GENESIS V. DARWIN: Shapiro sets the record straight about the creation of man
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2020
- Can the Genesis account and some form of evolution be reconciled? Ben Shapiro's answer might surprise you .
---
Watch more #onlyatYAF videos every day! Click now to connect with us on Facebook: / youngamericasfoundation
Finally something Ben and I disagree on.
He also believes that mankind is 50% responsible for climate change. Do you agree with that? So, for me, this is the second thing I don't agree with him.
It appears that Ben's got a lot of "faith" in science...
Here, here.
@@e.l.5751 He has data.
@@justinnamuco9096 The "data" he has is deceitful and manipulated. There are plenty of youtube channels exposing that. One of the best channels is Tony Heller's. He's ALL about facts, REAL facts and how they are omitted and/or manipulated by scientist, msm, politicians and even NASA, among others, besides the surreal and ridiculous alarmism/catastrophism that they propagate. It's not a matter of taking sides on this issue, but to check the information that's available, analyze it and come to our own conclusions.
By the way, are you preparing yourself for the end of civilization by the year 2030?
Also, Obama had "data" too, correct? Some of the "data" that he shared alarmingly with the american people was that the whole coastline of the US would submerged in a decade. Well, then... he goes and buys a 15 million beachfront mansion.
There's data showing the same kind of cataclysmic "predictions" throughout the XX century and even the 19th.
As I said, there's more than enough information out there to come to our own conclusions about this POLITICAL, not environmental, hoax.
@@e.l.5751 Gotta admit, I've only watched one video of Ben Shapiro talking about climate change: th-cam.com/video/wRk1p8Lzwvo/w-d-xo.html
Edit: What I mean is he's opposed to the popular myths about climate change himself. I thought 50% was already the bare minimum of the blame that we deserve.
There are two facts from Genesis that you cannot take to be allegorical:
I) God spoke everything into existence; He created everything.
ii) He created man in His image, and man disobeyed His word and died spiritually (and then physically).
If you want to debate the time frame, etc., that is a separate, less important discussion. But as soon as you say that Adam and Eve were allegorical or that God didn't create everything by speaking, then you have a huge problem.
ClassyCactus amen. One more fact: we have all sinned and need a savior.
Wes 76 : how did u come to the conclusion that the Bible contains no facts?
@Wes 76 Aww!! Look at you trolling for arguments!
Its adorable, but amateurish. It's pointless to argue somthing that neither side will concede. The simple fact is that one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.
Doesn't matter who's who, but SOMEONE is CERTAINLY going to be surprised when they die...
To put it simply.
*Ahem*
Shut up.
We live in a universe...
Uni- single
Verse- spoken sentence
We live in a single spoken sentence...
Wes 76 actually, the Bible is a history book, especially the Old Testament. Many things from the Bible have been corroborated by science and discoveries of the modern era. Do your research and you’ll find troves of information to support this.
I would pay good money to see a debate between Ben Shapiro and Richard Dawkins.
There are more intelligent 'Atheists' than Dawkins but yes, he is quite the entertainer.
@@zach2049. Let me guess, you disagree with him so he must be an idiot?
@@zach2049. I bet Ben knows how to spell literally and smart.
@@zach2049. Shapiro is decently smart. He is certainly smarter than Richard dawkins and Sam Harris.
@@angevdw2887 How EXACTLY are you measuring intelligence?
Actually he didn't answer the question. He just repeated it, in more detail.
What was the specific question he asked? It was quite broad.
It's a vague answer to a vague question.
@@kfossa344 He basically asked him to reconcile what was literal interpretation to allegorical interpretation. Wasn't vague at all. The answer however was vague. The reason is Ben is saying the approach is up to the reader to distinguish what makes sense.
@@colinharbinson8284 He basically asked him to reconcile what was literal interpretation to allegorical interpretation. Wasn't vague at all. The answer however was vague. The reason is Ben is saying the approach is up to the reader to distinguish what makes sense.
@@herekittykitty9324 suppose he, (and you), are saying you pick and choose which bits of the Bible you believe in, fair enough.
“Sets the record straight”??? Since when is Shapiro any kind of an authority on this? All he did was set the record straight on why he personally chooses to pick and choose which portions of the Bible he wants to believe.
Because his argument wasnt about disproving the bible.
His argument was that if it contradict science, then it must be allegory.
He didnt chose turning water into wine or splitting the ocean because it cannot be disproven. And you cant prove a negative.
Instead he chose the genesis based on simple logic. That there cant be light source to mark the passing of days if theres no sun.
@@eleethtahgra7182 that is NOT simple logic.It was ALL God's plan that the earth rotates at THIS speed and it would take 24 hours to do it.It was not just about creating the sun and the earth and God counting later on the no. of hours it took for rotation.He established that it would take 24 hours to rotate around the sun.There is no allegory here .
@@sbishi9527 so He could. But how would those without a watch know what a day is without a sun?
@@eleethtahgra7182 during those days it wasn't necessary. All they did was eat,pray to God wander around etc...they only knew night and day.When the sun rises after night time,it was called the next day,thats it.but later on they used the Sun Dial in some places.google it and check it out..i dont wanna type long paragraphs about it😂😂
@@sbishi9527 and without the sun as light source, that rise and set periodically each day, how could those folks during those days even know what a day is?
Guessing Ben appreciated this questioner more than most as he was respectful and informed. I actually disagree w/Ben on this ... but 2 people discussing it respectfully is refreshing anyway
Just curious, what’s your stance on this?
@@jamesbishop3091 I believe scripture is being literal in the book of Genesis. I definitely believe the Bible has allegory, but I am loathe to categorize any section as allegory without strong reason. This is all too often used by those employing eisegetics to pretend that the Bible says something it doesn't or that it doesn't say something that it does
@@michaelcasile1036 interesting point tho, how does God measure a day he is timeless right? A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day for him. It still doesn't change the beauty of God's creation however long it took.
@@wess3426 agreed, it is a peripheral doctrine not a core doctor. However the reference to evening and morning is something that wasn't referenced in God's thousand year days. There is reason to believe it's not allegorical and I always maintain that literal interpretations are best unless allegorical is absolutely clear. Many people turn the entire scripture into allegory and functionally make it a book of fiction in their eyes
The literal reading of the Bible is scary. If President Biden did some mistake and God strike my children dead, I believe I can offer this "god" some wisdom on how to be a God.
I LOVE to watch these debates. But I'm going to be honest, sometimes it is hard to keep up lol.
Smartest Ben Shapiro fan
Yeah, um, the Hebrew word for day, "Yom" (put a macron over the "o"), literally means nothing else but day. Also, it is a possibility that created the earth with the APPEARANCE of age. Did he create Adam and Eve as infants? No. So it's perfectly reasonable to believe that God created the earth with appearance of age. Plus, just because it doesn't make sense for God to do something, or you think that if he did do it would happen this way, doesn't mean he didn't do it. I am a huge fan of Ben Shapiro, but I disagree with him on this.
Ben Shapiro says many interesting things to say. His thoughts on the Bible are embarrassing at best though and I think he should stick to what he's good at, which is politics
I like your response. It is possible that God created the earth to look old. It would be a big leap of faith to believe so though since we have scientific models that show how solar systems form. I think it is best for believers to take the genesis story as allegorical. I guess at some point a person of faith has to "draw the line" somewhere though and hold firm to God creating things in a special creation. I used to think that special creation and evolution were compatible in intelligent design. Once you think about it deeply enough though and keep following the causal chain back, there is no need for god to intervene. Evolution believing Christians can still hold to the notion that god started life and the universe but that's about it. Science has a good or at least likely explanation for all the rest.
@@shawn8410 I don't doubt one's faith who believes in evolution. However, I disagree that there is any line to be drawn with faith. Personally, I do not believe in evolution. I believe God is God and without limit. Could God have created evolution? Of course. Did He? No, I don't think He did. And with respect to you, I personally think God would find it to be an abomination that it is taught that His Son has primate ancestors. In order for evolution to be true, it would mean that death brought man into the world over millions of years of dying creatures. The Bible says man brought death into the world through sin. I trust Jesus and respectfully encourage you to look into creation science.
@@SoloShelby Technically speaking we are primates. This doesn't mean much specifically because its just a catergorical label. The bible says that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. I don't know how this would be less offensive than the bible saying that god took one of the animals (i.e. primate) and made in them a special creation: man. And he molded man into the image of god. That would have been perfectly fine. So there is no reason to think there is anything offensive about primate ancestors. I have extensively look into creation science. It starts with the ascertion that the genesis story is true and tries to make the facts fit that. Have you seen the Ken Hamm and Bill Nye debates?
@@shawn8410 I disagree that we are primates. We are human beings. I have not seen those debates, no. I put the theory of evolution behind me years ago although I do enjoy debates on it, still. I believe the Bible to be literally true. I believe God made Adam just as Genesis says. Can I explain how He did it? Not even a little haha. But my intelligence in comparison to God's intelligence is something I don't struggle over and take my comfort in the unknown by Jesus Christ. I can't even explain how I have memories from childhood so I don't struggle with knowing God created man from dust of the ground. And considering all food; meat and plant, are from the ground and I grow from food and water and oxygen, I find it to make a lot of sense that the first man came from the soil of the earth
No joke, that's my YOUTH PASTOR
he should take a look at Answers in Genesis, it is a great Christian group who provide a lot of clarity on this commonly misunderstood issue.
Sean Duffy clarity. Interesting way of putting it.
Hey Silas!!
Same. Nelly!!!
Sad for you; he got that COMPLETELY wrong!
For a moment I thought the bald bearded man in red shirt was the same bald bearded man in red T-shirt at the Blizzcon conference where he smacked down Diablo mobile developers
Haha, same here.
Same!
It WAS!!!!! GASP!!!
@@nortonsnale5968 really?
@@babbisp1 No, that would be funny though.
If you need to argue about Evolution you know that its about time to leave the room.
Science said we came from dust (they call it stardust) God already said adam came from dust
Also eve came from the rib
The rib bone is the only bone in our body that can grow back
Evolution is true.
& Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl.
For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end:
The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth*
-This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly.
There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps".
During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time.
This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life!
And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters".
Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth??
Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs?
The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species.
It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs.
-This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA.
Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is!
So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds.
________________________________
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
________________________________
Ben is at his best when addressing Social ills---but he really
doesn'f understand the Scriptures. It takes MORE than just
brains to discern Bible revelation.
It takes gullibility.
Evolution is true.
& Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl.
For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end:
The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth*
-This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly.
There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps".
During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time.
This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life!
And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters".
Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth??
Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs?
The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species.
It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs.
-This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA.
Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is!
So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds.
________________________________
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
________________________________
@@adamrspears1981 Check out a TH-cam video entitled;
"What makes more sense--Evolution or Creation?" And
then, check out the comments between me and a dude
who goes by the name, "Goatrectum." Yeh, that's his sur-
name.
If you can prove, and refute CONCLUSIVELY every single
point I made---including, but not LIMITED to Biblical Arch-
aeology, etc., then maybe...Just Maybe we have possibly
an intelligent dialogue to embark on.
Happy hunting, my friend.
@@raygsbrelcik5578 I'm familiar him. I have dealt with him recently.
My intention is not to debate.
Because a debate assumes one side is completely correct, & the other completely incorrect.
What I am sharing (with everyone, both theist & atheist) shows a few things:
(1):
Neither side is completely correct & completely wrong.
(2):
The theist & the atheist _can_ agree that evolution is true.
(3):
Specifically the Christian, can still believe in GOD & believe that GOD uses evolution to perpetuate life upon The Earth.
-Now, what intrigues me the most is the response I get from both the theist (specifically the Christian) & atheist.
Because I am actually defending things on both sides, so there is really no reason to spew hatred toward me... but both the Christian & the Atheist hate me for showing that GOD uses evolution to perpetuate life on Earth.
The Atheists are correct that evolution is true.
The Christian is correct that GOD "got the ball rolling".
But GOD did not create every single-celled, & multi-cellular organism, one-by-one, one after another, personally, one-on-one.
After GOD set the laws of nature & laid out the mechanics of causality in the natural world, they used (& still use) it to efficiently & abundantly perpetuate life on Earth.
-Evolution is a mechanism for that.
Sadly, this seems to be a catastrophe in the mind of both the Christian & the Atheist.
Because of this, I have realized that the Christian & the Atheist are just 2 sides of the same coin.
I am an odd ball because the Christian shows predjudice toward me by accusing me of being an Atheist (Of which, I am not). When I state that I am bot an Atheist & believe in GOD, the simple-minded Christian then proceeds to try to convince me that (1): I cannot believe in both GOD & evolution. or (2): That I am "confused" or "mislead by the devil" & therefore *must* ignorantly be an Atheist w/o knowing it.
& there is yet another Christian that will accuse me of deliberately deceiving Christians & tell me I'm going to hell for it.
....On the other hand, the Atheist will (like the Christian) pre-judge me by simply accousing me of being a Christian.
I am neither a Christian, nor an Atheist. & both are equally hard-headed & neither really want to let go of what they have been convinced is true, even after there is a logical reason that it may not be true, afterall.
Sorry for the long introduction. But that's who I am.
@@adamrspears1981 I have dealt with individuals such as you. And
let's get something squared away right now. I do NOT "Hate," ok?
Am I PASSIONATE in my belief---You BET! But there IS no hate
Like I said, I have confronted people like yourself; You're basic-
ally COMPROMISERS----Ya' just can't choose a SIDE. To ME, it
sounds like you've admitted to Evidence on BOTH sides!
As far as your comment on GOD not, "Creating EVERY single-
celled,...Organism---one by one," etc. Okay, I know that prob-
ably sounds Smart to you, but in Fact---GOD is WAAYYY ahead
of us, my friend. Have you not even stopped to THINK it over
what you SAID? Do you honestly believe that an Omniscient
Creator who Creates, not just Organic Life---but GALAXIES as
Well, doesn't understand HIS OWN Creation?
Here's what I mean: GOD, in HIS infinite Wisdom, wrote the
Very CODES for EACH and EVERY cell within Organic tissue.
Well, those "Codes," or chemical compounds are PASSED ON
through the Genetics HE has DESIGNED!
GOD doesn't HAVE to "Create every cell." Do you not SEE?.
God's time isn't our time
First prove that there is an invisible imaginary sky wizard daddy.
@@LumpyBlueSweater anyone who knows about science knows that nothing occurs without an impetus. if you believe in the big bang, following science you must know something caused it, it didn't occur in a vacuum. if you believe in evolution there has never been one species that completely became another species. "men from apes", yet there are still apes??? believe what you want, and i will believe what i want. have a great life
@@LumpyBlueSweater if spacetime matter had a beginning whatever began it has to be Intelligent outside of time and matter and space. They can't exist without the other they had to come at the same time. Which is why Einstein came from pantheism to monotheism. Na what's the most Logical thing that can create/begin spacetime and matter that is Intelligent enough and is outside of them. Oh yh ......God or basically a personal creator. Why? God is outside of space (he's boundless/omnipresent) he's outside of matter(he's a spirit) and he's timeless (hence the bible countlessly saying God is the very beginning and end ,the first and last) In other words whatever began time itself HAS to be the uncaused cause or was always there. And thats God. So he was not created cuz he was always there he's outside of those 3 factors and he's immensely powerful and intelligent enough to do so. If God by definition is the creator of ALL things past and present then how can he have a creator ? When the "experts" realize this they came up with 3 ridiculous claims just to escape God. 1. Some says another dimension began it 🤣 2. Some says Nothing began ( nothing happens when you have ntn smh) and they claim 3 types of nothing (Nothing,Nothingness and absolutely nothing) 😱😆 and Stephen Hawkins said in page 81 I think in one of his books said "WELLLL I guess gravity could have done it 😫 this is what happens when you blatantly hate God and don't want him smh. Like Newton says his thumb alone is enough to believe in God. But anyways that's just the cosmological argument. Thus is the gospel: the wages of sin is death thats y death is inevitable. You and I broke the moral law (10 commandments) God intentionally became flesh (Jesus) and died/ payed the price fa us so we can righteously go to heaven REGARDLESS of ya sins. So plz put ya faith in him and Humbly and patiently ask Jesus a sign and deliverance to show you the truth cuz John 14:6 says he's the ONLY WAY truth and Life noone gets to God without going through HIM so plz bro go after Jesus nowwww
All things happen in Gods time.
Making up excuses doesn’t prove said god.
Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. [b]So the evening and the morning were the first day.
And it even says "the first day"
Wrong
On the first day man created god
@@daverose2012 Huh? Lol
@@Zoalsoul think about it
@@daverose2012 No thank you.
Dude, I totally lost you. Ben has some great information and thoughts, but this is not one of them.
Worth looking deeper into.
True that
Ben you are talking crap
Ah, finally something I can look forward to someone challenging ben on.
For the first time I disagree with almost every point Ben is making in this video.
For the first time I agree with what he says. What he’s saying here is factual.
@@danielclingen34 Same here too budd.
Same.
@@danielclingen34 So you think if we drop apes off on Mars, they'll evolve into intelligent beings that can fly back to earth after Mars goes around the sun a few million times???
@Charlie Harper no that’s not how evolution works and Mars isn’t habitable.
The sun/light argument is the equivalent of "Where did God come from?" or "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
I mean, you're willing to accept that God can create everything from nothing, but not that light can come before the sun?
Only people without an understanding is evolution claim that man evolved from monkeys. Man, or rather homo sapiens, and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. And if you choose to believe in biblical or any other creationist myths then you're also liable to justify you're first statement as to where God came from, or more generally who created the creator?
@@akshaynair8498 nothing really more to say other than it's unfortunate that you believe it is a myth.
Perfect illustration of linear thinking JG. You must also be perplexed about how you came from your mother and yet you have cousins. Duhhhhhh... where they come from? Duhhhhhhhhh
God IS light. The Bible specifically says that.
@@akshaynair8498 living, conscious entities came from non living matter such as rocks? which evolved into vegetables which evolved into fish or insects which evolved into monkeys?
Why do they still debate things like this???? Ben knows nothing about science….. it’s not his field!
do you think people can only have knowledge of things in their own field...?
Why should anyone consider genesis at all? Because it was written down? Is there any other reason?
Yes. Judaism postulates a belief of hundreds of thousands of witnesses at Sinai and a tradition claiming that our parents saw it and their parents going all the way back. It would be inconceivable for anyone to make up such a thing and claim it happened to the very people they were telling it to. If I came to you and told you that you had a revelation you wouldn't believe me. Though that's exactly what Judaism does. And it doesn't do it to one person but to hundreds of thousands.
The Bible says elsewhere that we will need no light in heaven, that God uses simple things to confound the wise, and that nothing has remained the same in the earth since sin entered the picture.
Ha. Where does the light come from in heaven? Does heaven have a sun? What solar system or galaxy is heaven in?
@@jerryp6001 There are many questions about Heaven that we simply do not know yet because we are not given all the specific answers.
Regarding the light during the creation week, there are a few theories about where this light originated. Here is one thought:
Basil of Caesarea (329-379 AD) was the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and an ardent apologist and theologian. Basil used a unique argument for what the light of the first three days was. He concluded that God created the essence of the sun the first three days, without creating its substance until day 4 of creation week. Using the analogy of fire and a lamp, Basil concluded that God took the “fire” from days 1-3 and put it in the “lamp” of the sun on day 4. This is likened to the burning bush that Moses saw on Mount Horeb where the light of the fire existed, but the fire was not really burning from the bush itself, nor did it use the bush as material to burn.
The motive follows which caused the lights to be created. It was to illuminate the earth. Already light was created; why therefore say that the sun was created to give light?... Now there is nothing here contradictory to what has been said of light. Then the actual nature of light was produced: now the sun's body is constructed to be a vehicle for that original light. A lamp is not fire. Fire has the property of illuminating, and we have invented the lamp to light us in darkness. In the same way, the luminous bodies have been fashioned as a vehicle for that pure, clear, and immaterial light. . . .
However, in the book of Revelation, chapter 21, we are given many descriptions of what will be in Heaven. In verse 23, we read, "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." This seems to signify that God's holy essence IS the light. "God IS light, and in him is no darkness at all." - 1 John 1:5. The Lamb is a reference to Jesus, who was referred to as the Lamb of God.
@@WienArtist so you actually believe in creationism?
@@teenhydroponix134 that’s it? That’s all you have to say about that? 😂
@@fazbruh nah I was just checking to see if he truly believed that the universe was created 6000 years ago in 6 days before making any assumptions.
Ben forgets that God creates TIME; so when God talks about a day, it is something already defined. God creates light first, so His creation is not some secretive event.
Also, chap 2 takes a more detailed look at what chap 1 describes in a few verses; man is created in God's Image, and is worthy of a deeper, more detailed story.
If you discuss your college football career, and mention you won the Heisman Award...you might want to regale us with that whole season where you outplayed every person.
Also, the word DAY used in Genesis when talking about creation is specifically used to identify a 24 hr period.
Lastly, Allegory is never used in the Bible without it being clearly done (re: Book of Revelation) and done with a specific purpose. Jesus used parables to teach truths that were too difficult to understand with a closed heart, but it's always explained. Allegory teaches specific truths about people, places, and events that we cannot KNOW yet. It's always a future thing...never in the past.
Lastly, there's NO reason Genesis contains allegory. That is something that is being introduced to accommodate the wisdom of man in comparison to the Word of God. Between the two, ill always choose God's wisdom. I just have...more confidence in it. 😊
Amen❤ have you ever watched any Rob Skiba videos? I think you would find it very interesting☺
..You are so absolutely correct!!
Oh, the mental gymnastics.
Go take your meds! Humanity currently worships nearly 5,000 Gods, but don’t worry, only yours is right!
@@OG213LA Then you are accidentally right. I guess it's better to be right without meaning to, then wrong on purpose. Take care. 😊
1:56 American political analyst Ben Shapiro referencing the great Thomas Aquinas said "… if there is a lack of convergence between faith and reason, you’re getting one or the other wrong, quite frankly."
So if Adam was given the task of naming everything on Earth. And he was alone on the planet couldn't have taken him billions of years
Man's wisdom is foolishness to God. When Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisee, a scholar, a great mind, was taken to Heaven, he saw things beyond description; no utterance conceived could describe it, and to even try would be an injustice. Yet we try, and fail. At least Newton understood his ignorance when, nearing the end, said he felt like a boy playing with rocks on the shore while the vastness of the ocean was laid out before him.
Steven D. Bennett Any proof that he was taken to heaven? First of all, where is heaven?
Charles Smith outside of this plain of existence, I understand that is a hard concept to wrap your head around (I mean that in a respectful way, I’m not trying to be confrontational) I simply mean that as fact, I’m a Christian and it’s hard for me to understand. But then again we are using our physical minds that are within these limitations within our universe to try and comprehend something outside of the physical plain we live in.
You call Newton ignorant and you belive in somethingg that never can and never will be proven?
I respect religion and all but you have no argument...
@@zaccuhree2001 aren't se lucky we were born into the right religion....
dissinfective absolute perfect way of putting it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fantastic question!
And he failed answering it. He admitted to the god of the gaps.
Ben's response is genius. I've been dealing with quite a few creationists lately, who let their faith cloud their basic judgement. I'll use this next time they decide to argue with me.
@Willham
Minute mutations over a prolonged period of time.
If an individual carries a small trait that is beneficial to it, then it's more likely to survive and produce offspring than the individuals who don't possess that trait.
The offspring are likely to possess the successful trait aswell, and as such, they will pass it onto their offspring, so on and so fourth.
Over time, mutations across generations continue to select for the traits to become more pronounced over time, until you ultimately have subspecies who came from the same ancestor, but have varying physical appearances aswell as abilities.
This doesn't only extend to the animals physical appearance, but alswell to their learnt behaviors. This is what we call "instinct." It's the reason why most reptiles intrinsically know how to survive on their own after hatching from an egg, despite having never learned what is food, vs what is a mate.
It's the reason that bees have such complex systems within their hives, and why some bone-finned fish, over hundreds of millions of years, eventually adopted a land-living lifestyle.
Mutations are harmful about 99 percent of the time. Even if you had all the time you wouldn't get the random mutations necessary for such complexity. An organism must have DNA to reproduce. DNA is extremely complex. It is inconceivably illogical to assume that the first living thing coming from chemical soup had DNA. Also, there is zero evidence in terms of macro-evolution for what you're saying and they've tested it with bacteria. Bacteria can give birth in minutes and so they simulate the billions of years and still they have not seen macro-evolution@@TheRealityWarper08
@TheRealityWarper08
How do sea turtles hatched on the beach all know to run toward the water at the same time. How is this learned behavior, and how is this coded genetically?
A random mutation occurring in the genome to produce a functional protein is mathematically impossible.
Actually, the Hebrew word that translates to “day” really means “the amount of time it takes to complete a task,” so it could be anywhere between 13.7 billion years or 16 minutes
Actually no, Genesis was originally in Aramaic,
@@MonzaRacer no it was Hebrew. Hebrew was used for religious texts and Aramaic for speaking.
To add to your point. “Yoman” in English is a “daily planner notebook”. So “Yom” would mean a page of plans/tasks/activities that would in essence take time to do (like you stated).👍✌️
Actually a good question and a decent guy
If you chew on dried beans long enough, eventually you can eat them.
Chewing on dried beans with the intent to swallow them IS eating them....starting when you put them in your mouth....
A very good argument against creationism Ben. Thank you for being so logical.
For all we know a day to GOD could be a thousand years.
I would love a debate with Shapiro and Biden on any subject! 👍😂😂
That would be so one sided and boring that you'd be embarrassed to watch. Don't advocate elder abuse and humiliation.
Ben, Apologetics Press does debates. How about debating them on this particular topic? They have a TH-cam channel, and you can watch some of their past debates on their channel.
God can create science and faith, and there can still be conflict... We can both agree that God created man and woman and look at the conflict going on right now.
I wholeheartedly agree with him!(for once!)
Moses, with his face shining like the sun after he had spoken with God as a man speaks with a friend: God made everything in 6 days.
Ben: Moses doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The word used for day in the genesis account is Yom. Search up what that means
Ah. So it was Moses' face in outer space providing the light instead of the light bulb I mentioned in previous reply.
My bad.
@@Yozastyle Hebrew words are context sensitive. In this context it translates to "DAY'
@@gtrent7744 how can you be sure? I've heard scholar say theres no definite definition. Also if your referring to 24 hour period the word day is used in 3 different manors throughout the 6 days and the 7th has reference that we are still living in it
@@Yozastyle It was evening, it was morning, the N-th day. What clearer statement can be made regarding the meaning of the word YOM in the context that it is being used in than that???
Jesus said - John 5:46
"If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?…"
Clearly one of a number of reasons why Jews do not believe in Jesus - they prefer to believe the faulty interpretations spouted by the Rabbis. They have nullified the word of God by the traditions of men. But things are rapidly changing - the Internet can reach where the Rabbis cannot block the word of God anymore.
Just because it’s not in “time” as we know it, I’m sure God will explain HIS “time” to us ...... later. Have faith !
Did Santa bring your presents this year?
@@Brammy007a who dumped you today
@@donaldj.trumpandiapproveth259 Nobody, as a matter of fact, today is been great so far. How is your day going?
Evolution is true.
& Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl.
For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end:
The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth*
-This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly.
There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps".
During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time.
This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life!
And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters".
Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth??
Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs?
The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species.
It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs.
-This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA.
Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is!
So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds.
________________________________
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
________________________________
"....Just have Faith."
-But when you are sick, you seek treatment from a doctor.
"....Just have Faith."
-But yet you look both ways before crossing the street.
"...Just have Faith."
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 1 John 1:5
"God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:14
"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12
Jesus is the answer.
Um, how does this even relate?
@@bitsaurus It relates to the part of the video where Ben was discussing whether in Genesis there was light before the sun was created. He mentioned how, once the sun was created, a "day" would be restricted to 24 hours, one rotation of the Earth around the sun.
@@missyvaughn4467 ahhh.
@@missyvaughn4467 I'm no expert by any standard and I could be wrong without looking but, wasn't there morning and evening which made the first day? Sun or no sun...
@@missyvaughn4467 that tells me that THE first day equalled a 24 hr period.
You never get scientists telling us evolution can't happen. Still no creationist can find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
Convergent evolution. Why evolution designs coincidentally many similar designs? For example marsupial mouse and placental mouse look similar despite not having "common ancestor".
All similar designs are evidence for one creator.
Otherwise it would be miracle if random mutations can produce similar looking creatures, despite us being told mutations are not supposed to have direction. (When it obviously would show evolution have clear direction in mind, like it's some kind of sentient being, if it's manages to make similar looking things.
@@KingPingviini Convergent evolution is evolution. Why would it not be?
"Why evolution designs coincidentally many similar designs? " You're assuming design here. You would need to demonstrate it.
"For example marsupial mouse and placental mouse look similar despite not having "common ancestor"."
They do have a common ancestor though. Some features keep evolving independently because they're well adapted. That's how evolution works. Lots of predators have sharp teeth because they're useful for predators, not because they're designed.
Thank you for trying anyway.
So can you find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?
Shapiro keep to your understanding to other things, scripture isn't your thing, you've got to be spiritual to be able to understand!!!
@@JC-sj2pd yes born again I've used it hundreds, and hundreds of times through my 42 years in the ministry!!!
“if there is a lack of convergence between faith and reason, then you’re getting one or the other wrong” lmao ok dr. Zaius
Evolution makes the most sense to me.
There is no observable evidence for macro-evolution and the fossil records have all the missing links they had hundreds of years ago. They've found carbon dating in diamonds which should be billions of years old but carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years. There is no proof.
I heard once from a Catholic teacher that day one actually meant time and not literally night and day, cause of course that was on day 4
Ngl, was kind of expecting him to ask if this is all an out of date April fools Joke
I really would love to just sit down with Ben over a choice drink and just talk about all kinds of things. Religion, politics, personal views on life, that kind of stuff and ask for his opinions on how to live morally.
The question is if he would like to.
@@anthonygoin4194 if you see his interview with Andrew Neil you might change your mind. Andrew Neil really got Ben in that interview which I was not expecting
Ayn Rand's Objectivism is, I think, the best philosophy for how humans ought to live. It is each persons moral responsibility to live the best life they can. Meaning, making their life the best. As long as you are not violating someone else's right to live their life to the fullest.
@@anthonygoin4194 I would say that your assessment is pretty accurate. I agree with him on almost everything. Not on religion and I believe some of his anti-abortion arguments are disingenuos when challenged. But otherwise he is awesome.
@@shawn8410 so basically do unto others as you would have done to you. Or love thy neighbor. Isn't that in the bible?
"When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant.
When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain.
And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt.
We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt.
Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain."
- Richard Feynman, The Value of Science 1955
I once held Ben's view concerning the use of the word "day" prior to the creation of the physical means for a 24-hour day. However, Genesis wasn't written in real time. Rather, it was all written well after the 24-hour day was long established. So, this reasoning to dismiss the 24-hour day holds no water.
That was my thinking when he said it.
Who wrote Genesis?
It s good thing adam and eve told the story to cain and able. Well...cain. so he could pass the story on until an alphabet and writing were invented to jot it down.
@Wasikamayuk Viracocha Smith What are you trying to say here? "The first day" means one day. It means a single 24 hour period. This is the only way to interpret the language used.
@Wasikamayuk Viracocha Smith but the word, in Hebrew, literally means a 24 hour period, not to mention it mentions there being evening and morning. Your interpretation isn't convincing.
How can you have a day without the sun. That was Ben whole point
I'm not educated enough for this one
Jake Husband
Nothing intelligent is being said here. It’s a stream of rationalizations.
Basically, regarding creation of the world, follow science. If religious account disagree with science, then it must be allegory.
He gave example of the distinction of day exist before the existence of the sun n moon n other stars. And follow up with that you cant distinguish any day if theres no sun to mark the passing of days.
Heck...you wont even have light if you got no sun.
2 Peter 3:8
King James Bible
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
@@b_uppy in other words, the concept of time is wibly wobly, ergo the concept of day in the genesis is an allegory.
@@eleethtahgra7182
Arguably.
It's unfortunate that you're completely wrong on this one, Ben.
BTW, there's no mention of an apple in Genesis.
Mental gymnastics of people who try to fit the creation account in the Bible and Quran with science is so fun to watch! Ben has no clue what he is babbling here!
God didn't create religion, man created religion
Oh boy...
That's sexists lol
As a Roman Catholic I was like "Wow Ben's Orthodox Jewish approach to this is nearly identical" and then he dropped Thomas Aquinas and I was like "Oh this all makes sense :D"
It is Christ and who saves. Jesus will save you if you trust in faith when he took our place on the cross and paid for our sins. So easy yet confusing to the lost man. You understand the word of God once Christ the holy spirit dwells in you.
@@randygonzales7306 “Christ the Holy Spirit”? What does that mean?
@@ssabino01 God the father God the son God the Holy Spirit. The Trinity We had one commandment and that was not touch the tree of the knowledge of good evil in the garden of Eden we blew that and then we got ten commandments now we have several books in the Bible of commandments that we can't keep so God had to send his son Jesus Christ to take our place in order for us to be able to have heaven as her home I want you to go to and it doesn't have anything to do with my church or what religion but go to Parkside Baptist Church in Mesquite Texas and log on and it's going to give you the plan of salvation according to the Bible not according to me or my pastor or a religion but according to the word of God check that out it would be a blessing
It's amazing how similar Satan's religions are.
@@thewolfes146 amazing how stupid people like you all parrot the same things
"Why linger here, why turn
another page?
Oh! seal with doubt the whole
book of the age;
Doubt everyone, even him, the
seeming slave of
righteousness, and doubt the
canting sage."
Al-Ma'arri 973-1057 AD
Ben is saying that the text is literal unless the science doesn’t fit. Then it becomes a story. If the science doesn’t fit, then you change your understanding of the text. However, don’t you dare doubting the Bible is the word of God. That’s forbidden.
Dr Kent Hovind Creation Seminar
Now I'm off to the comment section to listen to people argue about how denominations that don't align with their beliefs are wrong.
Often times it's their beliefs that doesn't align with the Bible. 🤣😂
Welcome!
@@jthomas196 That is true. Any differences are the fault of people, not the Bible.
@@jthomas196
If I could get you a for realsies beer, I would, but....🍺
@@RefurbishedPrototype Your religion is "chance". I just don't happen to believe in it. 🤣😂
Not often I disagree with Ben, but I hold to the evening and the morning as referring to literal days. I will accept that Genesis is allegorical if I find it to be so when I meet my creator. Not before and not unless. That said, I appreciate his respectful approach which is rare in disagreement these days.
Most of the genesis myths were stolen from much older pagan religions sometimes word for word.
Also you dont need to wait to meet your maker , many of the things stated in genesis are DEMONSTRABLY false now.
@@trumpbellend6717 You'll understand if I don't take your word for it. I don't believe Genesis is myth, nor do I believe there are any myths older than the creation of the world. As for demonstrable falsehoods in Genesis, please name one.
@@tflynn2400 The summerian Epic of Gilgamesh written, circa 2100 BC
is widely considered the one of earliest great holy literary works.
The oldest surviving completed compilation of the completed work is dated to the 18th century BC . That's about 1200 years before the old testament
You remember this story dont you it's the one that contains what the summerians called *THE GARDENS OF THE EDIN*
A man Enkidu is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman Shamhat who tempts him. The man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. We also have a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero in the epic.
Along with Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, who.was *created from Enki's rib* to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. Reminds me of someone hmm 🤔
*Its probably just a weird coincidence though right, let's delve a little deeper*
Oh look, gilgamesh has a flood story just like the Genesis flood.
What I find particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order",
And just like gilgamesh use the phrase "animals 2 by 2.
@Mike Seork The God I believe in is able to create in the order he chooses. You assume the sun is a prerequisite for plant life because you don't believe that God himself is able to be the source of light, heat etc. But he is. The theory of evolution is much less credible in my opinion. But you do you and I'll do me.
@@tflynn2400 evolutionary theory is indisputable now Flynn but dont take my word for it see if you can come up with an alternative explanation about ENDIGINOUS RETRO VIRUSES 👇👇 *read on*
DNA does much more than simply give you a yes or no about parental responsibility It can tell you huge amounts of information about lineage and extended family relationships.
But much more than that we have something called *E.R.V.s or endiginous retro viruses* In simple terms these viruses have infected living creatures going back many many millions of years. And they leave a piece of ther own DNA in the hosts gnome *PERMANENTLY* that is passed on to the descendants of that host.
These viruses have to actually infect the germline of the genome , in other words in very rare occasions it will infect the actual *sperm cell* that goes on to reproduce. Only then does it become part of the host genome permanently as a kind of fossil DNA. And as such can only pass on this ERV through the genome to its *Direct descendants* so tracking the ERVs can establish extremely accurate family trees, showing inter species lineage.
Now there are about 10 million very specific possible ( attachment sites)for the viruses on the gnome . And there are several hundred if not more different ERVs that are *individually identifiable*
This can be used to track very very accurately to correlate the relationships between different species, and see exactly when speciation events happened.
So for example modern humans have over 200 of the same number of individualy identified ERVs as chimpanzees in exactly the same 1 in 10 million (attachment sites) on their gnome, with less than a dozen different ones , but have slightly fewer with say a baboon , less again with a cow (but still many in common) . This can be continued on and on not just to show our relationship with other animals, but their relationship to each other as well.
*The common decent is totally indisputable*
moreover when *Darwin* first put forward his ideas and evidence for common decent he *knew nothing of DNA or ERVs* he was relying upon fossils, homology, geology, transitional fossils. Vestigual organs and observations of speciation in small or isolated populations, and the effects of natural selection on those populations to come to his conclusions.
And yet all those family trees and conclusions he put forward *MATCH ALMOST PERFECTLY* with what we now know using DNA & ERVs.
We have been able to make predictions about things we should expect to find if Darwin's theory was correct making it completely falsefiable . And then finding those things predicted.
There are literally hundreds of other findings from different sciences from all around the world that correlate and reach the same conclusions together and indipendantly.
Evolution is widely accepted across many religions now ( even the Pope said the evidence was indisputable) . For *evolution by itself has no real bearing on the existence of a god at all* Its neither here nor there. For those religions simply say god used evolution to create life as we know it now.
It is only those that take the bible literally, say the young earth creationist who are dead set in opposition. Because evolution does in their case disprove their specific views and claims.
Anyway I've got to go but please a google search on ERVs should give you tonnes of papers and videos that explain much better than me .
The Second Genesis story was so that Adam could see God create the animals and therefore not be deceived. Eve on the other hand, was created after all of that and she eventually was deceived.
Amen, brother
2005 called - it wants its debate back.
Well, that was Shapiro avoiding the question. The question is, how does anyone know what is to be taken allegorically, and what is to be taken literally. If each person can decide themselves which is which, then is this really the word of God, or is it the word of man?
“ if there’s a lack of convergence between faith and reason, you’re getting one or the other wrong“
@@danielclingen34 This statement is troubling because it’s saying God’s word is conditional and subject to scrutiny based on the logic of man.
@@stefanwithanf7955 he’s saying that YOU (the person interpreting) is the one wrong: not God nor reason. Hoped that helped. God bless!
The light in the beginning didn’t have to be from the sun God himself is light he was the light shining as he always was and is. I believe the six days of creation was six literal days
Yes, if it's not a literal day, how do plants survive from day three to day four when the sun is formed. Day 1: creates the purpose for the sun. Day 2: creates the place for the birds and fish. Day 3: creates the place for the land animals and man. Day 4: creates the sun, moon, and starts. Day 5: creates the birds and fish. Day 6: creates land animals and man. Chapter 2 is an in-depth look at God creating the pinnacle of his creation: man, and to better explain the institution of proper Biblical marriage. I hold to a more literal reading.
Remember 2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(meaning that a day to God is not a day which is known to man)
Is not, Jesus called the light of the world?
and that is how the hebrew conveys it.
everything in scripture is literal unless scripture proclaims specific allegorical value, i.e. daniels image explained, etc.
@@johnathansaegal3156 does not refer to creation.
Ben made a great point when he said that you have to consider that you've interpreted the text incorrectly. The pride in people does not allow them to consider this. Therefore, when THEIR interpretation doesn't line up with clear reason, rather than being humble and considering they made an error, they make their interpretation god's word, and become unreasonable.
There's no interpretation needed. Genesis and the scriptures 2000+ years ago literally describe God as the light, fire, appears as a burning bush, even in revelation 21:23 he is the light of the world that will replace the sun and the moon. Thats why the sun was created afterwards, it's just temporary light until God returns. Why Shapiro don't know this I have no idea
But then naturalists say our cosmos was big-bang'd from literal oblivion -- literally nothing whatsoever, not even the haze of autonomously coalesced sub-atomic particles. Then the other naturalists say our cosmos came from other universes, all of which need their own explanation(s). Then they demand an explanation for God's existence. Then they come behind that by saying some land dwelling organisms evolved into aquatic organisms.
Jesus is the Light when God said let there be Light!! He is the spoken Word of God!! The Word that became Flesh and dwelt among us. Read John Chapter 1 and 1 Thess 5 and all through the scriptures. He is the Light and we are children of the Day Satan is the darkness and sinners are children of the night unless the Light of Jesus shines upon them come on folks He’s the First the Last the Beginning and the End. In day 4 God created the 2 great lights , sun and moon. The Bible means what it says and says what it means!! You can only confirm scripture with scripture!! Because Jesus is the Word of God and he confirms himself through everything he is in all and through all. You turn on a light switch and there Jesus is. God used the Light to create everything else that he made. Even at conception there is a light. It’s Jesus God made him Ruler over all things!!
Actually what you said sounds like leaning on your own understanding rather than God’s.
@@shawnboahene5231 No, actually the exact opposite. Your interpretation IS your own understanding. It's how YOU understand the scriptures, therefore what you believe is always your own understanding. That's why I say you have to consider that you could be wrong, because you may have interpreted the scripture incorrectly.
i like the fact he goes to Saint Thomas Aquinas.....
Yeah, that’s nice. I don’t expect him to convert any time soon, though... 😀
Ben is fine for a narrow section of politics but I will believe God over a Messiah rejecting Talmud obeying person.
Amen. I agree with you 100%.
We are to be "observant" to the Old Testament as much the New Testament, according to Matthew. There is a reason why Matthew was made the first book in the NT.
Did you even listen to what he said? If God made both faith and science, and you can’t misinterpret the science, then maybe you misunderstood something about faith.
@Ruby Badilla
Just because you have an unhealthy ego doesn't mean others should.
Yours is am ad hominem argument. That is poor logic.
(The Bible isn't anti logic)
There is no conflict between true observational science and the Bible, Mr. Shapiro.
"God placed the Sun and the Moon in the sky." Clearly not words wriiten or inspired by God or gods.
It's easy, you cherry pick what you choose to take literally, it's so simple. I mean problem solved.
Unfortunately, many people do that...
Unfortunately some people don't understand figurative vs literal language and cannot distinguish historical record from poetry. Sad.
@@jaymanxv I would be cautious to consider a single word of the Bible historical record.
Alacard0malley ....there are historical facts in the Bible.
If you want to write a story about Bigfoot in Chicago and have people believe it, you have to add some accurate things about Chicago.
Bigfoot would still be made-up, though.
@@dross4207 you're not wrong but at the same time I've never seen anyone turn water into wine and I doubt I'm ever going to.
There is no conflict between science and the bible, there is no conflict between creation and science, there is a great conflict between evolution and the bible, and there is a great conflict between evolution and science. Evolution is not part of science, evolutionism is a religion and the bible does not teach millions of years of death and suffering through evolution. How on earth can one misinterpret the clear simple reading of the bible to that level. Evolution and the bible don't go hand and hand. It is either one or the other.
Well said!
Evolution is true.
& Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl.
For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end:
The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth*
-This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly.
There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps".
During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time.
This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life!
And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters".
Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth??
Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs?
The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species.
It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs.
-This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA.
Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is!
So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds.
________________________________
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
________________________________
@lgNdGod I agree 100%. It is amazing how many people still believe in Darwinian Evolution when all of the scientific evidence for it is just speculation, Hundreds of intermediary fossils that would prove evolution still haven't been found. And never will be. Evolution can be proven false without the bible. it just takes looking at the evidence and logic. it would certainly help if youth weren't brainwashed with evolution in school...
@Mavors You kind of just proved my point, it is "pretty well demonstrated" and "not proven false" BUT, it also hasn't been proven correct. It is a theory. Nothing more. And will remain so until science advances to the point, or discoveries are made that prove it correct (Which I HIGHLY doubt will ever happen). People need to stop treating theories like facts. Our generation likes to act arrogant and think we know everything, but we don't. Aristotle had a theory that everything was made of only four elements, which was taken as fact until proven otherwise. But it was proven wrong. Evolution is the same way, it is a theory based on scientific observations, but cannot be proven correct or false until certain discoveries are made (but as you have pointed out, the discoveries still haven't been made in over 100 years...). As for all sciences and math conflicting with the bible, what the heck kinda science have you been learning? In all my years of schooling, the only thing that has conflicted with the bible is the big bang and evolution (which I might point out are both unproven theories).
@Mavors I think it worth remembering that there's also conflict within religions, such as Judaism, Christanity, & Islam; & there is conflict within Science Academia.
We still don't know what Gravity is. This Scientist argues that Gravity is propagated by a supposed sub-atomic partical called a Graviton...& this other Scientist argues that its a waste of money looking for the Graviton, because it doesn't exist!
Same with religion. You have Sunnis & Shia Muslims, who can't agree on things about Islam.
In Christanity, Bible Scholar "A" reads a passage of scripture & claims The Holy Spirit revealed what it means.
While he's doing that, Bible Scholar "B" reads the same passage & also claims that The Holy Spirit revealed what it means to him;
-Yet both give different insight on what the scripture means!
I have come to the humble conclusion, that we are all Human & none of us can be correct all the time.
I don't care if you've won 5 Nobel Prizes, or if The Holy Spirit showed you a vision about scripture......We, as people, just cannot know absolute Truth in its entirety.
& so, there is conflict everywhere.
On a Monday we may agree that "such & such" is correct..... but then on Tuesday, something new comes to light & we look back at Monday & realize that our understanding was heavily flawed.
This is all a part of what eventually forces us to be humble & realize that as Humans we just can't know all The Truth in its entirety.
& I would be extremely critical & cautious of *anyone* , Holy-Man, or Scientist, who tries to convince you that they have The Truth.
The comment about the apple was a cynical reply to a question that was respectfully asked.
Not a very convincing argument from Ben Shapiro on why he 'thinks' Genesis 1 is allegory. Defining a day doesn't require God to have created the Sun. It just needs light (and darkness), which He created on Day 1
I had a theory that when Eve gave the apple to Adam...it was a metaphor for her offering her beauty and tempting him with original sin...lust..probably the oldest Sin. She looks in a pond and sees how beautiful she is...they eat of a " fruit" God said don't eat of...im thinking the fruit is not sex but the lust attached to it. She brings it to him..and then God finds them ashamed of their private areas as they cover it from God's site...He immediately knew they did something He commanded them not to do...and imposes penalties...etc.
@@3joewj Don't think so mate. There was no sin before the fall. Therefore, there cannot be lust, which came after the fall
@@3joewj God created sex. He created it prior to the fall.
@@scotthinzman7698 I Said lust
Adam and Eve did not exist. Their existence is a genetic impossibility.
Here is another question - How can I be sure I am interpreting science correctly when it clashes with my Fantastic Four comic books ?
Romans 1: 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Hey Pete, you're a grown man and you still believe in Santa?
@@oopscanada : is it possible that Santa exists
@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 -- Yes, it does, but don't tell your kids, they don't believe in Santa any longer.
@@oopscanada : you believe that Santa might be real. That is odd.
This is the first thing on which I find myself disagreeing with Ben. There is no allegory in Genesis. I put my faith in God's Word over man's interpretation of science. God called His creation "very good" when He finished. He also says (later) that it was by man's sin that death entered the world. If we try to fit Darwinian evolution into the Genesis account, then we must accept lots of death in a "very good" world before sin. The light that God refers to before the sun is Himself... His brilliance was sufficient. Macroevolution is not science in the strictest definition of the word. It cannot be tested, observed, or repeated.
Hilarious
@@charlessmith4714 The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7
After making the animals, god has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-22
This god character fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs. Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19
Seems like this god character is quite the incompetent muppet.
I have one test for whether I'm going to hear someone out or not and Ben Shapiro just passed it.
I don’t agree with Ben. So he’s basically saying that Genesis is unfalsifiable and there is no way that it can be untrue, despite the huge contradictories in it. That there are ambiguous or analogical texts in scripture is acceptable, but the concept of God and creation MUST be coherent in order for the believer to justify his belief and be held accountable at the day of judgment. The Trinity for example and Jesus dying for your sins is again not a coherent concept. And when asked and examined every questioned person has to either run away or come up with their personal interpretation or deviation from the doctrine in order to make it “fit”.
When talking to an old man about his life he would say "In my day it was like this". His day was a time period of his life. "In my day"... It wasn't a 24 hour period. God created on the first day (time period), and so on. It has nothing to do with the earth rotating every 24 hrs.
Exactly, and this could explain why dinosaurs came before humans
why is god talking to the people of earth in terms of a time scale which we have nothing to do with.
@@whydontyoustfu Sounds like a question to ask GOD since you think we have nothing to do with it.
As I write this, there are at least 2900 comments here - so for those who have already mentioned the point I make here, I thank you...
Throughout Genesis 1, the Hebrew words "erev" (night) and "boker" (morning) are used - which together would form 1 day ("yom")...when God referred to the no-work commandment on the Sabbath/7th day (clearly, 24-hour days) in both Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, the 6-day period for the Creation is mentioned/confirmed...so, I think it is at least reasonable (if not also correct) to suggest that the Genesis-based account of Creation involved actual 24-hour days…
I agree. I believe science can be used to strengthen faith. There is definitely a way to believe in both, and both people who are religious and don't believe in science and people who are scientific and don't believe in religion should understand that.
Evolution is true.
& Genesis 1:20 (kjv) claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to spring forth abundant life of creatures that live & move...& expands this to include the fowl.
For Christians that don't believe in evolution, read this through to the end:
The Book of Genesis claims that GOD commanded "The Waters" to bring forth in abundance the moving creature that hath life *AND the fowl that may fly above The Earth*
-This implies that GOD brought about the creation of "Living Creatures that move" by commanding *The Waters* to spring them forth abundantly.
There was a time on Earth called, "The Great Dying" aka "The Siberian Traps".
During this time Asia was being created. & a lot of volcanic activity was sustained relentlessly for a very long time.
This constant & greatly sustained volcanic activity, almost caused every multi-cellular species on Earth to go exinct......except for Marine life!
And as a result, almost every multi-cellular organism on Earth today, sprang forth from that remnant of Marine life that survived The Great Dying.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that the fowl of the air, and animals on land _can_ spring forth from Marine life.....which comes from "The Waters".
Well, don't you think its interesting that Genesis links the creation of Living, moving Creatures in abundance to The Waters *AND* expands that link to also include the fowl that may fly above the Earth??
Ever notice, that both fish *AND* Birds lay eggs?
The method of laying eggs to bring about offspring is 100% based on the DNA of a species.
It takes genetic instructions for a mother to carry out the process of laying eggs.
-This, alone, shows that fish *AND* birds share some of the same DNA.
Which means that somehow, genetic information was preserved & passed between Living, moving creatures of The Waters, and the fowl that may fly above the Earth.
The mechanism for preserving & sharing that genetic information between fish & birds _IS_ what Evolution is!
So you see, I have shown you in Genesis where it gives an evolutionary link between the living, moving creatures that The Waters bring forth in abundance, and birds.
________________________________
Genesis 1:20 (kjv)
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
________________________________
That’s interesting, but I find several problems with this. The evolutionist account is that all creatures came from a single creature but here you explained that God made them separately. It’s one or the other.
2nd the issue of survival. Remember in the Word it was paradise. There’s no need for survival or adaptation.
3rd Death wasn’t introduced until Adam sinned. So in addition with no need for adaptation the mechanism for evolution to occur is for maladaptive creatures/ traits to die off. Meaning during creation evolution couldn’t occur.
The only phrase that would set the record straight would be "That book is written by unscientific people in a time where they basically had no explanation for anything, so please don't take this shit literally in any way, thanks!"
it is really bizarre how neckbeard atheists like you are the only minority in the world who has so much problems with our ancestors, it shows again how dysfunctional/mentall illness atheism is, it contradicts everything and only brings harm to its few followers, let alone that science was an invention of christianity, the bible is the best selling book in teh world and nobody today can build or achieve the wonders that our ancestors did
Shapiro: great political commentator. Lousy theologian!
Kevin Garcia--I agree. As much respect as I have for Ben Shapiro when it comes to politics and social issues, I wish he would leave the subject of religion alone. It is one area where I think he sets aside his good and reasoned thinking.
Well to be fair he did say it was his opinion.
Exactly
Kevin Garcia actually he’s pretty good. Why does everyone think young earth creationism is “good” theology?
@@adamduarte895 brain washing, when youre told something every day of your childhood you tend to close your eyes to plain, obvious, factual observations that dont match what youve been told.
Just look at the climate change crowd, despite the obvious facts of how little the climate will actually change in a century, obvious fact that china and india produce far more co2, and obvious fact that humanity produces a tiny percentage of global co2 they still run around screaming that the US produces basically all global co2 and will ignite the atmosphere in a decade.
Ben's the kind of religious guy we need more of (Honestly id prefer to replace religion with simple humanism but if we need religious people I want more Bens). He always follows the facts and reason and is willing to change his views to match observable data, a trait sorely lacking in both the radical left and uber religious right.
I'm disappointed that Ben would think that Gods capabilities are limited by human perceptions of reality. But I do commend him for seeing the verbal trap and not falling into it.
Trap? It’s a basic question.
@@wills4 and you don't see why if he had answered it any other way it would have been embarrassing?
Indeed: Science is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'.
The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.
Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by,
no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations",
no matter how much "change in allele frequencies",
no matter how much "development of new species",
no matter how much "naturaI selection acting on genetic variation among individuals",
no matter how much "adaptation",
no matter how much "mutation",
no matter how much "speciation",
no matter how much "migration",
no matter how much "genetic drift",
no matter how much "insert other claims here"
no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of:
fish remain fish
amphibians remain amphibians,
canines remain canines,
felines remain felines,
reptiles remain reptiles,
birds remain birds,
viruses remain viruses,
animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs
animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts
animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes
animals that never had brains do not evoIve brains
animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths
living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system
animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on.
There are many more such groups.
Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science.
Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science.
I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any religion, church, denomination claims they say. We'll all face God for a lifetime of lying, stealing, lusting, hating, coveting, blaspheming and more. There are only two religions in the world to address this: Countless versions of "DO this or that and you (might) be saved" and God / Jesus Christ's truth of "It is DONE by Jesus the Christ on the cross and we believe on Him along to be saved - received by faith - and what goes along with it that God does (that shows us our 'faith' is genuine) is we have a change of mind and a change of desires about sin and a new desire to instead follow God.
The URANTIA book is the solution for the conflict between Science and Religion
The suggestion that we might need allegory to understand things only claims that OUR understanding is limited. It does not require that Gods power is limited as you say. I’m not even saying I agree or disagree with anybody’s theory here I’m just saying Bens theory does not suggest Gods power is limited. It suggests that humans perception and understanding is limited, and so an allegorical account is the best thing we could understand.
The Bible says that god days are numbered different, one day to him is like a 1000
Like dog days?
Spiritual life cannot be explained, until one considers the truth of our Journey to the Great Bird of the Sky, which happens after we die.
I'm trans species I'm a seagull and I identify as a flamingo,
Wow, off the subject, but really funmy
Well I identify as the supreme leader Kim Jong un, my Pronouns are his superior majesty and your royal highness, leader of the anti communist party, his elgence, his grace, Lord Kim
If you don't use my Pronouns you are 'discrimination that ends in ist or phibia'
So respect my gender because to morrow I could transition to immortal goddess queen Elizabeth 2 and then I will make up some new Pronouns which I will force all of you to use
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@mframedeye37 yes, you’re Royal highness. Also you will address me as Jedi Master 😂
Are you sure you aren't just a sparrow?
One of the few things I disagree with Ben upon... Everyone makes the "yom" argument these days, and yet...every other time that Hebrew word occurs in the Bible it means a literal day. Why do people not argue its interpretation in those contexts, and only in the context where it attributes even more sovereignty to God?
The first attack ever in the created world was an attack on God's Word. The serpent says to Eve, "did God *really* say...?" questioning the Almighty. The attack on God's Word has been occurring ever since, and the idea that a literal six-day creation isn't *as* important to the faith, be it Jewish, Christian, or something in between, is false. I direct the reader to the teachings of the late Dr. Tommy Mitchell. Search him on TH-cam.
bcbdrums because a litteral 6 day creationism is extra retarded. There is no backing behind it except thousands of year old books that nobody knows who when they were actually written. Secondly your telling me dinosaurs, evolution, carbon dating, Big Bang and more are just false
Amen
What period of creation do dinosaurs fall into being. I have always believed that a day wasn't 24 hours. Each creation took how ever long was needed. In that time period the earth went through all the different time periods. I would say to God there isn't a 24 hour day. Just for us did God create our days and weeks and years.
Thank you, Ben.
If one merely bases their interpretation of scripture off of natural law, then to which natural law is one looking at? If the flood of Noah did indeed occur, such an event would have drastically changed not only the earth, but even the earth’s ecosystem. One would have to consider if such an event could have changed the original laws of nature. Thus merely basing one’s interpretation of scripture from the laws of nature as we know them does not make for a logical argument. And for those laughing at the gentleman’s question, just know, evolution is only a theory. Micro evolution has been observed and proven, but macro evolution is something entirely different and at this point is nothing but a theory.
There is a common misconception about the use of the word "theory" in science, because it differs from the common use. Something theoretical doesn't refer to an unproven idea, but to the scientific formalism behind a known phenomenon. A theoretical physicist is not one that works with unproven ideas, but with theory in contrast to an experimental physicists, one deals with the formalism and the other with the application. The same when we say the "theory of gravity", it is not at all that gravity is unproven, gravity is the phenomenon and the theory of gravity is the scientific description, the math that you have to do. An unproven concept in science is more refered as an hypothesis.
Evolution is not the theory, it is the phenomenon that we want to explain, and the theory of evolution is natural selection, which is the scientific description of how evolution works.
You share most of your dna with every other human on earth, and we can estimate how closely related you are to them by seeing how much your dna varies from someone else, it will be a lot closer with your parents and siblings but farther with people in other countries, although still prety similar, that is because we all humans share a common ancestor. The same exact happens when we look at other animals, you share the vast majority of your genome with a chimp, and we can estimate how closely related you are based on how different the genome is. And in fact we are very closely related with other mammals and even most animals and we can estimate how closely by the difference in the genome so that we can build a family tree. Not that we descended from chimps, not at all, but that we both shared a common ancestor. That is evolution, it is not a concept to be proven, but a phenomenon that we observe based on how creatures on earth are related to each other. I woldn't even say that the genome is proof of evolution, but simply the observation of evolution itself, is not a theory to be proven, it is a phenomenon we observe in nature, and natural selection is the theory to explain it.
@@diegog1853 *Evolution is just a religion. “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." -Michael Ruse
@@i7Qp4rQ Don't know who Michael Ruse is, but he has some weird opinions and I of course don't have to agree with him. I understand that one might feel attacked in his beliefs if scientific knowledge suddenly contradicts them, and certaintly there might be people just obsessed with one particular concept to the point that they might look like a religious group of some sorts.
But evolution is not a religion, is a natural phenomenon studied by science, just like gravity or the atom, and none of those have a moral system attached to them, nor do they have any inherent meaning, it is just something that happens in nature.
As a christian I don't think evolution clashes in anyway with religion or with creationism, let alone an alternative to christianity. I don't think it is any different from any other natural phenomena to study.
@@diegog1853 "scientific knowledge" = knowledgeful knowledge. Ok then, w/e suits ur boat. Anyway, can u show the dna data from 0 bytes to 3GB (evolution path up to us), or that this trend is the general and observable case?
@@i7Qp4rQ Well obviously, if I'm not a genetist or a biologist I cannot properly explain to you a science that takes a whole career to fully understand.
But I can say to you that yeah, the whole genome of thousends of species has been sequenced, which allow us to compare the differences and to trace a general family tree of how closely related are we to others.
The simple fact that we share a lot of our dna is a very clear way of seeing the relation, outside of all the physical similarities. Because we all know how dna is replicated and how that affects your natural characteristics and the relations you have either with other humans or other species. So yeah, pretty observable.
Or what explanation would you offer to explain why our genome shares more genes with apes than with dogs?
Or let us ask a less controversial question, how would you explain that a cat and a bear share more of their genome than a cat and a fish? Everyone is clearly related, but for some reason some are more are related to each other than others, why?
Creating light before the sun is not contradictory. Light is a particle after all. He must create the particle before he creates the sun.
You learn something new every day. Thank you for this comment. I always like looking into info and doing my own homework. I work with my hands but love to balance the expansion of my mind. Xxx
Yes. Also, this revelation was given to Moses from God at a time where Moses would know what a day (Yom: 24hr day) was. It even throws in "evening and morning" to be redundent in case there was any confusion about it being a normal day. It also speaks to God being that which sustains everything, not the sun.
@@Wesley7 that's right. The fact that he divided the day from the night later in the week doesn't change the fact that it was still a day.
What day did yhwh create fision and fusion. When did he come up with supernovas...or black holes?
@@jerryp6001 Blackholes were created by dorks obsessed with Sci Fi.
Science, archaeology, psychology, and philosophy are big business and they are heavily dependent on NEW FINDINGS and NEW HYPOTHESIS. It makes them relevant and sought after. It gives them something to prop up their own careers and provides avenues for more research funding, writing projects, speaking events and interviews. One of the newest gimmicks are those who are claiming what artifacts they are finding are far older than the oldest civilizations.
Ben is absolutely incorrect on this. The beginning chapters of Genesis are textually considered historical and NOT allegorical. The writer had no intention of allegory and this allegorical approach has only been applied (generally) in modern times. He should know this.
I disagree, as do multiple Hebrew scholars. Genesis is written to be accepted as fact, not allegory. So, either God is wrong, or the scientists are. Scientists have been wrong about many things, so I put my money with God.
Kobus Downey In every instance of creation it says the evening and the morning for that day. The 7th day Sabbath celebrates Gods creative power. We DO. Know the days if we're honest enough to see what is there. Your point is awesome Kobe!
@@tonymobley4156 Thanx!
Or maybe God didn't write Genesis.
Except God didn't write the Book of Genesis.
God is never wrong lol
I always thought that the word 'day' in the bible was a loose translation of a word that Greek or Latin didn't have. That the actual translation was something more like 'a period of time'. It is interesting to note that this actually fits in with the evolution of the Earth. Scholars and Scientists tell us that there have been seven geological periods in the Earth's life span. We are currently in that seventh geological period. So who's to say that a day in God's eyes couldn't be a geological period of time to Man, and mankind?
I’m pretty sure genesis was originally written in Hebrew, Jews atm keep the seventh day as the sabbath because genesis meant day not period of time, the sabbath day was created at creation so yeah
But what about the Sabbath day then as explained in the beginning of Genesis? Going by your long day thinking-God is then telling us to rest after the 7th week, month, or year? How do we explain this part then if that were true that day in this text of the Bible only meant period of time according the Greek translation. I know that God is sovereign and knows the end from the beginning and knows exactly how long a day would be.
@@Justin-tt9cz it's actually quite simple. God knows all. It is God's commandments that tell us to Remember the Sabboth Day to keep it holy. Since Man is finite, we translate that literally to mean the Sabboth Day.
@@kristinapeters296 Mankind is finite. So that is a literal translation. God is both infinite, and Omniscient... so wouldn't He, in his infinite knowledge, give us a commandment that we could understand, and follow?
There are more than seven geological periods on the geologic time scale.
I find those that insist that the Bible cannot be interpreted and must always be taken literally bewildering, since the Bible they’re reading has already been interpreted through three languages.
I wonder if Ben’s views have changed on “the science” since Covid showed us that scientists will prefer to agree with other scientists if it’s in their best interest and if there’s enough pressure.
Did I miss something? Mr Shapiro didn't mention Darwin. Is this what they call clickbait?
Yeep I think you are right. I got click baited alot by this channel, but I'm not that upset cause the questions and debates were worth it.
If they didn't click bait, I would still be watching brainless arguments of (person) destroys feminists on TV.
Ben you're showing your ignorance. God was the light and the life before the creation of the sun.
Truthsabre7 he’s actually quite right. Dr. William Lane Craig and countless other theologians have come to this conclusion given textual criticism of the text.
@@adamduarte895
The theologians do not know what they're talkin about. They're using conjecture and I am not.
Truthsabre7 ok bro that’s laughable 😂.
If Gd is the light he Created then being created would mean he's not the Creator what you're saying makes no sense
He’s wrong God is light just a simple reading of the Word and dividing it you know God is the light!! So that’s where the light comes from before the sun.
I didnt expect to like that answer so much.
we don't need the sun to understand the day light thing because it says there was evening and there was morning the first day. Moreover, Genesis one is an outline while chapter 2 is an explanation of what happened on the first day.