Question Time Stamps for Quick Reference: 0:00 - Intro 1. 0:07 {Genesis: Different Views} What are the different interpretations that different Christians have about the book of Genesis and the creation accounts? 2. 26:27 {Israel - God’s People or Moses’ People?} What’s the significance of God calling the Israelites Moses’ people in the golden calf story, and then Moses calling them God’s people? I can’t help but think it sounds like two parents of the same child saying “That’s your kid” as the child misbehaves (Exodus 32:1-14, specifically verses 7 and 11). 3. 30:25 {Are our Souls Immortal?} Seventh-day Adventism claims that belief in an immortal soul comes from Paganism and leads to occult spiritualism (like necromancy and belief in ghosts). Is this biblical? 4. 35:00 {Christians and Yoga} A family member does yoga for stretching, but in that quiet time they meditate, pray, and worship God. I know yoga for stretching is fine, but is worshiping while doing yoga an issue because of Deuteronomy 12: 30-31? 5. 42:23 {Can Angels be Saved?} Does Colossians 1: 19, 20 suggest that Christ’s sacrificial death can be applied to fallen angels, as well? 6. 47:04 {Can we Feel the Spirit Move?} Is “feeling the Spirit moving” biblical? 7. 52:40 {Guilty of Unintentional Sins?} Are we guilty of sins we do not know we have committed (Leviticus 4: 27, 5: 17)? 8. 57:53 {Prayer: How Long & How Many Times?} How long should our prayers be? I see many people online who need prayers, and I want to pray each night for everyone. It feels tedious & repetitive, but it feels wrong to pray for them only once. Thoughts? 9. 1:01:45 {Salvation by Works in Revelation?} Is Revelation 14: 12 talking about salvation by works? 10. 1:05:06 {From Intellect to Salvation} Is there a way for me to go from an intellectual belief in God to a relationship with God, or do I have to wait on Him for that?
As for yoga,it is designed for each move to be a prayer to a different foreign diety. It begins with a mantra designed to open you up to benevolence of the pagan deities to whom the prayers are given. It was designed specifically as a prayer session. My opinion after learning the origin of yoga as prayers means a hard no. You can't walk in and say in your mind,well I'm dedicating this to the Christian God and then do the prayer cycle to the pagan gods. Yoga has infiltrated the church and is totally acceptable in the new thought movement along with manifestation and reiki healing without calling it reiki. It is specifically what Yahweh says not to do. You are dedicating a pagan prayer practice to Yahweh. It's specifically forbidden.
10)Salvation belongs to the Lord. All the glory belongs to Him for saving us. You will develop a personal relationship with Him because He does a work in you-John 3:3. John 1:12-13🕊💝 " But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"
4) Yoga practice is from the Hindu religion-Exodus 34:14. Go to God, and He will direct you. Those poses are demonic door openers. The Holy Spirit will work through your conscience to not practice yoga poses or any other pagan practice you questioned. Talk to Jesus about everything. Proverbs 3:5-6🙏🕊
In my personal experience with moving from an intellectual belief to a relationship with God, the greatest changes I've seen there always followed difficult events in life which made me seek HIM, not theological doctrines or scriptural evidence for one interpretation or another, not theories or any number of definitive boxes we humans like putting God into, but seek Him as someone who can be known. When you think about it, the very notion that we could KNOW the everlasting God is crazy. And yet when we seek Him, He often shows up in amazing ways. Seek Him as someone who can be known, ask Him to show you His ways so that you may walk in His footsteps. That's how my relationship changed anyway.
Yeah, currently It feels like I would have to be forced to truly seek him like I should. I mean it's the right decision, but it entails a lot so it's a hard choice.
Imagine for a second if you heard many churches start arguing that Moses didn't really exist. Instead he was just a theological character for us to learn from, or if he did exist then he was actually multiple people and the Exodus account is really the retelling of many people bound together in one archetype. That would be pretty bizarre when you have the plain reading of the text. It says Moses existed. It tells us of his life and writes it as one person. Why would we say otherwise? So too with Creation. If God says He did it in 6 days, what reason do we have to say we know better?
I have heard progressives make similar claims about people just being metaphorical. Though there is quite a bit of difference in how they make the claim vs most of the discussion around Genesis. Jordan Peterson once theorized that it is metaphorically true, to the point that the story has played out in architype repeatedly so it actually doesn't matter if it is literally true. But when pressed he also said he suspects that many are literally true as well. I think that might be the right way to look at it. Even if it where false it would still be true metaphorically and thus still worth following. But it is probably literally true as well.
@@viperstriker4728 At some point there must be a line where calling it a metaphor doesn't cut it. As Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 15:14-17, if Christ is not risen from the dead, then your faith is in vain. Christianity hinges on the fact that this event actually happened, not in metaphor but in very deed. Once you say Jesus literally died and rose, then you can work the entire thing back because Jesus spoke of Moses and the prophets as real people who lived and died rather than as metaphorical figures.
Actually it tells us of his life and death and writes it as one person. Neat trick witnessing your own death and then writing about it. Maybe we don't know his burial place because he buried himself too?
@@hermanwooster8944 This is a bad argument because none of the scholars arguing for non-concordist interpretations of Gen 1-11 say that Moses wasn’t real. Gen 1-11 is clearly a different genre and should be handled appropriately.
Thank you so much for a balanced and fair approach! I'm Young Earth, but I'm very alarmed at the number of people who treat it as some sort of salvatory issue, and don't understand that this is something that has been debated since the very earliest church.
It's a better attitude that you have. However I think that u should also recognize all truth is God's truth Every scientific field preclude young earth. The people at answers are not scientists. U should consider that u need to reinterpret U may not know this flood geology is from seven day Adventist But I want to ask you consider something. How many asteroid and meteors have impacted the earth.😅 The answer is millions But even the top 40. The ones like chixalub (Yucatan) Think of those in the flood year. Those 40 would release so much heat that it would vaporize the ocean.😅 And we can measure there destruction within the rock layer. More over limestone has to deposit in calm cool water and it releases heat. Then u have volcanoes. Ask yourself how much destruction does a volcano like yellowstone 😅 create. Moreover do u know how many times it's erupted. As it's moved across the north American continent Forget the flood the granite crust of earth would be molten.😅 Ask your self how do u have those events. Meteors raining down. Which would have to occur. Does the bible record great earth quakes. Does it record meteors raining down. Does it record explosions of fire from under the water😅 Now you have a situation where your in view of things the scripture doesn't record. What a Happened to sola scriptura
@JesusIsLove1010 go look up Inspiringphilosophy As well as gavin ortlund The both showcase the age of earth being debated. As more was discovered about the world. Moreover there's evidence of other survivors. Instead. Of listing of a million and one qoutes lol It's best to ditect you to individuals with the receipts. That have the books. And resources U should also look up maimodees a jesish rabbi in 1500s
@@JesusIsLove1010 Absolutely! Let me clarify again that I believe in YEC and that YEC was the prevailing view in the early church, but it was not the only view, nor were old earth views invented out of thin air to "align with evolution" as some claim. Some examples would be St. Irenaeus of Lyons who said that the days were not literal when responding to the gnostics in "Against Heresies" 5.28.3, or St Clement of Alexandria who believed in an instant creation that was presented as a metaphor in Genesis in order of the importance of each creation. This view was also held by St. Athanasius the Great, Origen and others. St Augustine believed that the days of creation were periods of time, but they were "God-divided" and not "sun divided" and so could have lasted any amount of time. None of them treated Genesis 1 as a history that was speaking literally. Those are just some off the top of my head, but there were others. I should also clarify that I am a Protestant and do not appeal to these figures because they are "saints", but because they are proof that old earth beliefs were very early and orthodox in the Christian church.
Hi Mike love your content. Have you ever thought of making a video of your research methods? I have 7 years of bible college education yet you seem to know enormously more than I do. Thanks again 😊
Appreciate your ecumenical stance on wrestling with Genesis (primarily 1-11). As truth is exclusive, not all of these stances can be compatible with one another. Even church fathers from the beginning wrestled with these topics! There must be non-negotiables of course. God is the creator of the universe. An actual historic Adam and Eve who are necessary for the introduction of sin in mankind (Romans). Let us be both wise and patient when we discuss and debate with fellow Christians, remembering that it is Christ alone that grants us salvation. Let us build each other up!
I believe in a historical Adam and Eve, but if Paul and Jesus are accommodating to their audiences (as Mike mentioned) in those passages, then you don't necessarily need a historical Adam and Eve for the theology to work and thus you can still be a Christian on this view. You can still have the existence of sin and need for a saviour without Adam and Eve.
@@calebmarquart The view of accomodation troubles me, because it postulates that what Paul and Jesus is actually saying is not true, but an accomodation to their audience who did not know better. The reason this appeals to us I believe is that we think we know better today. It also opens the door to reject other issues as accomodations. In the end, I fear we end up choosing what we want to believe rather than accepting what we are being told. I completely agree it is not a savation issue, but I see it as very serious for how we relate to the Word of God.
I agree that as Mike had stressed that Christians can have a variety of views on this topic and be well meaning at the same time. I saw a verse in the New Testament from Paul that goes like this: Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works" I know it seems insignificant but this passage is using a Greek word that is always translated as day. So was Paul saying something other than what I'm assuming here?
Why do we doubt the Genesis account? Because atheistic, anti-God scientists and philosophers started coming up with alternative explanations for the origin of life. They wanted God out of the equation. The science is overwhelmingly against vast ages yet we still cling on to these atheistic origin myths. Just look at soft tissue preservation in dinosaur fossils? That alone should make people question long ages but there are countless examples like this. It isn't a salvation issue but it is frustrating when Christians adopt anything other than a Biblical Creation understanding if only because of the mental and theological gymnastics they have to perform to justify themselves. And it isn't a belief that is without consequences either. People have lost their faith when confronted by these unbiblical views and doubted God altogether.
I think too many people believe they have to take a hard stance on every issue that comes up. It's perfectly fine to say: "I don't know. We know the things we need to. Let's wait for more info." Gaps in explanation can teach us humility, give us room to grow, etc. My personal belief is that the universe, Earth, & life are genuinely billions of years old. I feel like everything implied in the alternative (like God creating light in transit for places further than ~6000 light-years away or doing something to alter its speed of travel) would make God out to be too much of a liar. I don't think that's a case of trusting man or science over God, just a natural consequence of believing creation reflects its creator. That said, I also acknowledge that my knowledge is imperfect, that nothing prevents God from creating everything in six literal days, and that something I'm ignorant of could resolve my problems with the idea. I'm not going to doubt anyone solely on where they land on this issue (but I might based on how they treat people with other opinions).
The real problem with belief in billions of years is this has to be read into Scripture, not the other way around. Not only that, it violates Scripture because it contradicts the origin of sin. This belief introduces disease, sickness and death before the Fall. Just as bad, it ignores all the scientific evidence that clearly shows that abiogenesis is not possible, and evolution is a just-so fairytale for people who need to reject God.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. It seems that six literal days is what is implied, as God Himself restates it in the 10 Commandments. Also, there are a plethora of examples of six days being prescribed/used in various events: Exodus 16:26, 24:16, 31:17; Joshua 6:3; Matthew 17:1… and many more.
Amen! There is also Mark 10:6 where Jesus says Adam and Eve were created at "the beginning of creation." This phrasing only makes sense if the time from creation to Adam and Eve was shorter than the time from Adam and Eve to Jesus. Otherwise Jesus is calling events that took 13 billion years "the beginning." That leaves very little room for a middle and end, especially since the Apostles say we are in the last days.
yeah I agree, Mike says that if the world were made in six literal days that they cant have scars, or how the stars are lightyears away, but if we are the focus of creation (being created in God's image) and God wanted to show us good things, I don't see why it would be a problem for God to "stretch out" the light travelling from the stars so that the people of Earth can enjoy them and glorify God. Along with the scars on the Earth, might just be a design decision. As an artist when I make characters or environments, I can give them as many scars/ features as I want to make it look good. And throughout the old testament God commands the rocks not to be cut for they are already good (God's the one who designed them) or how in Roman it says how God made some vessels for honor and other for dishonor. God is a designer so I honestly think it fits well.
I'm prepared to accept whatever view on Genesis turns out to be true, but I really like what I think has been called the pre-creation chaos view, which is a particular spin on the gap view. One of the more interesting passages to that point is Jeremiah 4:23-26, where the language of Genesis 1 is used to describe the earth during the final judgement of God: 23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. 25 I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. 26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger. The context of this passage is reflected in many of the judgements in Revelation, culminating in a near destruction of the whole earth, and then its eventual recreation. If this sort of language, particularly the phrase “without form and void” can be used to describe a state of chaos after judgement and destruction preceding a new round of creation, why could it not be used in the same way in Gen 1? God created the heavens and the earth...gap... In that gap could be the fall of Satan and the entrance of animal death upon creation (Adam and Eve did not need an explanation of what death was. Maybe it was happening outside the garden all the time. Why was a walled off garden needed at all? Maybe to separate A&E from the chaos outside.) evolution could have progressed, mass extinctions and various explosions of new life could have occurred, and then after one particularly devastating catastrophe the story picks back up: The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep... I think that view is pretty compatible with both natural evidence and biblical theology. There are good arguments for other views as well, but I'm partial to that one.
I have a similar point of view that the seven days were really 7 points in history God intervened to make Earth, humans and such. Without his involvement, Earth, like other planets, would be unstable and/or fall apart. The fact Earth is in the right spot in our galaxy to sustain life, without an asteroid to immediately destroy us, is pretty supernatural in my point of view.
The thing I don't get with the gap, why does life exist in the gap? Mars is without form and void, and every other planet really. Why not have the galaxy exist, then God starts terraforming after the gap? I should note I thing the geologic record has been wrong too often to not be thrown out. So I don't see any scientific reason to believe in animals before the gap.
One view of the days in genesis you didn't bring up that I have seen the late Chuck Missler discuss is one where the terms for morning and evening in the creation account could be statements of entropy increments.
When I was younger, I only knew two views: young earth or atheistic materialistic evolution. It didn't take much for someone to shake my understanding of creation and my whole faith nearly deteriorated as a result. Put simply: young earth insistence nearly wrecked my faith. And I have friends who have left the faith entirely because of it. It's so much better to allow for differing views.
@@MrWholphin Clearly not on this particular issue. There are tons of differing opinions among devout Christians across Protestantism, Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodoxy. There's no magical answer, and pretending that there is only serves to stir up stride and act contrary to the unity of the church.
@@MrWholphin Jesus is truth. Creation is historical truth, you stick close to Jesus and make heaven your hone and you will eventually know whatever your heart desires.
Thanks for your answer wish I was there for it, but I had some cleaning to do. I definitely know I'm not a Christian currently because of the way I live my life. I just have to remember that it's a process even though it can be scary not knowing when/if I would get to the end of the process. (i.e. being saved) I was baptized recently; I go to church regularly (if I'm awake I have a bad sleep schedule), but I'm not regenerate, I haven't really had any significant changes in my life when it comes to tackling sin, I'm not repentant (I know sin is bad, but it feels like I just don't care sometimes), I don't pray enough, and I don't read my bible enough. It can just be overwhelming to figure out what to tackle first and how to tackle it. In the end I just hope God can help me to confront and beat these issues.
I love question 10. I hope that person sees this comment. Until just a couple years ago, I did not even know there was such a thing as having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I had done church before, been in the choir and all that good stuff, but it was just doing things, and then I would go back to my regular life. How did no one ever tell me there is more?? So of course it just felt like it wasn't "working" and therefore God wasn't real or important or who they say or whatever. And then a couple years ago it's like God just said, okay enough of this, and the Holy Spirit drew me in. All of a sudden I was interested in learning about God and there are so many great teachers on TH-cam. I just began to fall in love with God the more I learned about him. People like Pastor Mike, Justin Peters, Paul Washer, Vodie Baucham, and others. And I fully believe that would also work in reverse if that is your heart's desire. If you start learning about God you will fall in love with Him and He will increase your urge to know more. Before you know it, you will be talking with the Lord praising God just not even recognizing who you are anymore because you will have been changed in an instant it seems. I would put specific questions right into the TH-cam search and a brilliant sermon or lecture or Bible study would come up and would answer my question and then in exploring that I would have another question and without even asking, a TH-cam video would pop up to answer the question I had not even asked yet. God is truly amazing and He is near, if we just reach out. ❤
Most of the thoughts that do not accept literal days end up violating scripture that there was death before the fall but Romans 5:12 tells us that it was by one man's sin death entered the world.
Yeah, to me the rest of scripture stops making sense without it being literal. Why did Jesus have to die if God allowed death from the beginning? Thoughts like that keep me away from even considering it
@@jessecainjr I can appreciate your perspective. Have you considered how Christians that hold an old earth view interpret Romans 5:12 and harmonize it with Genesis, even if you don’t agree with it?
Other views can argue that the subject of concern in Rom 5:12 is humanity, the offspring of Adam and Eve: "and so death spread to all men" Rom 5:12b. It's not addressing whether animal death happened before Adam, and in the same way it's not excluding all sin before Adam. Certainly the serpent brought sin into the world before Adam did, and Eve sinned before Adam. So Rom 5:12 is drawing a theological point about the significance of Adam's sin spreading to all mankind, which isn't necessarily concerned with the semantics of "didn't Eve sin first?" "what about the serpent's sin?" etc...
can animals sin? that's the question. Certainly there are animals that are carnivores and we can't deny their physiology that is made for consuming meat. Plants have lives too and animals eat plants. They might have souls but are like NPCs of the world and acts purely on instincts like babies
When listening to the Young Earth Creationist views, you can see that they provide very convincing scientific reasons to believe the Bible as it is plainly written, and they typically have great respect for the sacredness of Scripture and handle it exegetically, not isogetically. I highly recommend looking into it. Answers in Genesis and such, have a very beautiful ministry that always manage to give God the glory.
Thank you for this video. Both Old and Young Earth views have serious challenging questions, just like the materialistic creation of everything has serious questions. But I love the spirit in which you spoke about this issue, one of explaination and not condemnation, one of fellowship with other believers even if we disagree on this secondary issue. Please keep making these videos; they are one of the highlights of my week.
I’m thankful to be a literal acceptor of Genesis 1! 😂 For me, it would be a waste of time to worry and perhaps debate or argue about alternate views. I seriously don’t have the desire. 😬 Agreed, it’s not an issue of salvation. Thankfully. I pray God helps me to discern and know the truth about Jesus, about God’s will for me, about living daily in a way that’s holy and pleasing to Him, about opportunities for sharing God’s mercy and goodness with others (although im weak in that), and about serving those around me. Let the love of God be ‘shed abroad in our hearts’…
Hi I want to thank you for your content! I'd been away from the Lord for 10 years until I watched one of your videos that popped up on my feed! I'm now seeking God again and hungry for theology and his word!
I feel so inadequate to understand the Bible at times. I have never known a time in my life that I didn't know God but I am so poorly educated in the Word. I appreciate your ministry.
Thank you Mike for finally addressing the Genesis 1-2 topic. Your open-minded listing of many views that fellow believers in Christ can and have held is a charitable and commendable approach. Hoping that someday you might produce a mega-deep dive on the subject like the series of egalitarian vs complimentarian videos 😂 (but for real though!). I myself came to faith later in life (thank you Lord for opening my eyes and ears to hear the truth that Jesus Christ is your Son and the gift that all us descendants of Adam desperately need!). Pre-belief, I truly thought my materialist-atheistic view was defensible, and the arguments I was hearing from the Ken Ham young earth creationist types ironically solidly entrenched my non-theistic views and turned me off to religion entirely. Now, as a believer, I'm willing to grant that the young earth creationists are brothers in Christ and sincere in their beliefs, but I also think their insistence that their reading is the only correct reading can do harm to the faith of others who think differently (and in the most extreme cases, I see them heap a lot of condemnation and judgement on people with whom they disagree). Spurgeon of all people seemed to be open to an old earth, and he's certainly not a materialist athiest (as Ken Ham thinks all his intellectual opponents must certainly be)! I tend to see parallels to the debate of the last couple centuries with similar issues from centuries earlier, such as when many faithful Christians thought the Bible refuted Copernicus's heliocentrism. They were calling copernicus a fool for doubting geocentrism, but his model was eventually proven right, and most Christians today don't consider that a hill to die on. Turns out we can bring a lot of assumptions to the Bible and consequently read it in a way that we think affirms those assumptions. I believe the universe is created by God and that the Bible is truly inspired by God. And because God is not deceptive, supposed contradictions in what we can infer about prehistory from both the bible and our scientific observations of God's creation must be a failure of understanding on our part, not a real contradiction. My own Genesis views are not super rigid, but I presently tend to lean toward ideas like what Mike has here described as the theological framework approach, with bits of genealogical Adam and mytho-history view. I am trying to be a faithful student of the bible and am encouraged by all the deep truths about God's power and character, as well truths about the human condition, that are revealed in the creation and eden accounts of Genesis, such as what I hear exegeted by folks like the Bible Project. They seem to bring a lot of meaning out of the text without taking a stance on controversial issues that would alienate any of the views listed by Mike here. I feel that all christians, whether concordist or non-concordist in their Genesis views, can learn a lot together studying this part of God's word. Sad that us squabbling Sons of Adam often care more about using Bible debates for drawing lines in the sand and handing out anathemas than coming together in awe and wonder for God's word and creation!
Really well articulated. I second that hope for a deep dive, but also am keeping my expectations in check given just how much there is to discuss on the subject.
I’m #2. Supernova’s don’t burden this theory and aren’t examples of God being deceptive. The tree’s in the garden, just like Adam, were made mature, just as the supernova. The trees needed to be mature to achieve their purpose. The bark, the roots, looked old and aged, but it’s not a deception. Maybe we needed fossils as well. I don’t know. But I’m for the mature creation because of Adam, and because I believe that to be how the scripture reads. Thanks Mike. I greatly appreciate your ministry.
Agreed, Supernova's as well as all the rest of the universe shows off God's power and beauty in creation. God creating a mature canvas isn't deceptive it just lets us see the beauty in his timing for us. I feel most of the other understandings of Genesis are failures to understand God's full power. Needing to take a huge amount of time to accomplish the creation instead of just speaking and it happens. Definitely not something that would separate anyone from God but something that can limit their appreciation of some of his glory while we are here. We all get stuff wrong through that prevent us from fully understaning how Glorious and good God is and how bad our sin is or we wouldn't keep sinning. Luckily God is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth. I fully believe the reason he creates the earth over 6 days and rested on the 7th instead of doing it all in one day was to show us the pattern he wants for our life.
This also extends to the creation of stars. Stars are many many light years away so in order for them to be seen either A) time is given for the light to travel or B) God creates the stars and puts their light on earth at the same time, we see that when God creates the stars in Genesis 1:14-15 they are visible (probably?) from earth at that time of creation. So by God making the stars observable on earth without any deception he can also make the light of a supernova observable 6000 years later with no deception.
Can't #1 and #2 be combined? Where is the distinction that makes these two theories exclusive of each other? Some of the explanations from the Answers in Genesis folks trying to account for the age of light and the vastness of space are WAY out there..... Like White Hole Theory. Maybe the earth IS young, and maybe much of it still does have the appearance of age where necessary in order to serve a function ordained by its creator.
@@moriah1901I was kinda unsure what distinction he was making as well. Unless he is saying people in #2 don't necessarily think the world is ~6-10k years old? Or he is saying people in group #1 don't necessarily think the world looked old when it was formed and was aged in the flood? I believe the Bible teaches a literal 7 day creation and the world's age is measured in thousands of years not millions or billions. The why things look the way they are I hold a lot looser because I don't think the Bible tells us but I think you can infer that the body God made Adam wasn't that of an infant which leads to a lot of the other appearances of age.
I am watching some of the responses with my nine-year-old daughter, she wanted to watch question seven. Thank you Mike for catching yourself at 53:34 with the Leviticus verse!
@@marvinfanno3587 yes. Plus, God said in the Ten Commandments that he made the Earth in 6 days. And Jesus said God made martiage to be male and female "in the beginning of creation," not millions of years later.
Not so most of the early church did. In fact josephephus said the flood extended to the gates of Gibraltar Remember they didn't understand the full scope of the earth The thing is you need to look at real science and not ken ham at cherry picked earth
@@reidveryan9414 the point is that in Jesus time. The jews and people's then were not interpreting it as global. Jews by the 1500s like maimodes (who was a early scientist in his own right.) Was already pondering on a earth that was millions of years with past worlds of life. This was previous to modern geology. The fact is y.e.c. is a new thing that started from a cult sda. It's very recent in its view. Flood geology was prices love child and he was not a tenured geologist. He was a armchair quake.
Reading it as though its literal history is an error because there are numerous scientific errors with the flood account ifs global. It's best read as a redacted composition of 2 accounts of a local flood in the Ancient Near East.
Framework sounds spot on and is something that I have thought for a long time. Didn't know there was an actual theory about it though. Interesting stuff, Pastor Mike. Thanks a ton for all you do.
The Universe and stars were rolled out like a scroll, this is why we see light that should be light years away. all plants and animals were created mature.
I lean toward Michael Heiser's view more than others. Thank You Brother Mike for this video. I hope you also see his podcast on Hebrews too. I don't always agree on some of his interpretations also.
Personally I believe that fighting about creation has caused division in the church and Satan loves it. We can disagree and still call each other a brother. None of us were there so it doesn't matter. I tend to lean toward Dr. Heiser view which is that it is to teach theology and not history. I also think I like the mytho history view.
I grew up in a very open, loosey goosey sort of Christian house. My questions were never answered with any sort of biblical authority. Questions like "why is Christianity true and Islam isn't?" Moral relativism is perhaps an accurate description. So when I am teaching my kids now, I love to be able to tell them "here are a few things we KNOW are true" like the diety of Christ etc. And here are some things we can discuss like "what's up with the 'days' in Genesis?" Your videos have helped my confidence in teaching my children. Much of which includes saying "hmm... I'm not sure. Let's get out the study bible!"
Yoga is incredibly dangerous. The actual poses that one creates are specifically tailored to create an image/shape with your body, each which represents a different Hindu deity. Yoga is inherently a form of worship, and a means to get good karma. Yoga is not even being practised in India for general exercise. It is reserved for yogis specifically, because it is clearly distinguished as a spiritual practice for those that choose this path for their spiritual journey. It cannot be separated from its pagan spiritual roots. There are tons of other stretching exercises with no ties to pagan roots, with exactly the same health benefits and no spiritual dangers, where you can have zero doubt that you can worship God while exercising
How do you reconcile the idea of the Bible being infallible, objective truth, while acknowledging its subjective interpretations (of Genesis, and other things as well) by so many sincere, loving Christians? I'm a born again believer, but I still struggle with this. I've pondered, read, listened to so many people on this, but I still have trouble with it. Why is subjective understanding seemingly built into objective truth. I've got thoughts on this but I'd love to hear yours
If 3 people witnessed a car accident and they gave a report to the police, how would their responses reflect their different perspectives? Would they not all agree or corroborate to give explanation to an event that occurred as fact?
It seems apparent to me that it doesn't matter how old the earth and/or the universe is. There is compelling evidence for both a young and an old earth. I do not think we are meant to know for whatever reason.
Dt29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, so that we may follow all the words of this Law In not really sure why ppl have SUCH a problem with IDK. Its this supercilious attitude as if they have everything else figured out in life and the Bible and all they have left is to perfectly explain GOD. CREATING. the UNIVERSE. If God wanted us to know He would have told us. Personally I think He did. Its not all that hard to read it, but I understand the need some to constantly try to line everything up with the latest scientific script. Anyway I appreciated your comment.
Another one of those questions which have nothing to do with salvation, similar to the pre, post and mid trib theories. One thing is for sure, We serve a supernatural God with whom all things are possible. He is not confined in space or time, therefore it is possible for Him to perform the creation in the literal timeframe as described in Genesis. We tend to make our God to small, afterall we serve a Big God beyond our finite comprehension.
Can God do it? Absolutely. But the account doesn't line up with our scientific understanding so it's likely we have an incorrect interpretation so it's unlikely in light of the evidence. Science can help us interpret Scripture (The Baconian Hermeneutic).
We also tend not to observe what our Great God also does. God instill’s long gestation and other growth periods, so is it also permissible to give him glory if he chose a longer creation event in the literary timeframe.
My father in law shouted this off the television telling me to turn that crap off and that you were way off before listening to the whole speech ... That’s the real danger here, not everyone is strong enough in mind to consider anything but a literal interpretation of genesis. and if anyone even mentions it, they basically pull the “well you’re going to hell and taking my grandchildren with you” argument. And while I understand that concern, not everyone is able to bury their head in the sand and ignore scientific discoveries that happen every year that further and further show YEC to be the least credible among these theories ... I honestly don’t even know which one I align with most, but I nearly had a mental breakdown, and I would shout people down who presented me with facts, but I am not the knd of person who can ignore that. And I did trickle that right up to the New Testament and questioned it all. Ultimately now I understand it’s not a faith breaking issue , but treating it as such is not a service to anyone, and anyone who thinks it is is unknowingly injuring their brothers in Christ.
Hi Mike, I’ve been a regular listener of yours for years now but as far as I know have never commented, so let me start by saying: Thank you! I have been so blessed by your teaching ministry! Thanks be to God for giving you this gift and this platform. My question is this: I knew Dr. John Walton personally years ago and found his reading of Genesis 1 compelling (I don’t have any firm views as to what reading is right); you say that you think it is not viable-could you expound on that? I would be so curious to know why, because I have high regard for you as someone who interprets the Bible carefully and well. Thanks!
The problem is in the translation on the words, in the original form... it is not 24 hours, seeing from an eternal God. A day for us, is.... for God. Both theories should be okay, for time is not a problem for God. On 58:17 I still try to communicate on phones, it is overwhelming as it is said. The wise will be overwhelmed, God bless you brother. 🙏 (Blind)
Finis Jennings Dake said it best when he asked this one simple question: "Why would God inspire men to write thousands of words to tell us how He DIDN'T create everything?"
I'm grateful that Mike has a 'charitable' approach to the topic of the differing views among genuine (gospel believing) Christians of what Genesis 1-2:4 means. I hold an old Earth/day-age view myself, but let me at least list some reasons why. 1. I hold the Bible to be bonafide revelation from God and true. However, I don't hold that Bible readers/interpreters are infallible. I also hold that nature presents a consistent picture to us of how God has ordained and sustains its physicality. However, I don't hold that interpreters of nature (i.e., scientists) are infallible either. 2. I do think the Bible is clear enough to get the main and most important things across to most Bible readers. I likewise think that science by and large does a fine job of observing, hypothesizing, and testing and that many, many things science has discovered about the natural world and which have been verified over and over by much repeated testing are reasonably considered to be reliable, espcially those aspects upon which successfully working technology has been based. If such science were wrong the technology based upon it would not work. 3. The usual reason for people rejecting concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 is that they can't work out the exegesis/science concordism themselves. But there are interdisciplinary scholars who know BOTH the Bible and and science well and HAVE worked out very reasonable 'harmonizations' which are published and which anyone can buy/read. Here, I would recommend these books: By Hugh Ross: NAVIGATING GENESIS/A SCIENTIST'S JOURNEY A MATTER OF DAYS WHO WAS ADAM? By Robert C. Newman et al: GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH 4. A concern I personally have about interpreting Genesis 1 is that there are complicating factors: a. There are determinants in the text itself which for various reasons laymen often miss. These include: 1. Our world's day/night cycle began on Day One (Genesis 1:4-5), not on Day Four, and the Sun is responsible for the daytime portion of that cycle. That there is a cycle at all is due to our world's rotation, so our world was rotating by/as of 1:4-5 too. 2. The photosynthetic land plants of Day Three REQUIRED sunlight in order to grow just as their descendants do today. They evidently had it. 3. This means that the Sun ALREADY EXISTED on Day One. Day Four therefore does not describe the CREATION of the Sun, but something else. Moses indeed avoids the world for 'create' ('bara') in the Day Four passage and instead three times uses 'yehi' (and variants), a word which means 'be' or 'become' or 'come to pass.' The sense is this : 'Let there come to pass lights in the expanse of the sky…' Since the Sun already existed and was generating light during Day One, I take Day Four to be a description of the FIRST VISIBILITY of the Sun, Moon, and stars as individual objects up in the sky. The most straightforward suggestion of how this occurred is that prior to Day Four our early world had a permanently overcast sky. One has to be able to see the Sun, Moon, and stars INDIVIDUALLY to use them for time-telling, which is what the Day Four section emphasizes. 4. When reading the Bible remember that "earth" (not capitalized) is an older English word used to render the biblical Hebrew word 'eretz' which itself refers to the land, a country/territory/region or its people, the ground, or (occasionally, along with 'adamah') the soil. The NAME for our entire world/planet--"Earth" (capitalized)--NEVER APPEARS in the Bible. This is important when reading both Genesis 1 and the account of Noah's Flood because the Bible is NOT talking about our entire world/planet in these contexts. 5. The biblical Hebrew word 'yom' (and variants) is used in FOUR DIFFERENT BUT ALL LITERAL WAYS in Genesis 1-2:4: to denote the daytime portion of a a calendar day, to denote a calendar day, to denote the ordinal days, and to denote the entire six creative oridinal days collectively. The word 'yom' has a wide range of literal meaning just as our English word 'day' does (e.g., 'Back in the day of Harry Truman…') The account tells us that CALENDAR days began WTIHIN ordinal Day One, so an ordinal day is SOMETHING OTHER than a calendar day. 6. The toledoth in 2:4 appears to refer (rare for a toledoth) RETROSPECTIVELY to what just came before when it says "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created…" in the manner of a Hebrew geneaology. Hebrew geneaologies list older-to-more-recent entries in a chronological sequence and so I take the Gen. 1 account to likewise be a chronologial sequence of actual geophysical history for this reason. To me, the account reads like a description of God terraforming our world and then furnishing it with life. 7. The land plants of Day Three not only sprouted (1:11) but they MATURED to the point of producing their fruit with the seed in it (1:12). Depending on the species, that requires part of a growing season, or one or multiple growing seasons. This indicates that Day Three was longer than a calendar day, and if Day Three can be longer than a calendar day so can the other ordinal days. 8. Interpreters of the account should note what it says without eisegeting explanations (includng unmentioned miracles) into the text. It's not that God can't and doesn't do miracles--He does!-- but that we're trying to understand the text and not go beyond what's written. Also, God works Providentially as well as miraculously. 9. All of this exegetically AGREES in its details and sequence with geophysical cosmogony, and that harmonzation argues that the day-age understanding of the account is correct because the 'fit' is very tight in every respect and with no 'fudging.'
In addition to finding a good church, get involved in the church, with small groups and volunteer oportunities. Going to church on sunday is milk, good for baby Christians. Participation is edification, sanctification.
Hello Mike, hope you get a chance to read this but, believer of the young Earth here and was wondering about your point on if the world were made in six literal days, that they cant have scars, or how the stars are lightyears away. If we are the focus of creation (being created in God's image) and God wanted to show us good things, I don't see why it would be a problem for God to "stretch out" the light travelling from the stars so that the people of Earth can enjoy them and glorify God. Along with the scars on the Earth, might just be a design decision. As an artist when I make characters or environments, I can give them as many scars/ features as I want to make it look good. And throughout the old testament God commands the rocks not to be cut for they are already good (God's the one who designed them) or how in Roman it says how God made some vessels for honor and other for dishonor. God is a designer so I honestly think it fits well.
It seems pretty clear to me that Angels have (had) a direct line of communication with our Creator such that there's no such thing as divine hiddeness for them. In other words they, like Adam, had no need to seek him out and couldn't remotely be rational in even questioning his existence. Any doubts they could have would be in his character. Any rebellion is direct and intentional with full knowledge of who they are rebelling against and what the consequences are. This explains why the majority have never dared to go against his laws for them.
yeah, your right Mike, nothing in Rev 14:12 to suggest works earn salvation...AT ALL, it says faith and obedience, no earning salvation by works AT ALL. It presents the definition of what a saint is... a saint is someone who keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Hope this helps.
If Brother Mike is going to briefly describe the views of the creation account that are out there, I wish he would add the Christ-centered model that I discuss in "Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology". The basic assumption is that the text points to the work and person of Christ so that when you come to a question about how to interpret the text, you always take the view that most points to Him. So are the days about the sun or the Son? They are about the Son, the Word of God entering creation and producing the Light. Is Adam the Father or humanity or a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14 et al). He is a figure of Christ so there were others outside the garden. And so forth. And when you do this it turns out that all of the supposed conflicts between science and history and the narrative in Genesis just vanish away effortlessly. All from seeing the text the way Jesus told us to view Moses in John 5:46.
@@MrSeedi76 or it improves theology by exposing things that were problems that we did not realize. Regardless, the text makes mention of them and they are needed to make sense of what the text is literally saying.. Since most don't bother to learn what it is saying, they don't see what problem is solves. Here is a hint for the curious... Go to an interlinear translation of Genesis 1:28 and look up the meaning of the Hebrew words translated "subdue" and "dominion".
@@richiejourney1840 and the miracle is that if you make the value of all the variables the same - the view that most points to the work and person of Christ- the equation works out. It isn't just an explanation for Genesis, but a proof that scripture is Divinely inspired and Christ is who scripture says that He is!
My opinion- The fallen angels have committed the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They saw and knew who and what Jesus was and rejected Him with full knowledge.
Yes, I also recently thought that this sin must be something like this. Rejecting God completely while having completely convincing revelation of him. Jesus warned his opponents of his time about it because they saw him and his works so clearly! We today don't all see God that clearly. Most young believers are not in any position yet to commit that sin. But angels do see God very clearly. I wonder if their problem is in fact not that God doesn't WANT them back if they reject him, but that because he's so infinitely good and endearing, if they just left one little bit of their souls open to his spirit, he would eventually win them back through it. So in order to be able to reject him they have to shut themselves off from him completely. Their rejection has to match their revelation of him in how complete it is or they won't be able to turn away from such a God. And once they turn away like THAT, there's no opening left for him to work with, to use to win them back. In the face of strong light you must choose sides and your decision will be all the stronger the stronger the light is. Angels either "fall for" God completely, in love, or they turn away completely. The gray area is no place they can stay in because they see God too well. - But I'm just speculating. (Actually, this sin scared me a lot for a while when I had no idea what it was. But I think now that Jesus would strongly give me pushback (still as gentle as possible) /correction/guide me away from it if I came close to committing this sin. As long as I give him influence on me. Yes, as long as I stay in an active positive relationship with him I think it will be fine. Saying this for people out there who might be scared as I was. Or maybe Jesus can give you a different thought to calm you. He doesn't want us scared. Only respectful of him but not scared)
@a-lightful-forest Wonderful input! My understanding is that this sin could only be committed by those who witnessed him in the first century, the heavenly members who saw him complete his works, and whoever is here to witness his second coming/milinnial rein. Those who have (or will have) absolutely no doubt of who he is and chose to reject him. We live in an era of grace, where we believe by faith - in which we can be forgiven for our ignorance and childlike rebellion right up to the moment we take our last breath. If by that last breath we still deny His works in our lives, then I suppose we could have committed this sin. But until then, he reveals himself in nature and in our changed lives. When we give Him credit for these things rather than calling it a coincidence, we choose Him. Praise God for that grace we don't deserve! He could have just snapped his fingers and been done with us! God Bless you and keep you!
I don't understand how some people think God built the universe in seven 24 hrs periods. Time, in regards to measurement, didn't exist yet until people, like the Egyptians, invented it. And if days are measured by the Earth's rotations around the Sun, how could you determine a day before Earth existed, or before humans invented the measurement of time?
Time is measured by rotations of celestial bodies. In the beginning, when God created the universe, we don’t know what celestial body rotating He was counting as a day. It Could’ve been all of creation! that could’ve taken a long time. Relatively.
The term “immortality of the soul” seems to imply that it existed forever before an individual’s birth. But only God is immortal. While the soul, after death, goes into an everlasting state moving forward (the “eternal life” guaranteed by Christ for believers), it seems like some distinction should be made between that and the implication that it has always existed along with God outside of time, partaking in His immortality. I’m reminded of the poem by Wordsworth (early 19th century Romantic poet), “Intimations of Immortality,” where baby souls pre-exist before being placed in a human being at birth, and children are therefore celebrated as have deeper spiritual wisdom than adults because they’ve been in the immortal state more recently and people in later years have “forgotten” the spiritual truths. I don’t think the Bible teaches anything like this; so doesn’t it seem like the term “immortality of the soul” has some questionable attributes? Kathy Alba.
Thank you for the very informative video. Its helped me try clarify my own understanding/belief of Genesis. Only note: I dont think Jesus is or can be hyperbolic. He actually walked on water and resurrected. His teachings are omnipotent but also meek and therefore literal.
“Do you believe in any kind of death (other than plant death) before the Fall? Why or why not?” This was a question I had to answer on a recent transfer request to a new presbytery. How would you answer it?
I would have wrote, “If you can tell me the need of a Tree of Life and if death was not a possibility, then I shall be better informed to give you an answer”.
I personally don't have a set view. I know Scripture is true regardless but I've heard great yec arguments and Hugh Ross really explains the day age view very well
My PERSONAL issue with any view aside from the literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative is that any attempt on MY part (surely this isn't true for everyone) would be driven by a desire to validate the story.
Another theory is that the creation happened in 7 literal days for God, however He sped up that time so creation was unfolding at a rapid pace, and we’d never be able to record that because it would require us to see logic and reality from Gods perspective; which we can’t do. An example to help it make more sense is whenever you watch a movie and want to skip to the ending. You hit fast forward x10 on your TV and the movie gets through 2 hours in 20 seconds. Then you hit play to watch the ending. From the perspective of the characters in the movie; they have no idea that everything was just on fast forward and whenever they observe the events of the movie, it’s all happening in normal time for them. It’s only on fast forward for the person outside of the movie. Not saying that’s what I believe; but it’s another theory that I think holds some plausibility. God could do all of that and we’d never know
Mike lookin like a new hot young Mr. Roger’s in that sweater😂 Just messin with ya Mike. You rock and I love your content and teaching. I’ve learned a lot even though I have been a Christian my whole life. 👍
I do believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve, but if you think anyone who interprets Genesis non-literally is not a Christian, then you don't think Paul is a Christian. Galatians 4:24 (ESV): Now this may be interpreted *allegorically:* these women are two covenants. Note that Paul still expects the Galatians to OBEY that "allegorical" interpretation, and not just acknowledge the literal, historical facts recorded. It doesn't make it unimportant or false. The entire Old Testament could theoretically be allegorical, and it would still bind our consciences as the inspired Word of God. In fact, focusing *only* on the historical interpretation may mean you are actively rejecting part of what God inspired.
love your work but I think you should put up a post around 12 hours prior to the stream or set up an upcoming stream 12 hours earlier.. I checked from my time 9pm till 12am but dint see any upcoming stream notice(your stream starts at 4am my time).. sad that I missed it 🥲
It’s not opinion. The so called “wisdom” has fed you, clothed you, kept you in health, allowed you to communicate over vast distances….. Penicillin cured more people than Jesus ever did.
The fact that people still question the age of the Earth is an insult to all the people, theist or otherwise, who have dedicated their lives over hundreds of years to get to the truth of who we are and the planet we live on.
I personally take a polemic view of Genesis 1. I am still working through just how much of Genesis 2-3 is literal history and how much is communicated in a way that is meant to communicate more theology than literal history. And no, my believing this does not mean I take man's word over God's word. That's just interpretational gaslighting and I won't fall for it. I still see it as 100 percent God's word. I'm just more interested in how the original readers would have read it and not how we would read it devoid of their culture and context and insist that that's the only way it CAN and SHOULD be viewed.
I believe genesis 1 isn’t literal but it’s 100 percent Gods word and reveals basic truth of creation. I also believe the garden of Eden did exist and Adam and Eve existed, their offspring brought rational human souls into the world
Hi Mike, what's your take on Gen 1 v 14 where it says the sun and moon were created to rule the day and the night, and we get the '24 hr' day from this, and months from the moon. So is it that time (24hr day etc) was created on the fourth day? Why do theologians seem to not read or mention this? Tells me that the evening and the morning of the days must have a different meaning than what we mean by a day. I love the way the Jewish day starts at sundown, and each day travels from dark to light. I'm a gentile, but inspired by many things that God has done through His people. Many blessings
If you want to know more about the calendar and sun etc I saw a really good video series on the channel 'follow the lamb today', look for the calendar playlist
SDA member here. First, Like any Christian group, yeah a few of our members past and present have certainly done some name calling. (Don't get me started on what some ppl think about Catholics.) But, but yeah we believe more that the soul isn't separate from the body. Spirit+Body=Soul "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7 I think what the inquirer is saying is, that Adventist don't see spirit as a conscious part of you, and the resurrection at the end is a full body and spirit reuniting. Therefore the belief of the soul being separate is heavily influenced by Greek thought like Plato's theory of soul. And while I think my faith has it right on the nature of the afterlife. I do think it's dishonest to pretend that there's no reason any other Christian may reach a different conclusion. Solomon ponders the nature of the spirit (whether that's the same as the soul is debatable) Daniel and other writers mention Babylonian afterlives, Christ speaks of the "Bosom of Abraham", the Nature of Sheol is spoken of in vague terms. So yeah like everything in our faith and life there's certainly influence from our neighbours, hope that wasn't confusing. Thanks @mikewinger Hope you do a video on different interpretations of the "Soul"
I believe that Genesis is more theological than actuality especially concerning creation. And even with how the story in Genesis were told were not by Moses but those who were followers concerning the Ancient Near East. I believe that God is sovereign of all and Genesis gives us a way we can hope to understand him theologically.
Don't worry about giving me false hope about salvation, for I learned you can't fully trust men. For different denominations and even individuals who are Christian have there own subjective views concerning salvation. One says you can lose salvation, one says you can lose it for good, one says you can't lose salvation, one says if you backslide you were never saved to begin with.
Matthew 10:28: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." So your soul isn't exactly immortal, or else it couldn't by definition be destroyed, not even by God, but it's the next best thing to being immortal because it can only be destroyed by God.
There is no question that Genesis says the earth was created in 6 literal days and he rested on the 7th. The idea that science has proven this wrong is laughable
Mike...I know you said at some point you were really going to dig into conditionalism and I still look forward to that but in the meantime, I think that those things you mentioned about evidence of consciousness after death are not evidence against conditionalism. Most conditionalists I think believe the soul is destroyed in the lake of fire and nobody has been sent to the lake of fire yet. They are in a temporary state awaiting final judgement so if they are conscious in that state then that doesn't mean they won't eventually have their soul destroyed in the lake of fire. You know the verse about fearing God who can destroy body and soul so I'm curious how you reconcile that verse with the belief that God creates our souls immortal.
On the subject of the immortal soul. Believing the souls lives on after death or in an afterlife is not the same thing as immortality. Just because people are ressurected does not mean its possible for God to utterly destroy their soul in the final judgment.
So, a soul lives forever but that is not immortally? If souls live forever, they have internal life just like those who were born again but just in a different location. I don't buy it.
Eternal life is a precious gift that can only be attained through a deep understanding of YHWH and Christ, along with genuine faith in Christ Jesus (John 17:3, Romans 6:23). No one is born with immortality, nor does anyone possess something within them that is inherently immortal; such a belief is a misconception. The only being who possesses immortality is described in… 1 Timothy 6:16.
In the sense that we experience it. I don't know man this seems like a super Jordan Peterson question🤣 Cliffe Knechtle might say something like go sprint into a tree and tell me if reality is real
@@MarkPatmos so someone already wrote a book about this topic that you've read and you're still asking for answers in the TH-cam comment section. IDK if I really wanna read that book. Unless your original question is just rhetorical.
@@nicholas2113 You don't need to learn about his philosophy, or agree. You were just treating it as a stupid question and I was offering a reply. He lived in 1700s so isn't recent. He is included in philosophy but was a Christian.
@@nicholas2113hmmm…placebos is a “real fake reality”. So not sure how smacking into a tree is gonna prove your position. Philosophers agree, you can’t prove you’re not in a matrix without assumptions being made unprovable axioms.
@37:50 Yoga, those stretches are opening the gate portal to their god. So it's just not stretches you are actually opening the gate. Imagine in those horror movies where they draw the signs on the ground to open up a portal to the demon world, essentially the same thing, but you're doing it with your body.
The idea that there were other people "outside the garden" contradicts that the Bible says there was no companion for Adam that's why Eve was made. Before that point, Adam was alone.
If you have, for example, a European in the middle of a tribe of African people, you could say that there is no one of the same kind for them. Rough example, apologies. Another example: we know that Homo Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens (us) So maybe the people outside were Neanderthals, and Adam had no human mate There’s nothing in the Bible that contradicts this.
“For Adam there was not found a helper comparable (suitable) to him”. I suppose he was looking for his specific match so when the Neanderthal”s, etc., popped out of the bushes he was not happy or turned on.
Thanks for giving an explaination of the various views of creation. Personally I lean towards the old earth view with the 'yom' idea. It seems to fit well with the obserbed universe and the Genesis account. Also it gives me the idea that the great Designer took time to design and built his creation. Complex designs take time for each part to be constructed before the next part can be done.
In our observable universe we see that a woman cannot get pregnant without losing her virginity and people that die stay dead, yet our faith is founded on us taking the virgin birth and Christ’s resurrection literally. Why would we take the virgin birth and resurrection literally, but assume that the Genesis account of Creation is metaphorical? The Genesis account is very detailed in describing when things were created and how they were created, which doesn’t seem to fit a poetic out metaphorical style just as the Gospel accounts of Christs life are not metaphorical.
Why does science limit God's power? People truly do not believe in the power of God to speak, and it was. It has to be constrained by our imagination. And the demand to understand God's power is to be like Him, what he has revealed and what can be found is for our nourishment. But then to put limits on what God can do is just inconsistent. God created the 7 day week, he rested on the sabbath, and the same people He chose are living evidence as time keepers of the 7th day.
Question Time Stamps for Quick Reference:
0:00 - Intro
1. 0:07 {Genesis: Different Views} What are the different interpretations that different Christians have about the book of Genesis and the creation accounts?
2. 26:27 {Israel - God’s People or Moses’ People?} What’s the significance of God calling the Israelites Moses’ people in the golden calf story, and then Moses calling them God’s people? I can’t help but think it sounds like two parents of the same child saying “That’s your kid” as the child misbehaves (Exodus 32:1-14, specifically verses 7 and 11).
3. 30:25 {Are our Souls Immortal?} Seventh-day Adventism claims that belief in an immortal soul comes from Paganism and leads to occult spiritualism (like necromancy and belief in ghosts). Is this biblical?
4. 35:00 {Christians and Yoga} A family member does yoga for stretching, but in that quiet time they meditate, pray, and worship God. I know yoga for stretching is fine, but is worshiping while doing yoga an issue because of Deuteronomy 12: 30-31?
5. 42:23 {Can Angels be Saved?} Does Colossians 1: 19, 20 suggest that Christ’s sacrificial death can be applied to fallen angels, as well?
6. 47:04 {Can we Feel the Spirit Move?} Is “feeling the Spirit moving” biblical?
7. 52:40 {Guilty of Unintentional Sins?} Are we guilty of sins we do not know we have committed (Leviticus 4: 27, 5: 17)?
8. 57:53 {Prayer: How Long & How Many Times?} How long should our prayers be? I see many people online who need prayers, and I want to pray each night for everyone. It feels tedious & repetitive, but it feels wrong to pray for them only once. Thoughts?
9. 1:01:45 {Salvation by Works in Revelation?} Is Revelation 14: 12 talking about salvation by works?
10. 1:05:06 {From Intellect to Salvation} Is there a way for me to go from an intellectual belief in God to a relationship with God, or do I have to wait on Him for that?
As for yoga,it is designed for each move to be a prayer to a different foreign diety. It begins with a mantra designed to open you up to benevolence of the pagan deities to whom the prayers are given. It was designed specifically as a prayer session. My opinion after learning the origin of yoga as prayers means a hard no. You can't walk in and say in your mind,well I'm dedicating this to the Christian God and then do the prayer cycle to the pagan gods. Yoga has infiltrated the church and is totally acceptable in the new thought movement along with manifestation and reiki healing without calling it reiki. It is specifically what Yahweh says not to do. You are dedicating a pagan prayer practice to Yahweh. It's specifically forbidden.
10)Salvation belongs to the Lord. All the glory belongs to Him for saving us. You will develop a personal relationship with Him because He does a work in you-John 3:3.
John 1:12-13🕊💝
" But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
"who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"
4) Yoga practice is from the Hindu religion-Exodus 34:14. Go to God, and He will direct you. Those poses are demonic door openers. The Holy Spirit will work through your conscience to not practice yoga poses or any other pagan practice you questioned. Talk to Jesus about everything.
Proverbs 3:5-6🙏🕊
I am so grateful that you started and continue doing your online ministry, Mike
In my personal experience with moving from an intellectual belief to a relationship with God, the greatest changes I've seen there always followed difficult events in life which made me seek HIM, not theological doctrines or scriptural evidence for one interpretation or another, not theories or any number of definitive boxes we humans like putting God into, but seek Him as someone who can be known. When you think about it, the very notion that we could KNOW the everlasting God is crazy. And yet when we seek Him, He often shows up in amazing ways. Seek Him as someone who can be known, ask Him to show you His ways so that you may walk in His footsteps. That's how my relationship changed anyway.
Yeah, currently It feels like I would have to be forced to truly seek him like I should. I mean it's the right decision, but it entails a lot so it's a hard choice.
@@moriah1901 People sought and found Zeus for millennia too.
@@christien960 found? Lol.
@@DM-dk7js It’s funny because they found him as you found yours. Hahaha
@@christien960 what’s mine?
No gods have ever been found, including Zeus.
Imagine for a second if you heard many churches start arguing that Moses didn't really exist. Instead he was just a theological character for us to learn from, or if he did exist then he was actually multiple people and the Exodus account is really the retelling of many people bound together in one archetype. That would be pretty bizarre when you have the plain reading of the text. It says Moses existed. It tells us of his life and writes it as one person. Why would we say otherwise? So too with Creation. If God says He did it in 6 days, what reason do we have to say we know better?
I have heard progressives make similar claims about people just being metaphorical. Though there is quite a bit of difference in how they make the claim vs most of the discussion around Genesis.
Jordan Peterson once theorized that it is metaphorically true, to the point that the story has played out in architype repeatedly so it actually doesn't matter if it is literally true. But when pressed he also said he suspects that many are literally true as well. I think that might be the right way to look at it. Even if it where false it would still be true metaphorically and thus still worth following. But it is probably literally true as well.
@@viperstriker4728 At some point there must be a line where calling it a metaphor doesn't cut it. As Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 15:14-17, if Christ is not risen from the dead, then your faith is in vain. Christianity hinges on the fact that this event actually happened, not in metaphor but in very deed. Once you say Jesus literally died and rose, then you can work the entire thing back because Jesus spoke of Moses and the prophets as real people who lived and died rather than as metaphorical figures.
Actually it tells us of his life and death and writes it as one person. Neat trick witnessing your own death and then writing about it. Maybe we don't know his burial place because he buried himself too?
@@hermanwooster8944 This is a bad argument because none of the scholars arguing for non-concordist interpretations of Gen 1-11 say that Moses wasn’t real. Gen 1-11 is clearly a different genre and should be handled appropriately.
"six days"
I've experienced many supernatrual events and a bonified healing. I think God can do anything. I do my best to hold on to my child like faith.
Doubt it
Amen!
@@DM-dk7js Sucks for you.
Same I have seen so many things that it is not possible to deny God
@@lance9249 it doesn’t. This person is definitely lying lol.
Thank you so much for a balanced and fair approach! I'm Young Earth, but I'm very alarmed at the number of people who treat it as some sort of salvatory issue, and don't understand that this is something that has been debated since the very earliest church.
It's a better attitude that you have.
However I think that u should also recognize all truth is God's truth
Every scientific field preclude young earth.
The people at answers are not scientists.
U should consider that u need to reinterpret
U may not know this flood geology is from seven day Adventist
But I want to ask you consider something.
How many asteroid and meteors have impacted the earth.😅
The answer is millions
But even the top 40.
The ones like chixalub (Yucatan)
Think of those in the flood year.
Those 40 would release so much heat that it would vaporize the ocean.😅
And we can measure there destruction within the rock layer.
More over limestone has to deposit in calm cool water and it releases heat.
Then u have volcanoes.
Ask yourself how much destruction does a volcano like yellowstone 😅 create.
Moreover do u know how many times it's erupted. As it's moved across the north American continent
Forget the flood the granite crust of earth would be molten.😅
Ask your self how do u have those events.
Meteors raining down.
Which would have to occur.
Does the bible record great earth quakes.
Does it record meteors raining down.
Does it record explosions of fire from under the water😅
Now you have a situation where your in view of things the scripture doesn't record.
What a
Happened to sola scriptura
Do you have examples of it being debated in the early church? Would be interested to have a look! Thanks
@JesusIsLove1010 go look up Inspiringphilosophy
As well as gavin ortlund
The both showcase the age of earth being debated.
As more was discovered about the world.
Moreover there's evidence of other survivors.
Instead. Of listing of a million and one qoutes lol
It's best to ditect you to individuals with the receipts. That have the books. And resources
U should also look up maimodees a jesish rabbi in 1500s
@@JesusIsLove1010 Augustine's De Genesis
@@JesusIsLove1010 Absolutely! Let me clarify again that I believe in YEC and that YEC was the prevailing view in the early church, but it was not the only view, nor were old earth views invented out of thin air to "align with evolution" as some claim. Some examples would be St. Irenaeus of Lyons who said that the days were not literal when responding to the gnostics in "Against Heresies" 5.28.3, or St Clement of Alexandria who believed in an instant creation that was presented as a metaphor in Genesis in order of the importance of each creation. This view was also held by St. Athanasius the Great, Origen and others. St Augustine believed that the days of creation were periods of time, but they were "God-divided" and not "sun divided" and so could have lasted any amount of time. None of them treated Genesis 1 as a history that was speaking literally. Those are just some off the top of my head, but there were others.
I should also clarify that I am a Protestant and do not appeal to these figures because they are "saints", but because they are proof that old earth beliefs were very early and orthodox in the Christian church.
Hi Mike love your content. Have you ever thought of making a video of your research methods? I have 7 years of bible college education yet you seem to know enormously more than I do. Thanks again 😊
Appreciate your ecumenical stance on wrestling with Genesis (primarily 1-11).
As truth is exclusive, not all of these stances can be compatible with one another. Even church fathers from the beginning wrestled with these topics!
There must be non-negotiables of course. God is the creator of the universe. An actual historic Adam and Eve who are necessary for the introduction of sin in mankind (Romans).
Let us be both wise and patient when we discuss and debate with fellow Christians, remembering that it is Christ alone that grants us salvation. Let us build each other up!
I believe in a historical Adam and Eve, but if Paul and Jesus are accommodating to their audiences (as Mike mentioned) in those passages, then you don't necessarily need a historical Adam and Eve for the theology to work and thus you can still be a Christian on this view. You can still have the existence of sin and need for a saviour without Adam and Eve.
@@calebmarquart The view of accomodation troubles me, because it postulates that what Paul and Jesus is actually saying is not true, but an accomodation to their audience who did not know better. The reason this appeals to us I believe is that we think we know better today. It also opens the door to reject other issues as accomodations.
In the end, I fear we end up choosing what we want to believe rather than accepting what we are being told.
I completely agree it is not a savation issue, but I see it as very serious for how we relate to the Word of God.
@@calebmarquart I mean this pretty much implies that the first several chapters of Genesis are a lie.
I agree that as Mike had stressed that Christians can have a variety of views on this topic and be well meaning at the same time. I saw a verse in the New Testament from Paul that goes like this:
Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works"
I know it seems insignificant but this passage is using a Greek word that is always translated as day. So was Paul saying something other than what I'm assuming here?
Why do we doubt the Genesis account? Because atheistic, anti-God scientists and philosophers started coming up with alternative explanations for the origin of life. They wanted God out of the equation.
The science is overwhelmingly against vast ages yet we still cling on to these atheistic origin myths.
Just look at soft tissue preservation in dinosaur fossils? That alone should make people question long ages but there are countless examples like this.
It isn't a salvation issue but it is frustrating when Christians adopt anything other than a Biblical Creation understanding if only because of the mental and theological gymnastics they have to perform to justify themselves.
And it isn't a belief that is without consequences either. People have lost their faith when confronted by these unbiblical views and doubted God altogether.
I think too many people believe they have to take a hard stance on every issue that comes up. It's perfectly fine to say: "I don't know. We know the things we need to. Let's wait for more info." Gaps in explanation can teach us humility, give us room to grow, etc.
My personal belief is that the universe, Earth, & life are genuinely billions of years old. I feel like everything implied in the alternative (like God creating light in transit for places further than ~6000 light-years away or doing something to alter its speed of travel) would make God out to be too much of a liar. I don't think that's a case of trusting man or science over God, just a natural consequence of believing creation reflects its creator. That said, I also acknowledge that my knowledge is imperfect, that nothing prevents God from creating everything in six literal days, and that something I'm ignorant of could resolve my problems with the idea. I'm not going to doubt anyone solely on where they land on this issue (but I might based on how they treat people with other opinions).
The real problem with belief in billions of years is this has to be read into Scripture, not the other way around.
Not only that, it violates Scripture because it contradicts the origin of sin. This belief introduces disease, sickness and death before the Fall.
Just as bad, it ignores all the scientific evidence that clearly shows that abiogenesis is not possible, and evolution is a just-so fairytale for people who need to reject God.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
It seems that six literal days is what is implied, as God Himself restates it in the 10 Commandments. Also, there are a plethora of examples of six days being prescribed/used in various events: Exodus 16:26, 24:16, 31:17; Joshua 6:3; Matthew 17:1… and many more.
Amen! There is also Mark 10:6 where Jesus says Adam and Eve were created at "the beginning of creation." This phrasing only makes sense if the time from creation to Adam and Eve was shorter than the time from Adam and Eve to Jesus. Otherwise Jesus is calling events that took 13 billion years "the beginning." That leaves very little room for a middle and end, especially since the Apostles say we are in the last days.
@@hermanwooster8944 very true, excellent point ❤
Agreed. Many don't realize the commandment (of the 10) that backs up literal days. Same word used for creation days and work days.
@@classicalchris7595 do you believe in a literal dome sky "raqa" as taught in Gen 1:6?
yeah I agree, Mike says that if the world were made in six literal days that they cant have scars, or how the stars are lightyears away, but if we are the focus of creation (being created in God's image) and God wanted to show us good things, I don't see why it would be a problem for God to "stretch out" the light travelling from the stars so that the people of Earth can enjoy them and glorify God. Along with the scars on the Earth, might just be a design decision. As an artist when I make characters or environments, I can give them as many scars/ features as I want to make it look good. And throughout the old testament God commands the rocks not to be cut for they are already good (God's the one who designed them) or how in Roman it says how God made some vessels for honor and other for dishonor. God is a designer so I honestly think it fits well.
John Lennox wrote a wonderful book on Genesis. 7 Days that Divide the World, read it about 10 years ago I think and it's still accurate
I'm prepared to accept whatever view on Genesis turns out to be true, but I really like what I think has been called the pre-creation chaos view, which is a particular spin on the gap view. One of the more interesting passages to that point is Jeremiah 4:23-26, where the language of Genesis 1 is used to describe the earth during the final judgement of God:
23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
and all the hills moved to and fro.
25 I looked, and behold, there was no man,
and all the birds of the air had fled.
26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert,
and all its cities were laid in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.
The context of this passage is reflected in many of the judgements in Revelation, culminating in a near destruction of the whole earth, and then its eventual recreation. If this sort of language, particularly the phrase “without form and void” can be used to describe a state of chaos after judgement and destruction preceding a new round of creation, why could it not be used in the same way in Gen 1? God created the heavens and the earth...gap... In that gap could be the fall of Satan and the entrance of animal death upon creation (Adam and Eve did not need an explanation of what death was. Maybe it was happening outside the garden all the time. Why was a walled off garden needed at all? Maybe to separate A&E from the chaos outside.) evolution could have progressed, mass extinctions and various explosions of new life could have occurred, and then after one particularly devastating catastrophe the story picks back up: The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep...
I think that view is pretty compatible with both natural evidence and biblical theology. There are good arguments for other views as well, but I'm partial to that one.
Interesting view, someday soon we all will have complete knowledge! Till then no one has to win!
I have a similar point of view that the seven days were really 7 points in history God intervened to make Earth, humans and such. Without his involvement, Earth, like other planets, would be unstable and/or fall apart.
The fact Earth is in the right spot in our galaxy to sustain life, without an asteroid to immediately destroy us, is pretty supernatural in my point of view.
I love seeing you here brother!
The thing I don't get with the gap, why does life exist in the gap?
Mars is without form and void, and every other planet really. Why not have the galaxy exist, then God starts terraforming after the gap?
I should note I thing the geologic record has been wrong too often to not be thrown out. So I don't see any scientific reason to believe in animals before the gap.
I’m here for both the cats and the message! >
One view of the days in genesis you didn't bring up that I have seen the late Chuck Missler discuss is one where the terms for morning and evening in the creation account could be statements of entropy increments.
When I was younger, I only knew two views: young earth or atheistic materialistic evolution. It didn't take much for someone to shake my understanding of creation and my whole faith nearly deteriorated as a result.
Put simply: young earth insistence nearly wrecked my faith. And I have friends who have left the faith entirely because of it.
It's so much better to allow for differing views.
Jesus said, the spirit would lead us into all truth
@@MrWholphin Clearly not on this particular issue. There are tons of differing opinions among devout Christians across Protestantism, Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodoxy. There's no magical answer, and pretending that there is only serves to stir up stride and act contrary to the unity of the church.
For context: I can assure you that insistence on any non-salvation issue is as capable of damaging a young Christian's faith.
I had the same experience! I think the evidence for an old earth is very convincing!
@@MrWholphin Jesus is truth. Creation is historical truth, you stick close to Jesus and make heaven your hone and you will eventually know whatever your heart desires.
Thanks for your answer wish I was there for it, but I had some cleaning to do. I definitely know I'm not a Christian currently because of the way I live my life. I just have to remember that it's a process even though it can be scary not knowing when/if I would get to the end of the process. (i.e. being saved) I was baptized recently; I go to church regularly (if I'm awake I have a bad sleep schedule), but I'm not regenerate, I haven't really had any significant changes in my life when it comes to tackling sin, I'm not repentant (I know sin is bad, but it feels like I just don't care sometimes), I don't pray enough, and I don't read my bible enough. It can just be overwhelming to figure out what to tackle first and how to tackle it. In the end I just hope God can help me to confront and beat these issues.
I love question 10. I hope that person sees this comment. Until just a couple years ago, I did not even know there was such a thing as having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I had done church before, been in the choir and all that good stuff, but it was just doing things, and then I would go back to my regular life. How did no one ever tell me there is more?? So of course it just felt like it wasn't "working" and therefore God wasn't real or important or who they say or whatever. And then a couple years ago it's like God just said, okay enough of this, and the Holy Spirit drew me in. All of a sudden I was interested in learning about God and there are so many great teachers on TH-cam. I just began to fall in love with God the more I learned about him. People like Pastor Mike, Justin Peters, Paul Washer, Vodie Baucham, and others. And I fully believe that would also work in reverse if that is your heart's desire. If you start learning about God you will fall in love with Him and He will increase your urge to know more. Before you know it, you will be talking with the Lord praising God just not even recognizing who you are anymore because you will have been changed in an instant it seems. I would put specific questions right into the TH-cam search and a brilliant sermon or lecture or Bible study would come up and would answer my question and then in exploring that I would have another question and without even asking, a TH-cam video would pop up to answer the question I had not even asked yet. God is truly amazing and He is near, if we just reach out. ❤
Most of the thoughts that do not accept literal days end up violating scripture that there was death before the fall but Romans 5:12 tells us that it was by one man's sin death entered the world.
Yeah, to me the rest of scripture stops making sense without it being literal. Why did Jesus have to die if God allowed death from the beginning? Thoughts like that keep me away from even considering it
@@jessecainjr I can appreciate your perspective. Have you considered how Christians that hold an old earth view interpret Romans 5:12 and harmonize it with Genesis, even if you don’t agree with it?
Playing devil's advocate here:
Unless the death that entered the world via one man's sin was spiritual death, that is, the wages of sin.
Other views can argue that the subject of concern in Rom 5:12 is humanity, the offspring of Adam and Eve: "and so death spread to all men" Rom 5:12b. It's not addressing whether animal death happened before Adam, and in the same way it's not excluding all sin before Adam. Certainly the serpent brought sin into the world before Adam did, and Eve sinned before Adam. So Rom 5:12 is drawing a theological point about the significance of Adam's sin spreading to all mankind, which isn't necessarily concerned with the semantics of "didn't Eve sin first?" "what about the serpent's sin?" etc...
can animals sin? that's the question. Certainly there are animals that are carnivores and we can't deny their physiology that is made for consuming meat. Plants have lives too and animals eat plants. They might have souls but are like NPCs of the world and acts purely on instincts like babies
When listening to the Young Earth Creationist views, you can see that they provide very convincing scientific reasons to believe the Bible as it is plainly written, and they typically have great respect for the sacredness of Scripture and handle it exegetically, not isogetically.
I highly recommend looking into it. Answers in Genesis and such, have a very beautiful ministry that always manage to give God the glory.
@@christiaanvosloo1999 no they don’t! There’s literally zero “scientific evidence” for YE.
Thank you for this video. Both Old and Young Earth views have serious challenging questions, just like the materialistic creation of everything has serious questions. But I love the spirit in which you spoke about this issue, one of explaination and not condemnation, one of fellowship with other believers even if we disagree on this secondary issue. Please keep making these videos; they are one of the highlights of my week.
I’m thankful to be a literal acceptor of Genesis 1! 😂 For me, it would be a waste of time to worry and perhaps debate or argue about alternate views. I seriously don’t have the desire. 😬 Agreed, it’s not an issue of salvation. Thankfully.
I pray God helps me to discern and know the truth about Jesus, about God’s will for me, about living daily in a way that’s holy and pleasing to Him, about opportunities for sharing God’s mercy and goodness with others (although im weak in that), and about serving those around me.
Let the love of God be ‘shed abroad in our hearts’…
Thanks to our loving God from whom all the answers come and Mike who gets to dish out the goodies!
Hi I want to thank you for your content! I'd been away from the Lord for 10 years until I watched one of your videos that popped up on my feed! I'm now seeking God again and hungry for theology and his word!
I feel so inadequate to understand the Bible at times. I have never known a time in my life that I didn't know God but I am so poorly educated in the Word. I appreciate your ministry.
Being a saint preceded the keeping the commands and doing the works. Out of Being comes doing. Relationship precedes deeds.
Do not lean on your own understanding just have faith 🙏
Thank you Mike for finally addressing the Genesis 1-2 topic. Your open-minded listing of many views that fellow believers in Christ can and have held is a charitable and commendable approach. Hoping that someday you might produce a mega-deep dive on the subject like the series of egalitarian vs complimentarian videos 😂 (but for real though!).
I myself came to faith later in life (thank you Lord for opening my eyes and ears to hear the truth that Jesus Christ is your Son and the gift that all us descendants of Adam desperately need!). Pre-belief, I truly thought my materialist-atheistic view was defensible, and the arguments I was hearing from the Ken Ham young earth creationist types ironically solidly entrenched my non-theistic views and turned me off to religion entirely. Now, as a believer, I'm willing to grant that the young earth creationists are brothers in Christ and sincere in their beliefs, but I also think their insistence that their reading is the only correct reading can do harm to the faith of others who think differently (and in the most extreme cases, I see them heap a lot of condemnation and judgement on people with whom they disagree).
Spurgeon of all people seemed to be open to an old earth, and he's certainly not a materialist athiest (as Ken Ham thinks all his intellectual opponents must certainly be)! I tend to see parallels to the debate of the last couple centuries with similar issues from centuries earlier, such as when many faithful Christians thought the Bible refuted Copernicus's heliocentrism. They were calling copernicus a fool for doubting geocentrism, but his model was eventually proven right, and most Christians today don't consider that a hill to die on. Turns out we can bring a lot of assumptions to the Bible and consequently read it in a way that we think affirms those assumptions.
I believe the universe is created by God and that the Bible is truly inspired by God. And because God is not deceptive, supposed contradictions in what we can infer about prehistory from both the bible and our scientific observations of God's creation must be a failure of understanding on our part, not a real contradiction. My own Genesis views are not super rigid, but I presently tend to lean toward ideas like what Mike has here described as the theological framework approach, with bits of genealogical Adam and mytho-history view.
I am trying to be a faithful student of the bible and am encouraged by all the deep truths about God's power and character, as well truths about the human condition, that are revealed in the creation and eden accounts of Genesis, such as what I hear exegeted by folks like the Bible Project. They seem to bring a lot of meaning out of the text without taking a stance on controversial issues that would alienate any of the views listed by Mike here. I feel that all christians, whether concordist or non-concordist in their Genesis views, can learn a lot together studying this part of God's word. Sad that us squabbling Sons of Adam often care more about using Bible debates for drawing lines in the sand and handing out anathemas than coming together in awe and wonder for God's word and creation!
Really well articulated. I second that hope for a deep dive, but also am keeping my expectations in check given just how much there is to discuss on the subject.
I’m #2. Supernova’s don’t burden this theory and aren’t examples of God being deceptive. The tree’s in the garden, just like Adam, were made mature, just as the supernova. The trees needed to be mature to achieve their purpose. The bark, the roots, looked old and aged, but it’s not a deception. Maybe we needed fossils as well. I don’t know. But I’m for the mature creation because of Adam, and because I believe that to be how the scripture reads.
Thanks Mike. I greatly appreciate your ministry.
Agreed, Supernova's as well as all the rest of the universe shows off God's power and beauty in creation. God creating a mature canvas isn't deceptive it just lets us see the beauty in his timing for us.
I feel most of the other understandings of Genesis are failures to understand God's full power. Needing to take a huge amount of time to accomplish the creation instead of just speaking and it happens. Definitely not something that would separate anyone from God but something that can limit their appreciation of some of his glory while we are here. We all get stuff wrong through that prevent us from fully understaning how Glorious and good God is and how bad our sin is or we wouldn't keep sinning. Luckily God is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth.
I fully believe the reason he creates the earth over 6 days and rested on the 7th instead of doing it all in one day was to show us the pattern he wants for our life.
This also extends to the creation of stars. Stars are many many light years away so in order for them to be seen either A) time is given for the light to travel or B) God creates the stars and puts their light on earth at the same time, we see that when God creates the stars in Genesis 1:14-15 they are visible (probably?) from earth at that time of creation. So by God making the stars observable on earth without any deception he can also make the light of a supernova observable 6000 years later with no deception.
Can't #1 and #2 be combined? Where is the distinction that makes these two theories exclusive of each other? Some of the explanations from the Answers in Genesis folks trying to account for the age of light and the vastness of space are WAY out there..... Like White Hole Theory. Maybe the earth IS young, and maybe much of it still does have the appearance of age where necessary in order to serve a function ordained by its creator.
@@moriah1901I was kinda unsure what distinction he was making as well. Unless he is saying people in #2 don't necessarily think the world is ~6-10k years old? Or he is saying people in group #1 don't necessarily think the world looked old when it was formed and was aged in the flood?
I believe the Bible teaches a literal 7 day creation and the world's age is measured in thousands of years not millions or billions. The why things look the way they are I hold a lot looser because I don't think the Bible tells us but I think you can infer that the body God made Adam wasn't that of an infant which leads to a lot of the other appearances of age.
Thank you as always for sharing your insight and wisdom. Wishing you and your family a Very Happy, Healthy and Blessed New Year!
I am watching some of the responses with my nine-year-old daughter, she wanted to watch question seven. Thank you Mike for catching yourself at 53:34 with the Leviticus verse!
One of the reasons I believe in literal 6 day creation is that I think it best lines up with the Holy, perfect, all powerful nature of God.
@@marvinfanno3587 yes. Plus, God said in the Ten Commandments that he made the Earth in 6 days. And Jesus said God made martiage to be male and female "in the beginning of creation," not millions of years later.
Cool. I don’t see how most of the hypotheses of GN among us doesn’t fit best.
@@FRN2013I’m pretty sure it was Moses who stated God created in 6 day’s, not the commandments.
@@richiejourney1840 Exodus 20, the commandments, written by the finger of God. Read it. God said he created everything in six days.
@FRN2013 do you believe in a literal firmament as taught in Gen 1:6?
Love your teaching! ❤
Great session Mr. Mike! Happy New Year..to you, your Fam and the 😻😻ies ❣️
You cannot read the flood account in the Bible walk away, thinking that it was local. That's absolute nonsense.
Not so most of the early church did.
In fact josephephus said the flood extended to the gates of Gibraltar
Remember they didn't understand the full scope of the earth
The thing is you need to look at real science and not ken ham at cherry picked earth
Josephus didn't write the Book of Genesis.
@@reidveryan9414 the point is that in Jesus time. The jews and people's then were not interpreting it as global.
Jews by the 1500s like maimodes (who was a early scientist in his own right.)
Was already pondering on a earth that was millions of years with past worlds of life.
This was previous to modern geology.
The fact is y.e.c. is a new thing that started from a cult sda.
It's very recent in its view.
Flood geology was prices love child and he was not a tenured geologist.
He was a armchair quake.
Reading it as though its literal history is an error because there are numerous scientific errors with the flood account ifs global. It's best read as a redacted composition of 2 accounts of a local flood in the Ancient Near East.
i'm sorry, but there's no possible way that water could flood to the top of mountains and it still be local. Think about it dude🤷♂️
Framework sounds spot on and is something that I have thought for a long time. Didn't know there was an actual theory about it though. Interesting stuff, Pastor Mike. Thanks a ton for all you do.
The Universe and stars were rolled out like a scroll, this is why we see light that should be light years away. all plants and animals were created mature.
I lean toward Michael Heiser's view more than others. Thank You Brother Mike for this video. I hope you also see his podcast on Hebrews too. I don't always agree on some of his interpretations also.
Personally I believe that fighting about creation has caused division in the church and Satan loves it. We can disagree and still call each other a brother. None of us were there so it doesn't matter. I tend to lean toward Dr. Heiser view which is that it is to teach theology and not history. I also think I like the mytho history view.
I grew up in a very open, loosey goosey sort of Christian house. My questions were never answered with any sort of biblical authority. Questions like "why is Christianity true and Islam isn't?" Moral relativism is perhaps an accurate description. So when I am teaching my kids now, I love to be able to tell them "here are a few things we KNOW are true" like the diety of Christ etc. And here are some things we can discuss like "what's up with the 'days' in Genesis?" Your videos have helped my confidence in teaching my children. Much of which includes saying "hmm... I'm not sure. Let's get out the study bible!"
Yoga is incredibly dangerous. The actual poses that one creates are specifically tailored to create an image/shape with your body, each which represents a different Hindu deity. Yoga is inherently a form of worship, and a means to get good karma.
Yoga is not even being practised in India for general exercise. It is reserved for yogis specifically, because it is clearly distinguished as a spiritual practice for those that choose this path for their spiritual journey. It cannot be separated from its pagan spiritual roots.
There are tons of other stretching exercises with no ties to pagan roots, with exactly the same health benefits and no spiritual dangers, where you can have zero doubt that you can worship God while exercising
How do you reconcile the idea of the Bible being infallible, objective truth, while acknowledging its subjective interpretations (of Genesis, and other things as well) by so many sincere, loving Christians? I'm a born again believer, but I still struggle with this. I've pondered, read, listened to so many people on this, but I still have trouble with it. Why is subjective understanding seemingly built into objective truth. I've got thoughts on this but I'd love to hear yours
If 3 people witnessed a car accident and they gave a report to the police, how would their responses reflect their different perspectives? Would they not all agree or corroborate to give explanation to an event that occurred as fact?
You first. Tell us your thoughts
It seems apparent to me that it doesn't matter how old the earth and/or the universe is. There is compelling evidence for both a young and an old earth. I do not think we are meant to know for whatever reason.
Dt29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, so that we may follow all the words of this Law
In not really sure why ppl have SUCH a problem with IDK.
Its this supercilious attitude as if they have everything else figured out in life and the Bible and all they have left is to perfectly explain
GOD. CREATING. the UNIVERSE.
If God wanted us to know He would have told us.
Personally I think He did. Its not all that hard to read it, but I understand the need some to constantly try to line everything up with the latest scientific script.
Anyway I appreciated your comment.
@@G1stGBlessyeah…it’s just silly of us to think God doesn’t speak to us in ways that we understand isn’t it?
Happy New Year Mike!
Another one of those questions which have nothing to do with salvation, similar to the pre, post and mid trib theories.
One thing is for sure, We serve a supernatural God with whom all things are possible. He is not confined in space or time, therefore it is possible for Him to perform the creation in the literal timeframe as described in Genesis.
We tend to make our God to small, afterall we serve a Big God beyond our finite comprehension.
Can God do it? Absolutely. But the account doesn't line up with our scientific understanding so it's likely we have an incorrect interpretation so it's unlikely in light of the evidence. Science can help us interpret Scripture (The Baconian Hermeneutic).
@@calebmarquart its extremely doubtful that God needs the approval of His Word by the scientific community. We walk by Faith and not by Sight.
@@Kathleen253Romans chapter 1?
We also tend not to observe what our Great God also does. God instill’s long gestation and other growth periods, so is it also permissible to give him glory if he chose a longer creation event in the literary timeframe.
I had a good laugh at the two parents analogy for God and Moses each calling Israel the others’ people 😂
My father in law shouted this off the television telling me to turn that crap off and that you were way off before listening to the whole speech ... That’s the real danger here, not everyone is strong enough in mind to consider anything but a literal interpretation of genesis.
and if anyone even mentions it, they basically pull the “well you’re going to hell and taking my grandchildren with you” argument. And while I understand that concern, not everyone is able to bury their head in the sand and ignore scientific discoveries that happen every year that further and further show YEC to be the least credible among these theories ... I honestly don’t even know which one I align with most, but I nearly had a mental breakdown, and I would shout people down who presented me with facts, but I am not the knd of person who can ignore that. And I did trickle that right up to the New Testament and questioned it all.
Ultimately now I understand it’s not a faith breaking issue , but treating it as such is not a service to anyone, and anyone who thinks it is is unknowingly injuring their brothers in Christ.
Hey Mike love your ministry Brother !! I also love Michael Heiser ministry !! He's an exceptional mind, you should look deeper into his teaching.
Thank you for doing this!
Hi Mike, I’ve been a regular listener of yours for years now but as far as I know have never commented, so let me start by saying: Thank you! I have been so blessed by your teaching ministry! Thanks be to God for giving you this gift and this platform. My question is this: I knew Dr. John Walton personally years ago and found his reading of Genesis 1 compelling (I don’t have any firm views as to what reading is right); you say that you think it is not viable-could you expound on that? I would be so curious to know why, because I have high regard for you as someone who interprets the Bible carefully and well. Thanks!
The problem is in the translation on the words, in the original form... it is not 24 hours, seeing from an eternal God. A day for us, is.... for God.
Both theories should be okay, for time is not a problem for God.
On 58:17 I still try to communicate on phones, it is overwhelming as it is said. The wise will be overwhelmed, God bless you brother. 🙏
(Blind)
Finis Jennings Dake said it best when he asked this one simple question: "Why would God inspire men to write thousands of words to tell us how He DIDN'T create everything?"
I'm grateful that Mike has a 'charitable' approach to the topic of the differing views among genuine (gospel believing) Christians of what Genesis 1-2:4 means.
I hold an old Earth/day-age view myself, but let me at least list some reasons why.
1. I hold the Bible to be bonafide revelation from God and true. However, I don't hold that Bible readers/interpreters are infallible. I also hold that nature presents a consistent picture to us of how God has ordained and sustains its physicality. However, I don't hold that interpreters of nature (i.e., scientists) are infallible either.
2. I do think the Bible is clear enough to get the main and most important things across to most Bible readers. I likewise think that science by and large does a fine job of observing, hypothesizing, and testing and that many, many things science has discovered about the natural world and which have been verified over and over by much repeated testing are reasonably considered to be reliable, espcially those aspects upon which successfully working technology has been based. If such science were wrong the technology based upon it would not work.
3. The usual reason for people rejecting concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 is that they can't work out the exegesis/science concordism themselves. But there are interdisciplinary scholars who know BOTH the Bible and and science well and HAVE worked out very reasonable 'harmonizations' which are published and which anyone can buy/read. Here, I would recommend these books:
By Hugh Ross:
NAVIGATING GENESIS/A SCIENTIST'S JOURNEY
A MATTER OF DAYS
WHO WAS ADAM?
By Robert C. Newman et al:
GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH
4. A concern I personally have about interpreting Genesis 1 is that there are complicating factors:
a. There are determinants in the text itself which for various reasons laymen often miss. These include:
1. Our world's day/night cycle began on Day One (Genesis 1:4-5), not on Day Four, and the Sun is responsible for the daytime portion of that cycle. That there is a cycle at all is due to our world's rotation, so our world was rotating by/as of 1:4-5 too.
2. The photosynthetic land plants of Day Three REQUIRED sunlight in order to grow just as their descendants do today. They evidently had it.
3. This means that the Sun ALREADY EXISTED on Day One. Day Four therefore does not describe the CREATION of the Sun, but something else. Moses indeed avoids the world for 'create' ('bara') in the Day Four passage and instead three times uses 'yehi' (and variants), a word which means 'be' or 'become' or 'come to pass.' The sense is this : 'Let there come to pass lights in the expanse of the sky…' Since the Sun already existed and was generating light during Day One, I take Day Four to be a description of the FIRST VISIBILITY of the Sun, Moon, and stars as individual objects up in the sky. The most straightforward suggestion of how this occurred is that prior to Day Four our early world had a permanently overcast sky. One has to be able to see the Sun, Moon, and stars INDIVIDUALLY to use them for time-telling, which is what the Day Four section emphasizes.
4. When reading the Bible remember that "earth" (not capitalized) is an older English word used to render the biblical Hebrew word 'eretz' which itself refers to the land, a country/territory/region or its people, the ground, or (occasionally, along with 'adamah') the soil. The NAME for our entire world/planet--"Earth" (capitalized)--NEVER APPEARS in the Bible. This is important when reading both Genesis 1 and the account of Noah's Flood because the Bible is NOT talking about our entire world/planet in these contexts.
5. The biblical Hebrew word 'yom' (and variants) is used in FOUR DIFFERENT BUT ALL LITERAL WAYS in Genesis 1-2:4: to denote the daytime portion of a a calendar day, to denote a calendar day, to denote the ordinal days, and to denote the entire six creative oridinal days collectively. The word 'yom' has a wide range of literal meaning just as our English word 'day' does (e.g., 'Back in the day of Harry Truman…') The account tells us that CALENDAR days began WTIHIN ordinal Day One, so an ordinal day is SOMETHING OTHER than a calendar day.
6. The toledoth in 2:4 appears to refer (rare for a toledoth) RETROSPECTIVELY to what just came before when it says "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created…" in the manner of a Hebrew geneaology. Hebrew geneaologies list older-to-more-recent entries in a chronological sequence and so I take the Gen. 1 account to likewise be a chronologial sequence of actual geophysical history for this reason. To me, the account reads like a description of God terraforming our world and then furnishing it with life.
7. The land plants of Day Three not only sprouted (1:11) but they MATURED to the point of producing their fruit with the seed in it (1:12). Depending on the species, that requires part of a growing season, or one or multiple growing seasons. This indicates that Day Three was longer than a calendar day, and if Day Three can be longer than a calendar day so can the other ordinal days.
8. Interpreters of the account should note what it says without eisegeting explanations (includng unmentioned miracles) into the text. It's not that God can't and doesn't do miracles--He does!-- but that we're trying to understand the text and not go beyond what's written. Also, God works Providentially as well as miraculously.
9. All of this exegetically AGREES in its details and sequence with geophysical cosmogony, and that harmonzation argues that the day-age understanding of the account is correct because the 'fit' is very tight in every respect and with no 'fudging.'
In addition to finding a good church, get involved in the church, with small groups and volunteer oportunities. Going to church on sunday is milk, good for baby Christians. Participation is edification, sanctification.
Absolutely
That's why I stopped going on Sunday.
Hello Mike, hope you get a chance to read this but,
believer of the young Earth here and was wondering about your point on if the world were made in six literal days, that they cant have scars, or how the stars are lightyears away. If we are the focus of creation (being created in God's image) and God wanted to show us good things, I don't see why it would be a problem for God to "stretch out" the light travelling from the stars so that the people of Earth can enjoy them and glorify God. Along with the scars on the Earth, might just be a design decision. As an artist when I make characters or environments, I can give them as many scars/ features as I want to make it look good. And throughout the old testament God commands the rocks not to be cut for they are already good (God's the one who designed them) or how in Roman it says how God made some vessels for honor and other for dishonor. God is a designer so I honestly think it fits well.
Yes, god would want to give us sentience but confound us with conflicting evidence.
YEC is incorrect. Period. Unless you think god is deceptive.
It seems pretty clear to me that Angels have (had) a direct line of communication with our Creator such that there's no such thing as divine hiddeness for them. In other words they, like Adam, had no need to seek him out and couldn't remotely be rational in even questioning his existence. Any doubts they could have would be in his character. Any rebellion is direct and intentional with full knowledge of who they are rebelling against and what the consequences are. This explains why the majority have never dared to go against his laws for them.
yeah, your right Mike, nothing in Rev 14:12 to suggest works earn salvation...AT ALL, it says faith and obedience, no earning salvation by works AT ALL.
It presents the definition of what a saint is... a saint is someone who keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Hope this helps.
If Brother Mike is going to briefly describe the views of the creation account that are out there, I wish he would add the Christ-centered model that I discuss in "Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology". The basic assumption is that the text points to the work and person of Christ so that when you come to a question about how to interpret the text, you always take the view that most points to Him. So are the days about the sun or the Son? They are about the Son, the Word of God entering creation and producing the Light. Is Adam the Father or humanity or a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14 et al). He is a figure of Christ so there were others outside the garden. And so forth. And when you do this it turns out that all of the supposed conflicts between science and history and the narrative in Genesis just vanish away effortlessly. All from seeing the text the way Jesus told us to view Moses in John 5:46.
Claiming that there were others outside the garden produces more problems than it solves.
@@MrSeedi76 or it improves theology by exposing things that were problems that we did not realize. Regardless, the text makes mention of them and they are needed to make sense of what the text is literally saying.. Since most don't bother to learn what it is saying, they don't see what problem is solves. Here is a hint for the curious... Go to an interlinear translation of Genesis 1:28 and look up the meaning of the Hebrew words translated "subdue" and "dominion".
@@MrSeedi76many times, a complex variable formula is necessary to solve the actual problem. So what?
@@richiejourney1840 and the miracle is that if you make the value of all the variables the same - the view that most points to the work and person of Christ- the equation works out. It isn't just an explanation for Genesis, but a proof that scripture is Divinely inspired and Christ is who scripture says that He is!
Forget how man treats Genesis. How does the rest of the Bible treat Genesis? I urge you to do an in-depth study on this.
My opinion- The fallen angels have committed the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They saw and knew who and what Jesus was and rejected Him with full knowledge.
Yes, I also recently thought that this sin must be something like this. Rejecting God completely while having completely convincing revelation of him. Jesus warned his opponents of his time about it because they saw him and his works so clearly! We today don't all see God that clearly. Most young believers are not in any position yet to commit that sin.
But angels do see God very clearly. I wonder if their problem is in fact not that God doesn't WANT them back if they reject him, but that because he's so infinitely good and endearing, if they just left one little bit of their souls open to his spirit, he would eventually win them back through it. So in order to be able to reject him they have to shut themselves off from him completely. Their rejection has to match their revelation of him in how complete it is or they won't be able to turn away from such a God. And once they turn away like THAT, there's no opening left for him to work with, to use to win them back. In the face of strong light you must choose sides and your decision will be all the stronger the stronger the light is. Angels either "fall for" God completely, in love, or they turn away completely. The gray area is no place they can stay in because they see God too well. - But I'm just speculating.
(Actually, this sin scared me a lot for a while when I had no idea what it was. But I think now that Jesus would strongly give me pushback (still as gentle as possible) /correction/guide me away from it if I came close to committing this sin. As long as I give him influence on me. Yes, as long as I stay in an active positive relationship with him I think it will be fine. Saying this for people out there who might be scared as I was. Or maybe Jesus can give you a different thought to calm you. He doesn't want us scared. Only respectful of him but not scared)
@a-lightful-forest Wonderful input! My understanding is that this sin could only be committed by those who witnessed him in the first century, the heavenly members who saw him complete his works, and whoever is here to witness his second coming/milinnial rein. Those who have (or will have) absolutely no doubt of who he is and chose to reject him. We live in an era of grace, where we believe by faith - in which we can be forgiven for our ignorance and childlike rebellion right up to the moment we take our last breath. If by that last breath we still deny His works in our lives, then I suppose we could have committed this sin. But until then, he reveals himself in nature and in our changed lives. When we give Him credit for these things rather than calling it a coincidence, we choose Him.
Praise God for that grace we don't deserve! He could have just snapped his fingers and been done with us!
God Bless you and keep you!
I don't understand how some people think God built the universe in seven 24 hrs periods. Time, in regards to measurement, didn't exist yet until people, like the Egyptians, invented it. And if days are measured by the Earth's rotations around the Sun, how could you determine a day before Earth existed, or before humans invented the measurement of time?
Young earth creation is the standard view and I think it is correct.
It’s the literalist view, for sure.
But I personally don’t think it’s correct
Yeah it’s not correct
Time is measured by rotations of celestial bodies. In the beginning, when God created the universe, we don’t know what celestial body rotating He was counting as a day. It Could’ve been all of creation! that could’ve taken a long time. Relatively.
The term “immortality of the soul” seems to imply that it existed forever before an individual’s birth. But only God is immortal. While the soul, after death, goes into an everlasting state moving forward (the “eternal life” guaranteed by Christ for believers), it seems like some distinction should be made between that and the implication that it has always existed along with God outside of time, partaking in His immortality. I’m reminded of the poem by Wordsworth (early 19th century Romantic poet), “Intimations of Immortality,” where baby souls pre-exist before being placed in a human being at birth, and children are therefore celebrated as have deeper spiritual wisdom than adults because they’ve been in the immortal state more recently and people in later years have “forgotten” the spiritual truths. I don’t think the Bible teaches anything like this; so doesn’t it seem like the term “immortality of the soul” has some questionable attributes? Kathy Alba.
Origen did present that possibility of souls existing prior to joining the flesh.
What are your thoughts on exclusive Psalmody?
Thank you for the very informative video. Its helped me try clarify my own understanding/belief of Genesis. Only note: I dont think Jesus is or can be hyperbolic. He actually walked on water and resurrected. His teachings are omnipotent but also meek and therefore literal.
“Do you believe in any kind of death (other than plant death) before the Fall? Why or why not?”
This was a question I had to answer on a recent transfer request to a new presbytery. How would you answer it?
Honestly. Or look for a place that agrees with me.
I would have wrote, “If you can tell me the need of a Tree of Life and if death was not a possibility, then I shall be better informed to give you an answer”.
PS5 turning on at 0:38 seconds??? 😂
😂
I personally don't have a set view. I know Scripture is true regardless but I've heard great yec arguments and Hugh Ross really explains the day age view very well
My PERSONAL issue with any view aside from the literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative is that any attempt on MY part (surely this isn't true for everyone) would be driven by a desire to validate the story.
Yeah…like the Apostles wanted validation of the resurrection…hmmm….
Another theory is that the creation happened in 7 literal days for God, however He sped up that time so creation was unfolding at a rapid pace, and we’d never be able to record that because it would require us to see logic and reality from Gods perspective; which we can’t do.
An example to help it make more sense is whenever you watch a movie and want to skip to the ending. You hit fast forward x10 on your TV and the movie gets through 2 hours in 20 seconds. Then you hit play to watch the ending. From the perspective of the characters in the movie; they have no idea that everything was just on fast forward and whenever they observe the events of the movie, it’s all happening in normal time for them. It’s only on fast forward for the person outside of the movie.
Not saying that’s what I believe; but it’s another theory that I think holds some plausibility. God could do all of that and we’d never know
I’ve heard that hypothesis
Mike lookin like a new hot young Mr. Roger’s in that sweater😂 Just messin with ya Mike. You rock and I love your content and teaching. I’ve learned a lot even though I have been a Christian my whole life. 👍
I do believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve, but if you think anyone who interprets Genesis non-literally is not a Christian, then you don't think Paul is a Christian.
Galatians 4:24 (ESV): Now this may be interpreted *allegorically:* these women are two covenants.
Note that Paul still expects the Galatians to OBEY that "allegorical" interpretation, and not just acknowledge the literal, historical facts recorded. It doesn't make it unimportant or false. The entire Old Testament could theoretically be allegorical, and it would still bind our consciences as the inspired Word of God. In fact, focusing *only* on the historical interpretation may mean you are actively rejecting part of what God inspired.
love your work but I think you should put up a post around 12 hours prior to the stream or set up an upcoming stream 12 hours earlier.. I checked from my time 9pm till 12am but dint see any upcoming stream notice(your stream starts at 4am my time).. sad that I missed it 🥲
its amazing just how much we'll question scripture based upon the "wisdom" of man
Based upon evidence
It’s not opinion. The so called “wisdom” has fed you, clothed you, kept you in health, allowed you to communicate over vast distances…..
Penicillin cured more people than Jesus ever did.
The fact that people still question the age of the Earth is an insult to all the people, theist or otherwise, who have dedicated their lives over hundreds of years to get to the truth of who we are and the planet we live on.
I personally take a polemic view of Genesis 1. I am still working through just how much of Genesis 2-3 is literal history and how much is communicated in a way that is meant to communicate more theology than literal history. And no, my believing this does not mean I take man's word over God's word. That's just interpretational gaslighting and I won't fall for it. I still see it as 100 percent God's word. I'm just more interested in how the original readers would have read it and not how we would read it devoid of their culture and context and insist that that's the only way it CAN and SHOULD be viewed.
I believe genesis 1 isn’t literal but it’s 100 percent Gods word and reveals basic truth of creation. I also believe the garden of Eden did exist and Adam and Eve existed, their offspring brought rational human souls into the world
Excellent
Hi Mike, what's your take on Gen 1 v 14 where it says the sun and moon were created to rule the day and the night, and we get the '24 hr' day from this, and months from the moon. So is it that time (24hr day etc) was created on the fourth day? Why do theologians seem to not read or mention this? Tells me that the evening and the morning of the days must have a different meaning than what we mean by a day. I love the way the Jewish day starts at sundown, and each day travels from dark to light. I'm a gentile, but inspired by many things that God has done through His people. Many blessings
If you want to know more about the calendar and sun etc I saw a really good video series on the channel 'follow the lamb today', look for the calendar playlist
Love to see an animal 😍!! Beautiful cat 🐈
Great q&a Mike and Sarah, Thank-You! God bless You all! ("Take the rest of the year off Sarah" ), lolz. Have a Wonderful New year!
LOL :D Have a wonderful New Year!
@@sarahfaith316 🙂
@@sarahfaith316🙂
SDA member here. First, Like any Christian group, yeah a few of our members past and present have certainly done some name calling. (Don't get me started on what some ppl think about Catholics.) But, but yeah we believe more that the soul isn't separate from the body. Spirit+Body=Soul "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7
I think what the inquirer is saying is, that Adventist don't see spirit as a conscious part of you, and the resurrection at the end is a full body and spirit reuniting. Therefore the belief of the soul being separate is heavily influenced by Greek thought like Plato's theory of soul.
And while I think my faith has it right on the nature of the afterlife. I do think it's dishonest to pretend that there's no reason any other Christian may reach a different conclusion. Solomon ponders the nature of the spirit (whether that's the same as the soul is debatable) Daniel and other writers mention Babylonian afterlives, Christ speaks of the "Bosom of Abraham", the Nature of Sheol is spoken of in vague terms. So yeah like everything in our faith and life there's certainly influence from our neighbours, hope that wasn't confusing. Thanks @mikewinger Hope you do a video on different interpretations of the "Soul"
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, does seem to be obviously giving a tree symbolic meaning as well as literal meaning.
I believe it is a young earth, but I am not dogmatic about it.
Genesis 1 is structured as literal…but interpreting the creation myth literally does contradict evidence.
Do think about - Is it structured as literal, period, or is it structured as literal to the 21st century Western mind?
I believe that Genesis is more theological than actuality especially concerning creation. And even with how the story in Genesis were told were not by Moses but those who were followers concerning the Ancient Near East.
I believe that God is sovereign of all and Genesis gives us a way we can hope to understand him theologically.
Don't worry about giving me false hope about salvation, for I learned you can't fully trust men. For different denominations and even individuals who are Christian have there own subjective views concerning salvation. One says you can lose salvation, one says you can lose it for good, one says you can't lose salvation, one says if you backslide you were never saved to begin with.
Matthew 10:28: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
So your soul isn't exactly immortal, or else it couldn't by definition be destroyed, not even by God, but it's the next best thing to being immortal because it can only be destroyed by God.
When I was much younger 2 women said that God had told them that they were to marry me. They were great ladies, but I didn't marry either of them.
the youtube channel Is Genesis History is the best scientific answer to this question.
I usually listen to your podcast, but i don't think it is that complicated. John 1:3
Im a Christian. Also believe in evolution. Science says how and when it happened. Religion says Who did it and why.
Religion says who/what did it and why.
There is no question that Genesis says the earth was created in 6 literal days and he rested on the 7th.
The idea that science has proven this wrong is laughable
It has proven it wrong. A 6 day claim is laughable
@ then you are laughing at God.
Your only evidence is radiometric dating which is a joke. Based on assumptions and biases.
@@beefsupreme4671I don’t believe any gods exist. And there is so proper dating methods aren’t a joke.
@@beefsupreme4671You should write a paper to explain your alternative theory.
@ I don’t need to. It’s already out there. It’s well known.
Yet even zircon crystals are a joke.
Mike...I know you said at some point you were really going to dig into conditionalism and I still look forward to that but in the meantime, I think that those things you mentioned about evidence of consciousness after death are not evidence against conditionalism. Most conditionalists I think believe the soul is destroyed in the lake of fire and nobody has been sent to the lake of fire yet. They are in a temporary state awaiting final judgement so if they are conscious in that state then that doesn't mean they won't eventually have their soul destroyed in the lake of fire. You know the verse about fearing God who can destroy body and soul so I'm curious how you reconcile that verse with the belief that God creates our souls immortal.
On the subject of the immortal soul. Believing the souls lives on after death or in an afterlife is not the same thing as immortality. Just because people are ressurected does not mean its possible for God to utterly destroy their soul in the final judgment.
So, a soul lives forever but that is not immortally? If souls live forever, they have internal life just like those who were born again but just in a different location. I don't buy it.
Eternal life is a precious gift that can only be attained through a deep understanding of YHWH and Christ, along with genuine faith in Christ Jesus (John 17:3, Romans 6:23). No one is born with immortality, nor does anyone possess something within them that is inherently immortal; such a belief is a misconception.
The only being who possesses immortality is described in…
1 Timothy 6:16.
So you would deny that which is created can’t be destroyed?
If our reality is created by God’s mind, in what sense is reality real?
In the sense that we experience it. I don't know man this seems like a super Jordan Peterson question🤣 Cliffe Knechtle might say something like go sprint into a tree and tell me if reality is real
@ Maybe read philosophy of George Berkeley, not something new. I think he might have called it immaterialism. Was a Christian.
@@MarkPatmos so someone already wrote a book about this topic that you've read and you're still asking for answers in the TH-cam comment section. IDK if I really wanna read that book. Unless your original question is just rhetorical.
@@nicholas2113 You don't need to learn about his philosophy, or agree. You were just treating it as a stupid question and I was offering a reply. He lived in 1700s so isn't recent. He is included in philosophy but was a Christian.
@@nicholas2113hmmm…placebos is a “real fake reality”. So not sure how smacking into a tree is gonna prove your position. Philosophers agree, you can’t prove you’re not in a matrix without assumptions being made unprovable axioms.
@37:50 Yoga, those stretches are opening the gate portal to their god. So it's just not stretches you are actually opening the gate. Imagine in those horror movies where they draw the signs on the ground to open up a portal to the demon world, essentially the same thing, but you're doing it with your body.
Interesting. How'd you come to this conclusion?
The idea that there were other people "outside the garden" contradicts that the Bible says there was no companion for Adam that's why Eve was made. Before that point, Adam was alone.
If you have, for example, a European in the middle of a tribe of African people, you could say that there is no one of the same kind for them.
Rough example, apologies.
Another example: we know that Homo Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens (us)
So maybe the people outside were Neanderthals, and Adam had no human mate
There’s nothing in the Bible that contradicts this.
“For Adam there was not found a helper comparable (suitable) to him”. I suppose he was looking for his specific match so when the Neanderthal”s, etc., popped out of the bushes he was not happy or turned on.
Thanks for giving an explaination of the various views of creation. Personally I lean towards the old earth view with the 'yom' idea. It seems to fit well with the obserbed universe and the Genesis account. Also it gives me the idea that the great Designer took time to design and built his creation. Complex designs take time for each part to be constructed before the next part can be done.
Don't you think that, in light of God's capability to have done it all in one instant, seven twenty-four hour days is a leisurely pace?
@@projectr9999please do tell us what a leisurely pace is to a timeless eternal God…
In our observable universe we see that a woman cannot get pregnant without losing her virginity and people that die stay dead, yet our faith is founded on us taking the virgin birth and Christ’s resurrection literally. Why would we take the virgin birth and resurrection literally, but assume that the Genesis account of Creation is metaphorical? The Genesis account is very detailed in describing when things were created and how they were created, which doesn’t seem to fit a poetic out metaphorical style just as the Gospel accounts of Christs life are not metaphorical.
Why does science limit God's power? People truly do not believe in the power of God to speak, and it was. It has to be constrained by our imagination. And the demand to understand God's power is to be like Him, what he has revealed and what can be found is for our nourishment. But then to put limits on what God can do is just inconsistent. God created the 7 day week, he rested on the sabbath, and the same people He chose are living evidence as time keepers of the 7th day.
Science does not limit Gods power. Some scientists do that not the science.
It SAYS, forget MEANS except in Daniel, Ezekiel and Recelation.