHT to then make the sun, moon, etc)
A lot like striking 'a' match and using it to set multiple fires.
What was the exact date of Christ's birth? what month, day, & year?
Does it matter? Jesus was (probably) a bloke who was either born in the time of Herod's rule who died between 5 BCE and 1 CE as per the gospel Mathew, of go by the gospel Luke or he was born at the time of the census by Quirinius in 6 CE, so we have a 9 year varience if we accept the writings within the bible. All of this is inconsequential really, as what the relevant question is, did this Jesus bloke rise from being dead to become a god (again). Timings of the birth of this bloke, and the magical happenings associated with him are irrelevant, until it can be demonstrated that there is in-fact a Christ to start with.
Satan has attacked everything God has established. The attack on God's Word is evident with the statement of millions of years.
Two issues are being conflated here. One is whether or not the six days are literal, and the other is the age of the earth. In six literal periods of day and night, God could have created the earth, and finished creating on the sixth day, making animals and humanity only about six thousand years ago, while the age of the planet we live on could be 4.6 billion years as we measure time today. The age of living beings could only be six thousand years or so, with no death prior to the seventh day, while the age of the planet could be in billions of years. All that would mean is that God miraculously had very few cycles of daylight and nighttime - what the Bible refers to as "days" in Genesis 1 - during the 4.6 billion year period. (The only reason we think the days couldn't have been that long, is that from man's way of thinking and from what modern science tells us about what a day is, we think a day has to take place in a certain period of time, with day and night based on the earth's rotation, and the rotation speed being calculable and consistent (predictable) according to modern science.) This logical possibility seems to be ruled out by Ken Ham at the beginning of the video, and I don't have much hope that it will be pointed out later on in the video either.
In Matthew 24:36-44, Jesus himself actually affirms global Noah’s flood, specifically at verse 39.
@All About Britain You are both historically right and wrong. YES for WRITERS, who by the way DIED HORRIBLY for their (written) testimonies about the life of the resurrected Jesus, including what they wrote. For more historical and scientific details, read or listen to ”The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, who was an atheist courtroom expert and tried while an atheist to destroy trustworthiness of Gospels. NO for ”We don’t have any eyewitness testimony”, because of above and tons of other evidence summarized by Lee, and thus we have the eyewitness testimony of Jesus, Word of God, of global Noah’s flood. In fact, Gospels are de facto the most trustworthy documented history in the whole human history. Jesus already existed when Noah lived and even before, and was One with Father God and full of Holy Spirit. If you deny the words of Jesus, then logically you must also deny pretty much all human history, including the foundations of modern science, which was built on the principles of Bible.
@All About Britain thank you for your sincerity! Are you saying you don’t believe the apostles of Jesus died at all, or? As far as I know, we have the best evidence for the deaths of Peter, Paul and James (brother of John), but there is also evidence of others as well, although not so certain. Lee Strobel interviewed many scholars of different expertises using the methods of courtrooms and these deaths were covered. There is also non-Christian account of Josephus about the death of James (half-brother of Jesus). There are also no secular sources that would compete with the Christian sources. No early non-Christian sources accuse the apostles of lying or recanting their faith. Or, what counter-evidence can you present? Obviously, I am not a historian, but a scientist in the field of nanotechnology, so this is the end of my knowledge, and as a non-historian it takes hours to verify everything strongly with two or three different sources. As a scientist, I’m oblicated to investigate the evidence, and so far I have found no good reasons to doubt these expert accounts. See, virtually _all_ knowledge is all about trust, isn’t it? Knowledge inevitably requires Faith, because we always must choose a set of axioms that we believe in. Hence, _choose_ to believe the evidence presented by the martyrs (not only the Apostles) and believe the Gospels, and allow simplicity of Faith in Son of God reveal all things to you by the Spirit. I truly testify to you that the Gospels are far more self-consistent than you make them appear in your writing. The accounts of crucifixions can be harmonized with no major issues when it comes to the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. There sure are weird things like Mary and others not touching Jesus before he has ascended, but not essential. Plus, the virgin birth miracle of Jesus is easy to Father God. Believing in it requires much less faith than the faith required to believe in, e.g., the materialistic miracle of abiogenesis of life. Like the apostles, having met my Lord Jesus Christ, who won my ”wisdom”, I’m now similarly very willing to lay my life for others, even as martyr, whatever serves the superior Wisdom of Father God.
24:00 Glad that someone has finally taken Pat Robertson to task. Pat is a good brother in Christ, but his view of and 'faith' in evolution is way off the mark. Ken is a blessing in Bible accuracy, and Pat would be better off if he listened to Biblical reasoning.
To man it's thousand years, to God it's a day. It still adds up to 6 days/6000 thousand years.
It's probably more like 7000 thousand years. God rested on the 7th day.
If you wanna go with a story book, you stick with that conclusion.
I agree with your analysis but could the timeline at the beginning of your video be off? At 8:45 you state: “…God made Adam on day 6”. This is not what Genesis 6:27 actually says…”male and female created he them.” 6th day man was created before Adam.
It’s not until 2:7 that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. After the 7th day is described. Not sure this matters to your timeline but wanted to mention it.
We can look at the world's population and know, the "Dawn of Mankind" didn't begin 3-4 million years ago.
God created everything except for the one thing mankind created. And that one thing man created is “NONSENSE.”
16:51 matthew 18:16. Let everything be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
You need a lot more than hearsay from two or three self-described "witnesses" to support a scientific claim about the age of Earth.
@@luvdomus The good news is that there are WAY more than just two or three, that was a scripture reference(and a good rule of thumb). I’ve studied this topic as a hobby for years, and there’s a category some call “geochronometers” that are measured and tested scientifically from many different disciplines that all point to a young earth. I.e. ocean salinity, the earth’s magnetic field, space dust, river delta growth, population calculations… that’s five and that’s just off the top of my head. I can keep going.
The truth is, either it’s real science (testable, repeatable, and based on well established and proven natural LAWS) or it’s not.
@@guidos.6043 Pseudoscience is a hobby for crackpots who like to construct convoluted arguments for absurd claims while pretending they aren't motivated by a religious agenda. No one takes them seriously.
Two or three kooks is not enough to establish the age of Earth. Volumes of physical evidence establishes it at 4.5 billion years, and this is universally agreed upon by all scientific experts. Creationists can't even agree among themselves how old the Earth is, their claims vary wildly.
@@luvdomus Actually, the tide is slowly turning. More and more scientists are studying the facts themselves (and not the “approved” information), and are realizing that the Emperor indeed has no clothes.
When pressed, every evolutionist I’ve spoken to, admits that the “overwhelming evidence” they have is fossils. But the only evidence fossils are, is that the creature lived; no tag is included to say how long ago, or that it had offspring. Usually they point to the geologic scale, which is supported by evolution, which is supported by the geologic scale, which is supported by evolution, which is… circular reasoning, NOT evidence.
True, the professionals mostly agree on the 4.5 billion years, but this has not always been so. This number is more speculation and consensus than actual data. Interestingly, the drive behind current secular scientific study is THEORY focussed, rather than EVIDENCE focussed, but to secure funding, they need to inspire investors with the promise of future discovery, NOT with evidence that they already have. Makes sense.
The current evolutionary statement of origins is essentially (paraphrasing) “everything came from nothing”, which is a scientific impossibility.
You seem like an intelligent person. Are you buying it?
I liken evolution to visiting a film set… if you look where the cameras are pointing, the environment appears believable. But, it doesn’t take much work to stray off the path and find that the pillars are merely fortified facades with little to nothing behind them to back them up.
Evolutionists get very angry when they decide to see what the creationists believe (keeping an open mind) and realize that they have been “kept” and lied to by their peers for years.
For the Big Bang to have occurred, there would have needed to be a betrayal of the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle’s Law, and various tenets of Newton’s Law and Inertia, but what do I know?
Thanks for being calm about this. But here is a question for you. According to Genesis, God didn't create the sun, moon, and stars until the THIRD day. We all know a literal day is defined by one rotation of the earth (or if you're a flat earther, one rotation of the sun around the flat disc of earth). So IF the first couple of days happened before the sun was created, how were those days defined? And the earth was created BEFORE the sun? That's what the bible LITERALLY says. HMMMMMMM.
Jesus also said that if "The Temple were torn down he would rebuild it in three days". Is this the literal temple or a figurative one? The literal one took 46 years to build the first time.
Jesus also said Pete was the rock upon which he would build his church. Is Peter, the literal rock, typical Judean limestone or more durable granite, or is this a symbolic reading??
What is wrong with this idea: that in Genesis 1:1 we have a bare statement that created the heavens and the earth, then in vs two, attention is turned to earth, a darkened and empty unfinished earth.
For six days, then, God outfits the earth to be a habital place for man as it reads in the rest of the chapter. The appearance of the moon, sun, and stars would simply be the removal of the darkness enshrouding earth to make the sun and moon and stars created in the verse one statement.
People who refuse to acknowledge that their interpretation of the Earths age could be wrong are the same kind of people who called Galileo a heretic.
Not sure exactly where you’re going with this, but the people who accused Galileo of being a heretic didn’t believe the Bible.
Fun fact.
they use the argument that we cant use our perception of time now to assume things about the past but how do they explain how we use our perception of time now to accurately predict things in the distant future
Lol exactly. I mens the insane level of cognitive dissonance it takes for them to make these arguments is laughable.
God creates in 6 days. Nature would take millions of years. This is what non believers can never grasp.
Which day did God make the angels
For your information: "thorns and thistles" does not apply to plants and animals, but to man only. Gen.3:17-19 was address to Adam by God. Please, dont deviate from what was subject of the paragraph.
Who gave them the authority to date number and time anyting how do they know they were not here and how can you determine that something is a billion years old how do you have the mathematic the technological and the scientific knowledge to do that you don't have that authority to decide how old something is and what it shouldn't should not be
What's weird is God created day and night before the sun. So now when I look at His creation and see how day and night works by the sun, it doesn't make sense. His word is pure and creation is corrupt, but I cannot see how sin corrupted day and night to depend on the sun.
a thousand years is like a day to God or 65 million years. he lives in eternity.
We are all sick and need Jesus!
I believe God gave us the sun and moon to keep time. And the sun, moon and stars weren’t created until the fourth day. Prior to that days couldn’t have been ordinary, not that God couldn’t created everything in six ordinary days as he is all powerful. However I also believe that our mind and God’s are completely opposite. Furthermore, can we even comprehend God’s experience of time at all? As a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. All in all our experience in this time is finite. So take from that what you will.
"I believe God gave us the sun and moon to keep time."
And now it can be done with a Casio watch.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven will enter." Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't mean they are.
"Just because someone says they're a Christian, doesn't mean they are."
And just because someone claims you are NOT a Christian, does not mean you are NOT. Christ will decide who is Christian.
Man cannot create life but nature can ??? The whole thing, is I think, is life . What makes something alive ?
Now here's where I don't agree with our brother, when he says the virgin birth is not tied to our salvation. You see, it is important that Jesus is born of a virgin because if He is born the same way as all of us, of a man and a woman, He cannot save us; because He would have inherited the Adamic sin nature and if He is tainted with any sin then He would not have risen. Also how can we trust God to save us if He has lied through the mouth of His prophets and told us about the virgin birth; may it never be indeed. "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" Galatians 4:4-5
I used to believe in the millions of years, but it was so difficult to comprehend and it didn't lineup with scripture. This is what I was thinking about when I was 10-11-12 years old! I came to realize in my late teens that there was no missing link and that Jesus is the only link that we need or have to the father.
I recently have fully embraced and believe that we've been here for only 6000 years based on scripture, my faith, and the geological evidence left behind, as that evidence is what makes sense to my scientific mind and my soul.
This is a Faith issue, but people need to have brains to see and correctly evaluate the evidence God left for us and realize that the scientists who are proposing millions of years are ridiculous!
God and his truth is much more interesting than the 'scientific' garbage people propose to eliminate God from his creation and to further their own self righteousness and career/sell books/make a name for themselves!
It is false doctrine that the Bible warned us of too!
The question I ask is if it was a twenty four hour day then in the day Adam and eve ate of the forbidden fruit that would of been the end for them but scripture says Adam lived over 900 years less then a thousand years as scripture also says a thousand years to God is one day and one day a thousand years so I think a creational day is not twenty four hours God created time for man not for himself the other reason is God tested on the seventh day but yet her we are living and God is still working s
Amount man so God has not really rested from all his works
There is no definitive way to know what time schedule God operated on at that juncture but it seems there was periods of work followed by periods of rest...although he seems to rest on the seventh day after 6 days of work...but either way there is a time separation of some sort...first he did then then next day this...why would you seperate the days though is all the work was together....but anyhow...if God was subjecting himself to our time frame..couldn't he have been working on sections of creation for eons?
Given that the sun was created on the 4th day it seems evident that these are not 24 hour solar days.
Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. God is not the author of confusion. That problem emerges from elsewhere.
Paul warned in his letters to Timothy that there would be apostasy, brought about by different groups forming around doctrines that appealed to them, and teachers willing to make popular compromises.
As Paul also wrote in "chapter 2" of his second letter to the Thessalonians, the lovers of truth are those who do not fall for these deviations from the traditions that had already been established by Christ and His apostles ...who based their revelation of the Gospel on the proper interpretation of the Old Testament, (the Law and the Prophets) including Genesis.
At the end of the day, believing and speaking the same things regarding His word is not only possible, but expected. And no, it's not a matter of choosing the right extra-biblical institution to tell us, and calling the collection of them "the Church" as if this is what Jesus built.
We know what an evening and morning cycle is. The question is, how many other compromises occurred across history to bring us to the point where it's difficult to understand what a day means? Posting this comment three years after this lecture, we find confusion in the culture over how many genders exist.
Surely, none of the various apostate "church" organizations would adopt that confusion... and we're right back to Rom 1.
Thank you. As a Christian, I agree.
The way I see it, there are 3 options for us Christians. I think there's either one true church on the Earth, the true church *isn't* on the Earth, or the concept of a true church isn't true/the Bible is the "true church".
Who knows what 6 days were…
Question. Are "all" the words in the Jewish book the words of God? [2] What proof have you apart from blind belief? [3] What is the story of Chapter 6 of Genisis? [4] Dates of the written history' of the many races of humanity. [5] How long did it take to populate the earth? [6] How long did it take for the various species of man to evolve. [Not from monkeys] For example In Africa alone there are at least four.
For once you know, you can then possibly calculate the date of the flood and then the date of creation' commencement. For all the above had to happen some months before the above taking place. To get started Mesopotamian written history and all writings since, right up to today in that area of the world, commenced around 6000 years ago. Jewish history was put into the writing around 2600 years ago.
But if the flood was localized in say the lowest point on the planed, that is the Jordan River valley which comes to an abrupt ending at the western edge of the Dead Sea, all is possible, possibly? Oh, and forget about fossils and the first reference to the ARK related to an oblong four-sided box with a flat bottom to carry legal documents in. So that could be the design of the craft Noah used to save himself, his family and their livestock?
KH never seems to really get to the theological implications of the 6 days of creation.
|
They are the orientating basis for our understanding of God, the creation and ourselves in the creation and in relation to God. God shows that he is not distant but near to us, executing the creation in the days he made for our fellowship with him (and this flows onto the grandeur of the Sabbath in the Covenant with Israel); he also shows that his word is the immediate cause of the creation. This demonstrates direct connection with the creation and gives force to the 'good's, and the final 'very good', further reinforcing God's intimate connection with the creation which culminates in Genesis 3:8 with God actively in the garden seeking Adam and Eve in fellowship. This is utterly different from any pagan myth.
|
The days, being 'in our terms' are clearly located in real history, our history. But they do more: they underscore that they are in the concrete reality of the world we are in, (contrary to monist dreams), they form the intellectual basis for our understanding of reality (contrary to materialist dreams), and show its goodness for our habitation and care (contrary to pagan spiritualism, platonic mind games, and Gnostic deceit).
|
Proverbs 3:19-20 underscore the attributes of God demonstrated in the creation. Nothing like any pagan myth.
|
The immediacy of creation also side-lines any notion of secondary or intermediate causes, either of which push God away from his creation and denigrate it's spiritual (godly) significance as the place of fellowship and where man reflects God's image and of us. Psalm 8 celebrates this intimacy that results.
The good news !!!!!! My sins have been forgiven !!!! God loves me and soon I will be in his presence!!!!!!
In the 1st line it is already mentioned that heaven and earth were created.
Is there an explanation for the 1st line in the Bible and the 5th line?
In the 5th line it had been evening and there was morning, the 1st day.
What then happened between the 1st line and the 5th line if the 1st day is only mentioned in the 5th line?
Good question. Actually I have the same question. Ken Ham’s 6000 years started with the first day of creation. But it seems to me that the heavens and earth were already created before the first day of the creation of light in verses 1 and 3. I wish these creationists can address that.
@@dipBigLeaf
You are right, because that 6,000 years is based on adding the ages of generations and has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
That the creation is also 6000 years is simply assumed without thinking in my opinion.
I would also like to hear comments.
If you accept reality, the narrative in the bible falls apart. To accept the bible, you have to deny reality.
I believe God could have created the world in 6 ordinary 24 hour days and I believe God could have done it in 6 periods of time that were more than 24 hours (what if they were 30 hour days back then?), and I believe God could have created an old earth such that it is physically older than it really is. For example, when God created Adam, I assume he created him as a full grown man that would have the markings of someone in their teens or 20’s, but was actually just one day old. I don’t believe this is something we need to be dogmatic about. As Paul said, we should not argue about words. Let’s focus on Jesus Christ, His Lordship, His death and resurrection, His payment for all our sins, wiping them out from our records, Our worship of Him, Our service to Him, Our fellowship and love for one another.
yes it really matters the age of creation because everything that was created by God is for his Son Jesus as an heir. The universe was created for Christ
Mentioned Sabbath where
Where do you stand on that issue?