You guys should really explore ways to do longer conversations, if people will sit and listen to Joe Rogan for 2-3 hours, then they’ll listen to a fascinating topic like this.

@littleboots9800

Жыл бұрын

Agreed! I never understand why things need to be kept to an hour or so. You can just watch half one day, half the next. If there is a reason for the algorithm that it has to be that length then maybe split it up into 2 parts.

@AndrewofVirginia

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, also could put content in podcast format on stitcher for example. Longer conversations lend themselves better to audio only since people normally don't want to sit around and watch KZread for three hours.

@NomosCharis

Жыл бұрын

Yup, that would be awesome. Of course, some of the 3+ hr eps would be boring, like some of Rogan’s. 🙄

@sexyeur

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. Thank you Remnant radio... Victim of your own success 😁

@MoodyDudey

Жыл бұрын

100% agree!

Young Earth Creationism is not a young doctrine, or concept, rather it experienced a resurgence in the 1960's.

@januddin8068

Жыл бұрын

That’s right! All of the early writers and church fathers talk of 4 thousand years of time up until their time and some have said there will be 6 in total and the third being the millennium or new creation

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

YEC , is from the 19th century: that's young in Christian history of 2,000 years.

@januddin8068

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 you may have to do your history on that one

@salmonkill7

Жыл бұрын

Young Earth Creationism is some of the worst things to ever happen to Christianity IMHO. I am a PhD level Physicist and a devout CHRISTIAN and always have been. The Earth and Universe is EXTREMELY ANCIENT and the amount of physical information and methods to support this is MASSIVE!! ALL the data supports an OLD EARTH. If you believe in a YOUNG EARTH, in order to make it all fit YOU HAVE TO MAKE GOD out as a lier!! Listen very carefully to Conservative Podcaster and Catholic Matt Walsh as he explains the problems that crop up with a YOUNG EARTH WORLDVIEW! I am a PhD level Physicist, so I tend to get too Scientific and Matt Walsh does a wonderful job discussing the issue and conflicts that arise with a YEC Worldview. Basically YOUNG EARTHERS become Science haters and they basically hate what they don't understand. Science is merely a METHOD and is a way to understand the PHYSICS of the Universe and Natural laws that God made. It's the WORLDVIEW of many modern human beings that Christians don't like, including myself! I teach a Worldviews Course besides all the Science courses at my Christian high school and most people these days are Scientific Materialists. They don't believe in a Creator God and they believe Science can or eventually will explain all matter in the Universe and this is SIMPLY NOT TRUE!! SCIENCE CAN'T ACCOUNT for anything and will never explain the origin of Life. I have studied ABIOGENENESIS and Science is moving away from LIFE occurring spontaneously every year!! I went to school with Dr. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute and they have done great work with showing that making even ONE protein from BASIC CHEMICALS in a PRIMORDIAL POND or OCEAN is statistically impossible!!! If you can't make ONE MODERATE PROTIEN by blind chance so you'll never make a single cell creature that required hundreds to thousands of Proteins!! Science is NOT TO BE FEARED!! I am not Catholic but MATT WALSH does a wonderful job responding to ALL THE PROBLEMS that crop up when you take a YOUNG EARTH STANDPOINT!! I teach EARTH SCIENCE at a Christian high school and it's not possible to study Earth Science from a YOUNG EARTH Worldview!! This should tell you something profound!! I urge you to study the Hawaiian Islands. This is 70 to 80 million years of birth, erosion, and death of Islands in various conditions of erosion!! Did you know the soil of the older Islands has to be carried by the upper atmospheric winds and it slowly settles out over millions of years!!

@FireFlanker1

11 ай бұрын

It is by the modern understanding of YEC... thanks to the 7th day Adventist prophetess that the author of "the Genesis flood" believed in... There may have been YEC before that but they were a minority... many (if not most) church fathers held to a Day-age theory (Augustine Clement of Alexandria etc.) many in the Reformation held to an older earth (Luther, Calvin)... any one claiming the earth is older than 10,000 is not YEC by today's standard

I was a staunch YEC for many years, but now I am happy to simply affirm the Biblical Truth that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I of course still hold to the special creation of a literal Adam and Eve; Adam formed from the literal dust of the earth, whilst Eve was taken and formed from Adam's side. However, on specifics such as the Age of Earth, I am happy to be silent where I believe Scripture is silent (or at least, less clear). I just don't think God intended for us to count through all the ages of the Patriarchs, and then try and cross reference and compare them with extra-biblical dates, in order to try and pin point the exact day, or year, that He created everything. I don't think that that is the purpose of those texts. And to then use those texts as cudgels to bash other believers over the head with, I just don't find that to be at all reflective of the Nature and Character of our Lord and Saviour.

@cutethulu_xo

Жыл бұрын

I feel mostly the same way! It's fun to think about, but I don't see anything concrete. As you said, we're given details about how man and woman was formed. And I believe that literally. I will say, I like to believe YEC more because it goes against today's teachings even more 😂 plus, I think that God absolutely could do it all in 7 litteral days if He had wanted to. I guess I just like being extra difficult for my "I believe in science" family/friends 😌

@rickdavis2235

Жыл бұрын

@@cutethulu_xo " I will say, I like to believe YEC more because it goes against today's teachings even more 😂 plus, I think that God absolutely could do it all in 7 litteral days if He had wanted to. " The creation account says He did do it in seven literal days. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Gen. 1:5) And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (Gen. 1:8) And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Gen. 1:13) And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19) And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23) And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. (Gen. 2:3) If the earth is millions or billions of years old, that means that death entered creation before the fall where the Bible says that the fall is cause of sin and death.

@lesliewilliam3777

Жыл бұрын

"I just don't think God intended for us"? Can I get a piece of your own personal hotline to God's intentions?

@dagwould

Жыл бұрын

Beowulf; I think he did give us this information to show that the creation is located in concrete reality and that the Messiah is attached to that creation by a line of real people in real history. What other reason would there be for including such definitively stated time-marked genealogy of real named people if it wasn't for our instruction? I think that your setting aside this pushes the concrete creation towards a figmentary domain where contact with God ceases to be patent and becomes nebulous. This moves in the direction of a Neoplatonic disparagement of the material and concrete in favour of the ethereal and abstract; the very thing the ontology of the creation account opposes.

@beowulf.reborn

Жыл бұрын

@@lesliewilliam3777 Everyone, who is trying to be faithful to Scripture, bases their interpretation on what they believe God's intent is. You realize that, right? So I could just say the same childish thing straight back at you. But then where does that get us? Are we closer to proving our understanding to be the right one? No. Are we displaying Christlike love for each other, in the midst of our disagreements? No. In other words, comments like yours are not helpful. You don't have to agree with me, but you can at least strive to disagree in way that is honoring to Christ.

I agree that it’s helpful to investigate the word yom. It was insightful to me to have it pointed out that the first undisputed use of Yom as a long period of time, the “day” covering the entire creation period (Gen. 2:4). The argument that evening and morning must make day into a single light cycle (Perhaps 24 hours) is what I was taught, and it is appealing, but we should also consider the options. It might simply mean the completion of a cycle and not a singular day, but one “period of time.” Reasons for this include the description of the seeding and growing process on day three, and the fact that the sun was created on day 4, but there was light on day 1. For the plants either their growing needs to be understood as very fast, in a non-literal miraculous way, or this process of was literally gradual as it is now and the “day” is a literary device to organize the events in a relatable way. The gradual approach fits well will the later focus on creating the garden, because even by day 6 there was still barren ground on the earth, where no green thing had yet sprouted (but most views can find some way of explaining these details, as I used to speculate as a YEC, there was a bare spot which did not get the divine “miracle grow”). For the sun, it could have been actually formed 24-hours after the plants on day three, or it could have been actually created on day 1, but there was gaseous obstructions that covered the face of the waters (the deep) on earth with darkness, and then the sun and moon were gradually “made” especially functional for regular seasons by day four. It is hard to say. We should use the possibilities of the text as the framework to place wide limits on our scientific speculations. But it is a back and forth conversation between general revelation (science) and special revelation (the text of scripture). There are ambiguities in the text and in science. We should learn to respect the limits of each. Beginnings are unique singular events. It is not surprising that there are tensions in the text. Whether we take a single day, day age, or literary framework approach (such as the conservative scholar Meredith Klein at Westminster Seminary proposes) to Gen. 1, we should be gracious about the timing and sequence. We should be firm on the historicity of Adam and Eve. That much is good starting point.

@iamishin7675

Жыл бұрын

@Thomas B🏳️‍🌈⃠ As for the length of the days, there's no way to know either way really. The Bible never specifies the exact length of time of the days, and the sun didn't even exist until the fourth day, so it can't be based on our solar understanding of a day as being ~24 hours. From what I understand, there wasn't even a Hebrew word for numbers like millions or billions. As for the earth, the scientific evidence seems to be quite overwhelming for an earth that is billions of years old. If you choose to disbelieve the scientists on this matter, then it still calls into question why God would leave such a tremendous amount of obvious clues that the universe and earth are old. From Distant starlight based on the universal constant of the speed of light, fossil record, erosion patterns, carbon dating, uranium dating, trees that are much older than 6000 years... etc. It's worth asking if this question is really even important. Does an old earth or universe change the redemptive work of Jesus Christ?

I like when you guys do these types of shows- differing views on creationism, eschatology, soteriology, etc!

I was actually old earth for years and with in the last few I’ve changed to young earth based on my conviction of the scriptures

@rostenll

Жыл бұрын

And flat earth!

@vibechecktsundere4912

Жыл бұрын

Conviction of scripture doesn’t mean Jack shit for what it says the age of the earth to be. A figurative interpretation of genesis goes back to the 5th century. Not only does a figurative interpretation make more sense, but there’s just so much evidence against it. The fossil record, how far we can see out in the universe(if the universe was 6,000 years old we couldn’t see the light from all those galaxies around us), even the age of the sun in terms of how stellar evolution works for G type stars. Why go against all of science for a biblical position that has always been on shaky ground anyways?

@rostenll

Жыл бұрын

@@vibechecktsundere4912 you do realize the science is always changing? Ex: why have we never gone back to the moon? (If, in fact, we did ever go there)

@vibechecktsundere4912

Жыл бұрын

@@rostenll sure, but the science very likely won’t completely uproot and disprove evolution in my opinion. Also that our perspective of the universe(being able to see billions of light years when we would only have 6,000 light years to see) shows the age of the universe and the earth. I won’t say it’s impossible, but very unlikely that science will change to support a new earth. I think accepting the gospel as truth is still the most important aspect of all, though!

@rostenll

Жыл бұрын

@@vibechecktsundere4912 how do you know we can see billions of light years away? Have you personally seen that? Or you just believe it because that’s what the “experts” say? The more you dig into scripture, the more you see how much of the narrative we are taught about history is not aligned, and the evidence can be seen with our own eyes through ancient architecture and geography.

Excellent overview and discussion! Thanks Josh and Dr. Keithley

@DocLarsen44

Жыл бұрын

teetrevor You said exactly what I was thinking! GOD'S blessings upon you.

Enjoyed the conversation and the live chat section was actually amusing.

Hi,really enjoyed this talk was blessed by the explanation. I'm am an old earth creationists. God bless.

I’m a young earth creationist (I was an old earth evolutionist and then became a Christian old earth creationist) as of 2006 after I read Ken Ham’s book. I think on non-essentials we can agree to disagree. Great discussion! 😊

@lesliewilliam3777

Жыл бұрын

If death was before the Fall, as it has to be on an Old Earth opinion, then the age of the Earth is not a non-essential. Death before the Fall says that death in the creation is natural, and integral member of existence. That means that Jesus did not overcome death, that it is NOT the last enemy and that sums to Christianity being contradictory nonsense, offering zero hope to a lost world.

@jrhemmerich

Жыл бұрын

@@lesliewilliam3777 I grew up with that way of thinking, but it assumes that young earth creation means that there is no death before sin, but everyone (almost) believes that plants died, and even some animals that have no "breath" died before sin, but the distinction YE creationist draw is over the "breath of life." OE creationists draw the line between the human and the non-human. Some YEC argue this base upon Romans 5:12, which speaks of death coming by Adam and so spread to all men. But again, nothing in that passage says that Adam's sin brought animal death, it focuses explicitly on human death. Additionally, Roman 8 speaks of the creation being made subject to corruption, but it does not say whether animal death is part of that corruption or not. It could be that animals, like plants, were never intended to exist in eternal relation to God. It could be that original animal death was relatively free of disease. The question is what does the bible commit us to believing based upon what it says, and the good and necessary implications. One could be young earth creationist and still hold that animals died in the garden. If animal death is not inconsistent with a good creation at the start, then Jesus overcoming death in 1 Cor 15, is not about overcoming animal death, it was about overcoming human death as penalty against man. The argument for no animal death is not based on the explicate or even implicit teaching of scripture, it is based upon a philosophical assumption that carnivore animal behavior is violent and therefore evil (nature red in tooth and claw). It then uses this problem of evil against evolution (especially, but also OE), but then reads this teaching into scripture. There are decent arguments to be a YE creationist based upon the text of scripture, but no animal death before the fall is not one of them. Francis Schaffer did not rule out animal death, see Genesis is Space and Time. Norman Geisler has an article about whether YEC is essential to inerrancy. Search for DOES BELIEVING IN INERRANCY REQUIRE ONE TO BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM?

@lesliewilliam3777

Жыл бұрын

​@@jrhemmerich Originally I was going to list a point-by-point analysis of your argument. I quickly changed my mind and decided to jot down some ideas which here and there bounced of yours. 1. I once asked a vocal pro-abortion woman what her definition of life was and the response was unexpected: she had none. One would have thought, I explained, that she’d have a well-thought out understanding of what constitutes life as she was so intent on ending it, at least according to her ideological opponents. The matter all comes down to a definition of life. So, John, what is your definition of life? 2. Romans 8 goes much further than what you’ve sketched out. The word Paul uses, phthora, connotes utter decay and decomposition (and in one instantiation, ‘to kill’). Since Paul has assigned that present state of affairs to all creation, I can’t see how we would logically understand his words to proscribe animal life. If exclusion were his intention, this would necessarily effect a very strained sphere of influence, namely, only to inanimate rocks, water and whatever else you can think of which does not involve animal life. Such an hermeneutic strikes me not only as special pleading, but wholly irrational. What is of further interest is the antonyms of phthora: genesis, sotoria, and of most relevance, aphtharsia, meaning ‘immortality’, as used in Rom. 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:10. 3. Apropos animal death, here are some quick points: • What do you make of, “And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”? If both humans and animals were not to consume meat, would that not indicate some evidence toward animals not dying? That there was no carnivorous acts between animals and that that was what brought God to declare that the creation was very good, would it still be a very good creation if animals died. • Can you imagine a situation in Eden (or the new creation) where trillions of animals dropped dead through old age or whatever, and God still thought it was a very good creation? And pets? In Eden and the new creation no one would feel sadness when their pet died? Or in your vision of paradise, pets did not exist, people did not have any regard for animals or people did not experience loss or pain when close animals died in much the same way when I squash a mosquito? And what happens to the dead carcasses? Dead animals decay quickly and become extremely smelly. How does your “very good” world get rid of this “minor” problem? • When God states that “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain”, was this merely a Romantic hippy image which would abruptly end because these animals were all going to die sooner or later? • Here’s a scene: Adam and Eve are watching the sun set of the 6th day. A gazelle appears, begins to eat some grass from Eve’s hand, and then mysteriously drops dead. Adam and Eve are unperturbed and praise God for making a perfect creation. Of course they’re not too sure what to do with the carcass as they’ve never seen a dead animal before. • Although I like Schaeffer’s material, his works are not inerrant Scripture. And Geisler? His arguments are really risible. 4. One final point. Your view is really an attempt to Christianise Plato and other pagan philosophies. The Church has, for the clear majority of its life, held to YEC. Yours is a novelty, not supported by Scripture (I note you did not offer a single POSITIVE verse in its defence!!), and thus is dangerous. Furthermore, I venture to say that your view is an attempt to make you acceptable to the Academy i.e., the world. Paul condemns this: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. Your take on death is doing the opposite of what Paul counselled.

@jrhemmerich

Жыл бұрын

@@lesliewilliam3777 Thanks for your thoughtful reflections and questions. I’ll do my best to reply as I am able. 1. I would say there are different kinds of life. Most generally, Life is anything which reproduces itself , or is self-aware. More specifically, I would say there’s plant life, animal life, human life, and divine life. But so far as I can tell, the issue really isn’t over the definition of life, it’s over what sort of life is subject to death prior to sin. 2. I’m a little confused about your comment about Romans eight, as you seem to say that I am drawing out of it some sort of distinction between the corruption of human life versus animal life, but that was not my point. My point was the opposite, that there’s a general reference to the corruption of creation, without distinction. But does this mean that every corruption that we see today must’ve been absent prior to sin? For example, would the leaves of trees have been exempt from decay? ultimately, I don’t see how this passage helps or hurts either side. both sides acknowledge corruption, the issue is over what sort of death is proper to a good creation and what sort of death is not. This passage simply tells us that there is a corruption, but not the kind of corruption, although Paul does present the revelation of the sons of God in opposition to that corruption. So, if anything, this passage, like Romans 5, focuses on the federal headship of man over creation, and that his corruption was its corruption, his redemption is its redemption. Do you read it differently? 3. You address many things here. I will attempt to touch upon the most relevant. Genesis 1:29 says that the green things were given to man as food, and also for the animals of the land (as opposed to sea). But even so, it does not imply that animals didn’t die on a natural life cycle. And the difficulty is that the passage, while giving a positive intention toward the use of green things for food, does not exclude carnivorous animal behavior. We might infer from Gen 9:3’s direct expansion of the human food menu to living creatures that eating meat was not a behavior of animals before sin, but there are counter inferences. The expansion to meat for humans does not mention an expansion for the animals. There is also the interesting incompleteness of Gen 1:29, for it only seems to cover land animal, and birds, but not sea animals. What are we to make of this? That for sea animals predation was ok, but not for land animals? Also, in the curse nothing is mentioned about a shift in animal behavior in this regard. Perhaps, we should read Gen 1:29 as assuming animal predation in some cases, such as in the sea and on land, but then the giving the green things to man, and then also to all the living animals on land and to the birds of the air. What we are to make of this passage is not certain, we should be open to different possibilities. Suppose there was no animal death or predation, we would be forced to imagine that God would have greatly restrained reproduction at some point. That certainly is possible, it seams this would have happened for man (unless he was intended for other planets too), we should not be small minded about such things that God could do. Yet, there would be many mysteries, in the apparent design of certain creatures, such as the blue whale’s consumption of krill. If animal death in principle is ruled out in a good creation why is there an exemption for sea animals? Given the difficulties, either way we take Gen. 1:29, it does not directly exclude animal death, nor is there any passage that teaches animal death is the result of sin. I am not inclined to follow your intuition and conflate things unpleasant to the human senses with good and evil. Disgust functions in a good creation to tell us what something is good for, not whether it is good or bad absolutely. While the loss of pets is very real, we can also exercise our imagination to think that our sorrow has a proper place but might also be excessive at times and be the result of the fall. Like the good tasting fruit in CS Lewis’ Paralandra, we might hold on to our pets in an unhealthy way, desiring without a willingness to let go and receive a new blessing. Our small mindedness can work both ways. It is not always the old earther who is caught in the present. This objection regarding pets is not really based on the infallible scripture but on fallible moral intuitions about perfection. 4. The reference to the wolf lying down with the lamb is found in Isaiah 11:6 and relates to the present times of the Gospel age after the first coming of Christ. Jesus has been made a signal (the resurrection) who is drawing the gentiles to salvation (Is. 11:10). In the future he will gather Israel also to himself in salvation (Is. 11:11, Rom. 11:12) and bring peace to the land of Israel when Israel believes in him as their King (Ez. 37:24, 26). The unclean predatory animals of lion, wolf, leopard, etc., represent Israel’s gentile enemies-the Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. (Jer. 5:6) whom the Lord has used to bring judgement and war to them because of their unfaithfulness. However, in the future when they believe, he will give them peace and rest from their gentile enemies. The wolf lying down with the lamb is about the peace and salvation of Israel. It is not teaching the restoration of nature to some idyllic past. 5. Regarding your final point, I don’t see how the old earth position is anywhere found in Plato. Plato taught that the world, both of matter and form, was eternal. Old earth creationists deny Plato and affirm that the world is contingent and made by God out of nothing. Your accusations are misplaced. In fact, you assume and read into scripture a philosophical notion of “perfection” which is not taught in scripture. It is true that the scriptures do not explicitly teach there was animal death before sin, but neither does it teach there was no animal death before sin. You did not offer one positive verse stating that animals did not die prior to sin. You merely infer it based upon one verse that might mean that land animals were not carnivorous and a misreading of the wolf and lamb in Isaiah 11. 6. My main point would be that the infallible scriptures are very clear that human death came into the world by sin and that this caused the groaning of creation (Gen. 3, Rom 5 & 8). In light of the uncertainty of animal death being caused by sin your condemnation of OEC is without justification. Having once held your view I understand, I simply would ask that you truly consider the difficulty of establishing the truth in this matter, and that you not condemn the innocent. Perhaps OEC risks agreement with some (but certainly not all) current scientific opinion, but your strong opinions without clear scriptural support risks placing unnecessary stumbling stones before believers and raising up human opinion and tradition above scripture. That is also something that we are warned not to do. So caution is in order. In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

@lesliewilliam3777

Жыл бұрын

@@jrhemmerich Part 1 1. “I would say there are different kinds of life. Most generally, Life is anything which reproduces itself, or is self-aware. More specifically, I would say there’s plant life, animal life, human life, and divine life. But so far as I can tell, the issue really isn’t over the definition of life, it’s over what sort of life is subject to death prior to sin.” Response: From where did you obtain that definition? Important as that source is, I want to point out several logical fallacies in your argument (you do believe logical consistency and laws of logic matter?). Notice you first provide a (unreferenced and unexplained) definition of life, assume that yours is true by virtue of merely claiming it, then, oddly, state that a definition of life is unimportant. This is question begging. But, arguably worse still, you conclude that the issue is really centred upon what sort of life is the target of death prior to the Fall. I would have thought that unless your definition of life is accurate you may be including or omitting whole categories unnecessarily or mistakenly. For me, the Person “through whom all things were made…and in whom was life” would be the only source for an accurate definition, rather than fallen men who were not the ἀρχῇ of life. 2. “Romans 8…My point was the opposite, that there’s a general reference to the corruption of creation, without distinction. But does this mean that every corruption that we see today must’ve been absent prior to sin? For example, would the leaves of trees have been exempt from decay?” Response: So, you must believe that when God ended his work at the end of Day 6 and judged the creation was very good, it was actually filled with suffering and death. On any objective assessment I can’t understand how such a creation as yours could be called good, let alone very good. You might want to address this in your next post. Leaves decaying demonstrate my point above of not referring to how the author of life defines it. Though pagans would disagree (but that’s what makes paganism paganism!), a leaf, as well as a tree, is not alive. God’s word tells us that because leaves and trees (and rocks and water) do not have, among other things, a soul/spirit. Leaves falling from trees is a natural, God-designed process. It’s integral to a functional ecosystem. (As well, it’s aesthetically pleasing to watch the “death” of leaves in Autumn.) If I had not seen any other comment you made, that you cited leaves as being part of the death process would have made me conclude you were an atheist. Atheists routinely trot that “counter-example” out to attack the biblical argument that death is not natural. 3. “ultimately, I don’t see how this passage helps or hurts either side. both sides acknowledge corruption, the issue is over what sort of death is proper to a good creation and what sort of death is not.” Response: If death and SUFFERING existed before the Fall, if death and SUFFERING were an essential, planned part of God’s design and was natural to higher order animals’ existence, then how is it possible to say the creation was perfect? See Ezekiel 28:12 for a clue. Furthermore, why would God bring a creation into existence that naturally had suffering and death? Why would the God of love usher in pain and suffering as natural? Why would God state, as he does in Isaiah 11 and 65, that animals will not hurt each other and that death will end? Can you actually put your hand on your heart and say that a dog’s death is not a sad event for its owner? Or are you missing a vital organ or two? 4. “Genesis 1:29 says that the green things were given to man as food, and also for the animals of the land (as opposed to sea). But even so, it does not imply that animals didn’t die on a natural life cycle.” Response: You fail to address the specific counter-arguments and difficulties I raised previously. As I said, animals dying, like elephants, deer, dogs, lions…as a natural to the creation generates some serious problems for you. What happens to the trillions of dead, rotting bodies? Do the animals suffer, or do they just fall over without pain? Do their dead bodies suddenly disappear? Do children not notice their disappearance? Why would God have a creation like the one you’ve imagined when he could have one like I envisage where animals do not die? Whose worldview is superior and puts God into a more kind, competent and intelligent frame, yours or mine? 5. “And the difficulty is that the passage, while giving a positive intention toward the use of green things for food, does not exclude carnivorous animal behavior.” Response: Oh come one, John; talk about special pleading! It’s obvious that the passage intended to communicate that carnivory was excluded. Even all-out pagans understand that much! 6. “We might infer from Gen 9:3’s direct expansion of the human food menu to living creatures that eating meat was not a behavior of animals before sin, but there are counter inferences. The expansion to meat for humans does not mention an expansion for the animals.” Response: If animal-upon-animal carnivory was natural before the Fall then why did God unequivocally state that in the new Eden in the Messianic age there would not be carnivory as per Isaiah 11? 7. “There is also the interesting incompleteness of Gen 1:29, for it only seems to cover land animal, and birds, but not sea animals.” Response: Most sea animals are either vegetarian or eat animals which do not have a nephesh or breath through nostrils. (I am a life-long spearfisherman.) Only sharks and a few other animals eat others. That’s more consistent with the Fall and my biblical worldview, and relies less on special pleading, than yours. 8. “Suppose there was no animal death or predation, we would be forced to imagine that God would have greatly restrained reproduction at some point.” Response: Why? You didn’t provide an argument. If he would, then there would be zillions of animals with a non-functioning reproductive system. As well, the last generation of reproducing animals would be an oddity to their offspring, or their children would be the oddity. Seems like a very, very weird world you’ve imagined. 9. “such as the blue whale’s consumption of krill.” Response: Krill do not breath through nostrils and do not have nephesh. In a nutshell, they are like insects: zero self-awareness and more like a very clever, God-designed, complex computer. 10. “it does not directly exclude animal death, nor is there any passage that teaches animal death is the result of sin.” Response: Your explanation has too many holes, too much special pleading, way too much question-begging, insinuates God is a cruel idiot, and ignores damn well obvious revelation. 11. “While the loss of pets is very real, we can also exercise our imagination to think that our sorrow has a proper place but might also be excessive at times and be the result of the fall. Like the good tasting fruit in CS Lewis’ Paralandra, we might hold on to our pets in an unhealthy way, desiring without a willingness to let go and receive a new blessing. Our small mindedness can work both ways. It is not always the old earther who is caught in the present. This objection regarding pets is not really based on the infallible scripture but on fallible moral intuitions about perfection.” Response: I hope you’re an accountant. 12. “The reference to the wolf lying down with the lamb is found in Isaiah 11:6 and relates to the present times of the Gospel age after the first coming of Christ. Jesus has been made a signal (the resurrection) who is drawing the gentiles to salvation (Is. 11:10). In the future he will gather Israel also to himself in salvation (Is. 11:11, Rom. 11:12) and bring peace to the land of Israel when Israel believes in him as their King (Ez. 37:24, 26). The unclean predatory animals of lion, wolf, leopard, etc., represent Israel’s gentile enemies-the Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. (Jer. 5:6) whom the Lord has used to bring judgement and war to them because of their unfaithfulness. However, in the future when they believe, he will give them peace and rest from their gentile enemies. The wolf lying down with the lamb is about the peace and salvation of Israel. It is not teaching the restoration of nature to some idyllic past.” Response: I’ve just seen this. From this response I have nothing more to say. It’s obvious that you and I can’t really communicate with each other on some fairly basic pieces of Scripture. You’re some sort of mystic and I am not. You defer to the allegorical or metaphorical before the concrete. Your “interpretation” of the symbolic is just too much for me. Furthermore, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, the real has to come before the symbolic. Tell me where your symbolic Isaiah 11 gets its footing?

Instead of answering the question why YECs hold to a YEC view, Ken attempts to discern their psychological motive. That's dishonest. The reason why YECS hold to a YEC view is simple: the Bible teaches it, as the Church has. Here's one good reason: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ” And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God." (Exodus 31) So, Ken, is this just another story or did God really say what he meant and meant what he said? On your take, God has deceived Moses, all the Israelites, and all Christians and Jews. That's a big call, Kenny. I suggest ya talk to God about that boast before it's too late.

@dagwould

Жыл бұрын

Well put. The OEC position needs to think about God's 'psychology' in being so obtuse as to communicate what he did that reads directly as referring to the passage of 6 ordinary earth days that denominate our life-experience...which is the very point of them.

@ArcticBlits

Жыл бұрын

@@dagwould especially as Jesus calls Himself “the truth”

@Pointerfinger_1

Жыл бұрын

Before it’s too late? Meaning this view would determine his eternal destiny?

Two wonderful OEC Bible/science harmonizations: NAVIGATING GENESIS by Hugh Ross GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH by Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips, and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr.

Josh, have you guys considered interviewing Dr. Joshua Swamidass? Would love to see him on Remnant!

"Remember Yom Shabbat, to keep it holy. You are to work six days, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Shabbat to Adonai your God. In it you shall not do any work-not you, nor your son, your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, your cattle, nor the outsider that is within your gates. For in six days Adonai made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Thus Adonai blessed Yom Shabbat, and made it holy." - Exodus 20:8-11

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

The 7 days of the week are a pattern from God's creation but the 7 days of creation don't need to be literally the same 24 hours but the just a pattern. Did God rest because he was tried or need to ? Is God's resting literal? Was Creation really hard for God or is that a theological pattern of our working 6 days and Resting because we need it.

@t.scottmajor1316

Жыл бұрын

​@@davidjanbaz7728 The key takeaway that I get from this Exodus passage is that God tells us to take a Shabbat on the 7th day because He also ceased from His creative works in Creation. I don't think we need to overthink all the other aspects of it. God blessed the 7th day and set it apart as a Shabbat. When our family celebrates it each week it helps us enjoy the connection we have to our Creator and our Savior. It's a truly blessed day each week that we set apart and make special for our children.

That was a really good talk. It was perfect for a long drive I was on.

How do you explain to people that a rock sample taken from a volcanic eruption 10 years ago, has a radiometric date several million years old and is therefore millions of years old, despite the eruption occurring before our eyes?

@noobsaibot5285

5 ай бұрын

@@D-Bunker-zv1bj in billions of excited particles in something called magma. In other words; it didn't exist. Don't date rocks of known ages, or risk exposing pseudoscience.

He's missed the point of the question of age and adopted a framing of reality founded in materialism and man's desire to detach from the Creator. The best way is to dislocate the connection over time, and put the creation event into fairy-tale land ('in a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago...') and thus break the personal connection with God; making 'god' an idea, not a relating communicating person. . OTOH, the Bible sets itself in the world as it is and connects its message to human history at every point. It is not a detached 'holy' book that treats the creation as symbolic, fictional or figurative. It treats it as continuous with our time frame and scale. It does this by demarking the creation cadence in terms of the days as we know and define days (thus the calibration of 'day' in Genesis 1 as an 'evening and morning' type day), and the 'genetic' connection of our history with God's action through the chronology attached to the very clearly defined genealogical records provided in Genesis. . Unlike any man-made religion God's presence and action revealed is in an ontological continuity with our time line.

Love all your videos. Began watching because of all the prophetic failures but have loved everything I’ve seen. **Have you considered having Prof. John Lenox, mentioned in this episode, as a guest? His thoughts on Transhumanism and other ideas are amazing. He’s a Christian and Scientist.

Prior to 1960 he said most Evangelicals and Fundamentals held to an old earth. I’m not sure most, but before the godless Renaissance all Christian scientist were young earth. Almost all early church fathers were young earth, and sadly atheist Darwin introduced Evolution and theologians began compromising.

@Apollos2.2

Жыл бұрын

Agreed and up to the 1960's secular Darwinist view held the "upper hand" scientifically speaking with their "evidence", but with Mt St Helens and better biology there is no longer a need to be intimidated by old earth/secular "evidence".

@kevinevans5921

Жыл бұрын

@@Apollos2.2 amen absolutely! Mt St Helens Excellent example of how catastrophe can quickly reshape the landscape.

@moggpiano8043

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. They *HAVE* to compromise, because the ironically named ""Young Earth" hypothesis is now archaic and thoroughly usurped by the reality of the physical world that is at our fingertips thanks to the the scientific and technological advances of the last two centuries. It's a stark choice.... Interpret your belief so that it fits the real world, or admit that your religion is wrong.

@kevinevans5921

Жыл бұрын

@@moggpiano8043 no I’m good

@Apollos2.2

Жыл бұрын

@@moggpiano8043 It's interesting, the Atheist/Agnostic wordview requires an old earth. The Christian worldview can work with either, although I think adding billions of years into Genesis chapter 1 is a HUGE stretch, and has theological implications for Christianity that I don't see any reason to embrace based on what I read in the Bible. Likewise I don't know any "usurping reality of the physical world" that would compel me to embrace an billion year old earth.

I appreciate this guests tone, it seemed he made an effort to represent the YEC position fairly. At the same time it would be good to have a YEC advocate on the show. Maybe Dr Jason Lisle.

@kevinevans5921

Жыл бұрын

Agree totally both sides,

Very interesting chat. I want to hold to the 7 days because it’s what I grew up believing but I can now see a case for old earth.

Joshhh 😂 these thumbnails kill me

Two questions, among others, come to mind when I listen to old earth proponents. First, do you believe the Noahic flood was global? Did your guest answer that question? Second, do you think it will take a long time for God to create the new heavens and new earth?

@FinalEvangelist

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Noah's flood wiped out everything. And yes the new heavens and new earth will be instant because it doesn't say it will be 6 days like in Genesis 1. Very different scenario that will take place when God redeems all creation at Jesus second coming.

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

NO, It's a Large Regional flood of the whole middle East but not Global.

@FinalEvangelist

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 Really? You were there to see this?

@firstlast0001

6 ай бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 I, too, lean to a regional flood. How did the kangaroos get to the boat then to Australia? LOL

"yes it's history" but then he says it's not.

I simply cannot hold to anything but the 6 day creation. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. The simple fact that God used the parallel of his creation with the 6 day work week, and the 7th day a blessed day, is clear enough. I simply cannot read that verse, and interpret that as 6 really really long aeons. Will it take billions of years for the new heaven and earth??

@josephbrown6906

Жыл бұрын

But even with what you point out, there are still things to consider. First, there is the question of from whose perspective is Creation being seen in Genesis 1: God's or Moses'. This is important to consider because if it's from God's perspective we know that God's perspective of time isn't like ours. Adding to this, God during Creation in Genesis 1 is both inside and outside of creation at the same time and thus He may have allowed His perception of what happened to have been affected by something called time dilation which could allow billions of years from our perspective to have only been viewed as six days from His. Even if He didn't, as stated above He doesn't view time as we do as He clearly states in Scripture so 6 days may merely be 6 time periods or eras or ages. If it's Moses' perspective in Genesis 1, then it is quite possible that what is being described is that the length of time God showed him the process of Creation was 6 days or then again the 6 days were actually 6 time periods or ages. Of course, all of this still leaves open the possibility that Creation was really in 6 24-hour days. There is something else to consider too. The whole basis for dating Creation are the genealogies and there is one big assumption being made which is that the humans created on Day 6 in Genesis 1 are Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve were actually later creations, then it is quite possible that Creation happened long before God created Adam.

@davidsmeaton2977

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. If Genesis 1 & 2 were not historical accounts then Exodus 20:11 is no solid basis for establishing Gods law.

@lesliewilliam3777

Жыл бұрын

@@josephbrown6906 Ahh, another supposed Christian who doesn't trust God to have accurately revealed what he did through propositional information. In other words, the following is actually quite opaque: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ” And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God." (Exodus 31) So what is it Joseph, God didn't have that conversation with Moses and if he did, it doesn't mean what it obviously means or you know best what happened and can correct Moses here?

@paulc1391

Жыл бұрын

What about the year of rest? “For six years you shall sow your field, and for six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its fruits, but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to the Lord. You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard.” ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭25:3-4‬ ‭ESV‬‬ This sabbath was a whole year.

@josephbrown6906

Жыл бұрын

@@lesliewilliam3777 While the parallel is strong evidence that the six days had to be 24-hours, it isn't proof. For one thing, I would point out that in the very quote of Exodus 31, verse 17 in fact, is something that cannot be taken at face value. The verse says that God rested and was refreshed. This is very problematic because Scripture shows that God is all powerful and thus cannot tire or lose energy. Being all-powerful does not preclude resting in the sense of taking a break. However, being all-powerful does preclude being refreshed in the normal sense of the word. Now, applying what we learn here to the parallel, the parallel allows the possibility for the 6 days of creation to not be 24-hours long so long as God views them as such and having an equivalent to an evening and morning. The 6 days of Creation being 24-hours long is still a possibility, perhaps even the most likely one, but it isn't the only valid possibility. I would also point out that the creation described in Genesis 1 may not even be the first creation. There are hints in the text suggesting a prior creation before Genesis 1. The existence of the waters chaos in Genesis 1:2 is evidence of this. There are also some intertextual links between Genesis 1:2 and other parts of the Bible that also are suggestive of a prior creation and a rebellion which in part causes the darkness and watery chaos described in Genesis 1:2. One link is that the tehom of Genesis 1:2 is the bottomless pit which Satan, the Dragon, is imprisoned in in Revelation 20:1-3 and is also Tartarus and Abaddon. Another is the link to Jesus's baptism, the crossing of the Yam Suph, and then John 3:5 among other things in that Holy Spirit and water are together and connected with a creation or re-creation of sorts. Then there is Job 26:12-13 which state "By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent." The Hebrew word for wind used here is ruach which also means Spirit. Also, the word for fair, shiphrah, its root word means bright. The use of these words in this context suggests a connection back to Genesis 1:2-3 and not only that to the defeat of a pre-Genesis 1 rebellion by Satan/the Dragon/Leviathan/Rahab. Now, if there is more than meets the eye in that there was a previous creation that was made into what is seen in Genesis 1:2, then there can be more than meets the eye to the six days of Creation.

Thanks. Knowing that many stars are millions of light years away convinced me that the universe is not just 6,000 or 8,000 years old. God made the universe, and allows us to see it and learn from what He created. The gap theory is the best explanation I have found.

@juanduenas1943

7 ай бұрын

Why do you think God would have to wait for light to travel?

Perhaps you can get bogged-down in endless debates about the word "yom," but the meaning of the word is really important. For me, the key to Old Earth Creationism was the exegetical room for the meaning of the word "yom." Anyone who is interested should search for a man named Hugh Ross.

@dagwould

Жыл бұрын

Tony, Hugh plays fast and loose with his exegesis. The days in Genesis 1 are clearly calibrated as 'evening and morning' type days; the are reflected in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:11, then again in direct speech by God in Exodus 31:12ff. This is echoed in the 'creation' of the settlement of the Promised Land in Joshua 6 as the path to the 'new creation' is commenced. The fact that yom has a wide lexical range is neither here nor there; what counts is the range that is indicated in the text and this range is clearly diurnal.

@asg32000

Жыл бұрын

@@dagwould instead of jumping to Exodus, look at the immediate context. The fact that there is no evening or morning on the seventh day indicates that it is ongoing. And the fact that Adam exclaims: "At long last!..." when Eve is presented to him indicates that a long time has passed during the sixth "day."

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

@@dagwould that's funny since Dr.Michael S.Heiser PhD in Biblical languages takes the same view from the Ancient Hebrew text alone.

You should interview Gideon Lazar (The Byzantine Scotist) for a young earth perspective. He did a debate with Jimmy Akin on Pints with Aquinas earlier this year. A great young voice in that world.

I personally believe in the Genesis gap theory. The objections that young Earth creationists have doesn't necessarily debunk the gap theory. It could Biblically be argued that death entered the world for the 2nd time through original sin. Biblical proof: Genesis 1:1-2,9 Jeremiah 4:23-27, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:13-19.

"Butting heads with astronomy" is not butting heads with science. Astronomy is observation like archeology. The interpretations are made which suit the observer.

@rickdavis2235

Жыл бұрын

louis lutz " Astronomy is observation like archeology. The interpretations are made which suit the observer. " So all of the biblical artifacts that have been unearthed are just some archaeoligist's interpretation?

@GregoryJByrne

Ай бұрын

Signs in the precessin of the sun the moon & the stars. The earth revolves one fill rotation in one day. The earth orbits the Sun once per year. These guys are wolves in sheep's clothing. Be discerning as we are in the last days.

I would love to hear a session on the book Genisis unbound

@ravikeller9626

4 ай бұрын

YES. There’s painfully little discussion of Sailhammer’s view these days

Here's the early Churchman Basil: “‘And there was evening and there was morning: one day.’ And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say ‘one day the first day’? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says ‘one day’, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day-we mean of a day and of a night.” So, again, Ken does not know his history. Wrong on the little things, Ken, wrong on the big things??

Very interesting discussion! I tend to lean toward YEC but today is Monday, lol. On a purely personal note, I’m wondering if Dr. Keathley is a distant relative. I don’t come across that name very often.

@bayesianhulk

Жыл бұрын

YEC is based on their interpretation of Genesis. There are multiple plausible interpretations. The Bible does not insist on YEC. For views other than YEC, look up John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, and Stephen C. Meyer.

Should definitely get someone like Ben Stanhope or Mike Jones from Inspiring Philosophy to talk about the inconsistencies in the YEC camp.

@User28870

2 ай бұрын

Absolutely. All of these young earth vs old earth debates are devoid of any engagement with mainstream biblical scholarship.

"A theological hangup"??? What on earth does that mean? It's just a disingenuous way of imputing kooky psychological motives to your motive i.e., a dishonest reliance on an ad hominem.

You guys should have Dr. Kent Hovind on!! That would be interesting.

I am an old Earth creationist but i believe that the "days" of Genesis 1 can be literal 24-hour days from God's divine perspective of time and from God's frame of reference not from a human point-of-view of time, Genesis 1 uses the phrase "and God SAW" over 7 times, this is a consistent pattern throughout Genesis 1, verse 31 says "And God saw ALL that he had made and it was very good" which clearly tells us that Genesis 1 is giving us God's perspective of His entire creation, which would include time itself, God was not only the speaker but also the observer in Genesis 1, furthermore, the Bible says in Psalms 90:4, *For you, a thousand years are as a passing day, as brief as a few night hours"* this verse clearly shows that God has a vastly different perspective of time compared to our human understanding of time, now the physical universe began as a singularity, a point smaller than a subatomic particle, hot and dense, and has been expanding since, and God transcends the physical universe, God is outside space and time, which means that God is not bound by earthly constraints of time, so it is possible from God's frame of reference and perspective of time, for the Earth to be 6, 24-hour days old, while simultaneously be 4.543 billion years old based on earth time, this Time Dilation can exist due to the fact that God's frame of reference is beyond the physical universe, there are literally locations in this Universe, where if you were to put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) billions of years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out a few days, this is a phenomenon that we can observe even within the observable universe, as predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, so both science as well as the Bible teaches that time is relative depending on the observer's frame of reference.

Ahh the "science:". ROFL! I can't watch this anymore.

I don't need to be a scientist to be a Christian, but I do need faith that's the prerequisite.

There are clues in Genesis that there is more going on in than a plain reading of the narrative will you tell you. For example why was Cain afraid of being killed and by whom? Siblings seems unlikely to form a land called Nod.

@tedkijeski339

Жыл бұрын

Yeah--that one always got me. That and how there could be enough manpower and technological know-how to build a Tower of Babel 200-300 years after the flood.

@rapturefox7068

Жыл бұрын

Yup!! But you stop with your logic and facts. The earth is flat and 6 thousands of days old. I mean mins or secs...

link to books?

Here is an excerpt of Dr. Kurt Wise bio...a resource used in "Is Genesis History" film. Dr. Wise earned his BA in geology from the University of Chicago, and his MA and PhD degrees in paleontology from Harvard University. He founded and directed the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College and taught biology there for 17 years. He then led the Center for Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 3 years, before founding and directing the Center for Creation Research and teaching biology at Truett McConnell University for the last 7 years. His fieldwork has included research in early Flood rocks in the Death Valley region, late Flood rocks in Wyoming, and post-Flood caves in Tennessee.

@enidsnarb

Жыл бұрын

There are many good science oriented young earth people and I have watched the debates . I wrestled with this and at this point the old earth wins out scientifically . Time means nothing to God who is beyond time and young earth versus old earth does not have an effect on the salvation of Jesus Christ .

@Xenosaurian

Жыл бұрын

@@enidsnarb You're making a grave mistake by falling for these secular "scientific" arguments based on human reasoning and sacrificing the Bible as opposed to taking the biblical information seriously.

@enidsnarb

Жыл бұрын

@@Xenosaurian I just read Genesis 2:4 as actually telling the reader that the days are not literal . I have watched debates between Christians on the age of the earth , I lean towards Hugh Ross in interpretation which has brought many scientists to our lord Jesus Christ !

@Xenosaurian

Жыл бұрын

@@enidsnarb That doesn't make any sense. The days are quite clearly literal. Even on the very first day God defines what a day is and uses that template for the subsequent days. Likewise you'll find not just that young-Earth creationism has led many scientists to the Lord, but also that the founding fathers of modern science were young-Earth creationists. There has been an unfortunate disconnect between science and the Bible thanks to secular ideologies.

@iamishin7675

Жыл бұрын

@@Xenosaurian Warning: Wall of Text. I don't agree that God defines the day at any point in genesis. On the first day the sun and moon did not even exist, that was not until the fourth day, so how could three solar (~24 hour) days have possibly passed before the sun even existed? How could there be an evening and a morning when there is no sun? Why are the sun and moon called the "Greater light" and "Lesser light" when they are not referred to in this way anywhere else in the Bible? Why did God rest on the seventh day, even though he is omnipotent? I find these to all be such clear signs that this passage is not historical narrative. More from Genesis 2:4-5 "This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground..." The Genesis 1 account takes place over seven days, yet at the end of that same account it seems to say that the whole thing took place over a single day. This is the same Hebrew word "yom" meaning day. This should already make you think that this is not meant to be interpreted as a 24-hour day. You can not take both of these uses of "day" in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to mean 24-hour days because they are referring to the same events as taking both 7 and also 1 day. Genesis 2:4 also implies that God uses a natural order for creation. "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth..." This shows that plants require rain on the earth in order to grow, meaning that God likely did not just create plants on a dark planet devoid of rain or sunlight. Not that God could not have done so, however this passage in Genesis 2 shows us that this is the way God has chosen to order creation, which also lines up with the obvious scientific finding that plants need rain and sunlight. Also worth noting that the Genesis 1 account places plants at day three, while the sun is not made until day four. The earth could not have an atmosphere required for rain, nor the sunlight required for plants to grow without the sun being in existence. I don't write this to be rude, but I genuinely think the dogmatic holding to the young earth creationist view has driven many people away from the faith and creates a major barrier for anyone that has done even a basic review of the scientific evidence. Paul's teachings in Romans 14 comes to mind. Romans 14:13 "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." Verse 15:"...By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." Verse 17-19 "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." I understand that this passage is about eating and drinking, but I believe the message is clearly applicable. There is no need to alienate fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ because of these beliefs. You stated in a previous comment "You're making a grave mistake by falling for these secular "scientific" arguments based on human reasoning and sacrificing the Bible as opposed to taking the biblical information seriously." I can't tell what the other person's motives are, but I can tell you that this definitely isn't true of many who hold my beliefs. The Bible is an inerrant text. Just because you believe your specific interpretation is the correct one, does not mean that the other person is arguing against the Bible. They are arguing against your personal beliefs. I wouldn't wish to judge or attribute any actions to sinful motivations, but I am left to wonder what your reason might be for dogmatically assuming that your personal interpretation of Biblical text is the only possible one that could be respecting the word. Do you claim to know the intentions of the writer regarding this text?

Thought that was Hugh Ross for a second

Nice

I lean to young earth creationism and watch Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.

In our subjective experience, the sun does rise. We all objectively experience that but from a different perspective that is not literally true when subjected to scientific analysis. One does not negate the other. They inform each other in the range of human experience.

@paulbrandel5980

Жыл бұрын

Its silly how some like @michaelbabbitt mentioned about the sun appears to rise. Well it was a very big deal among Catholics and protestants 500 years ago. So you young earthers look very silly indeed with what we know from science!

🙌🏼

loved this presentation, well done

Yes

Man, I wish you guys would talk to Dr. Barry Setterfield about his scientific arguments for a young earth

@Ryahan

Жыл бұрын

Is he the “Starlight and Time” guy? I heard Suutterfield brought up a few times before

@alleadonai

Жыл бұрын

@@RyahanI'm not sure from that reference but on his channel Genesis Science Research he's laid out a great argument against carbon dating based on the slowing of the rate of atomic clocks and the speed of light

@rickdavis2235

Жыл бұрын

@@alleadonai There are all kinds of evidences for a young earth. Thirty year old sedimentary rock laid down by mudflows after the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens were dated as old as 3 million years old by 6 independent labs that had no idea where the rock had come from. Opal, a gemstone that takes millions of years can be created in your home in a few weeks. Animals can be fossiled in hours in a process known as flash-fossilization. Diamonds that are allegedly billions of years old can be created in 8 hours in a lab. It's not about time. It's about the right conditions. Dinosaur bones have been found with: 1. Blood Vessels 2. Red Blood Cells 3. Hemoglobin Protein 4. Fresh Bone Cells 5. Ovalbumin Proteins 6. Chitin 7. Un-mineralized Bone 8. Collagen 9. DNA (limited) 10. Skin Pigments 11. PHEX (proteins) 12. Histone H4 (proteins) 13. Keratin (structural protein) 14. Elastin Diamonds have been found with carbon-14 in them, would decay in thousands of years. Dinosaur bones have also been found with carbon-14.

@alleadonai

Жыл бұрын

@@rickdavis2235 Oh I'm aware but I don't think many are aware of Setterfield's work which gets at one of the most popular arguments for an old earth in carbon dating and apparently ancient stone and minerals, how that appearance of age is possible. I would just like more people to be aware of his work because it really is a blessing.

@rickdavis2235

Жыл бұрын

@@alleadonai Thanks. I'll check him out. I've done a fair amount of research on the subject because I love apologetics. God bless.

“In the beginning…” Change Genesis, change God’s revelation of Who the Word is. “All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” “I AM the Lord. I change not.”

Is earth motionless?

14:31 it’s interesting that he says that most Evangelicals hold in creation out of nothing. While that’s totally true, it’s fascinating how a large amount(possibly the majority) of scholars on the topic of creation out of nothing in church history would say that creation out of nothing didn’t exist as an idea until the 2nd century AD. Most scholars on Genesis believe Genesis 1 starts by creating from pre-existing matter. It isn’t until over 1000 years later that we get creatio ex nihilo.

Also unexplained - From Genesis, we have firm references to the Flood, but no one writes about fitting in the Theia impact (evidenced by the Moon and by large unmelted chunks down near the core) plus the ancient Deniliquin impact crater ( highly weathered), Vredefort impact crater, and then the better known Chixculub impact crater. Each of these events is clearly seen in God's natural record and all of these events dwarf the Flood, so why do no ancient texts mention these catastrophes, especially as each would have caused an impact winter decades long. How do we fit all of these events, into the YE timeline? Yes we have God's unerring scripture, but we also have God's timeline written in God's unerring geological record. Possibly since this video was posted, we have detected gravitational wave disruptions from a pair of colliding neutron stars, which coincided with Gamma rays arriving from this event. After a journey of 130 million years, there was a discrepancy of 1.7 seconds in arrival time, indicating that the 'speed of gravity' is also C. It seems like every few months, there is a new problem for YEC advocates to explain.

I'm betting on radiometric dating. An ancient Hebrew collection of fact and fiction won't cut it.

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

Just wait science is moving towards the Old Earth Creationism of the Bible.

No, young-Earth creationism isn't a "young" doctrine, it's been around since the dawn of Christianity, and the reason being it's right there in the Bible. And whether or not most evangelicals prior to the release of The Genesis Flood by John Morris were old-Earth creationists (this is doubtful but still), that is not an argument in favor of it, especially not since the early church fathers did not hold to it, and it only becomes introduced as pagan or secular arguments for an "old Earth" starts to pop up, occasionally in the ancient past but primarily around the 1700's to 1900's period as scientific curiosity and eagerness along with peer pressure gets the better of them. There is of course no genuine indication of any "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 other than that somebody hit the spacebar in that spot, and old-Earth creationists read too much into nothing, and they give in too easily to arguments and pressure from old-Earth evolutionists and make the mistake of rather compromising the Word of God than the word of man to put it that way. We naturally ought to be more skeptical of arguments against the Bible based on human reasoning rather than the Bible's arguments against human reasoning. This is of course NOT to say we don't engage ourselves in scientific endeavors, but in this case it's a matter of using faulty or premature scientific arguments to support a biblically untenable and questionable position. And hearing him talk about "this is like examining the Mona Lisa by looking at every bit of paint and missing the whole picture" is so IRONIC... And with regards to that final remark on basically calling young-Earth creationists without clarification "of questionable ethics and not worthy of trust", I could say the exact same thing about old-Earth creationists, although arguably on a more justified basis because they're trying their darndest to twist Scripture in every little detail they can to try and make it fit with this old-Earth concept. I do bet that being unprepared as a young-Earth creationist and suddenly faced with arguments you've never heard, you would be very tempted to adopt this new view and never give a second thought to more critically examine this new compelling view.

@rapturefox7068

Жыл бұрын

Very verbose and wrong

@Xenosaurian

Жыл бұрын

@@rapturefox7068 I'm telling the truth.

At the end of the video you said you would add the links to the books he mentioned. Yet you never did.

a gap theory makes some sense to me even though most people hate the idea. i've also been listening to flat earth debates since about 2015. there is no way i can personally prove what shape the earth is, but they make some interesting arguments.

If you knew hebrew you would read it differently. For example: where did the water come from in gen 1:2 it came from gen 1:1 from the word shamayim whichs can be also be translated "that like water". So the water is not really water and its not covering the earth. I believe it could be itb he created spacetime and matter.

How could God say it so these people would believe in a young earth? "Evening and morning the first day, LITERALLY"???!!!

I really don’t care about the age of the Earth. What I need help understanding is, the creationist perspective/theory on the evolution of men in particular. What do we do about topics such as europeans having Neanderthal, DNA and Africans being mixed with other hominoids? How do we square that was Adam and eve?

Looking like a pious Bruce Willis

Your two-minute warning is a quenching of the Spirit, 'dude'. I'm in agreement this didn't need to be abrupted to your 'radio format' and as if Moses had chiseled it as a necessary amendment... 'we have to wrap this up.' Up yours. 🤭🤫😁

Where’s Dr Hugh Ross? I thought this said old earth…wait a minute?

Plants and animals go extinct but mankind never does. We are still here.

To be a yec is to deny the reality of the universe, this is what he said! He took the authority of man with their science over the authority of the Bible.

What about when God made both the sun and moon stand still...

So does Dr. K think the days of Gen 1 are long ages? Where are the billion years? in the gap btwn v1 and v2? in the days? Nothing is coherent here.

Funny 80% of young growing up in church leave the church after going to college. Ken Ham says the antidote is to teach a firm foundation in Genesis. He is right. It takes a strong faith to study biology and tell your professor evolution is wrong.

Considering special relativity: time and length dilation could be at play from the Gods point of view.

"If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science then they are mere superstitions and imaginations. Abdu'l Baha Philosopher

I believe that Adam was created on or around October 18th, 4004. BC. 6,026 years ago. The Bible is clear on that by doing the math of genealogy we can reach this year. Now, if you want to say there were not literal days of creation, then, whatever. I believe the flood was 1,656 years after creation, which puts it in the year 2348 BC.

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

You cannot add the ages to get the age of the Earth because they were Clan ages not individual ages and also they aren't complete in every generation.

Dr. Keathly, It really sounds like you are saying God would inspire those writing His Word to give false terminology about the world. If God is the only one who knows how the universe works, why would He inspires something false. This is not the same as contextualization.

The Bible teaches a young earth.The current Hebrew year, according to the Hebrew calendar, is 5784 and 6 days. This is because that is what the bible says.

And the city( new Jerusalem) had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and vthe lamb is it's light..... revelation 21:22....🤔...and God said let there be light.... 🤔... possibly...hmmmm...🤔....?

The Bible is a spiritual book, not a history book or a science. Yes we have some literal history as well as figurative history. For example Genesis chapters 1 through 11 is figurative.

I bet you can’t do a young earth atheist video.

Also if you look up Kent Hovind seven part creation seminar series. It’s free on KZread it explains the history of the gap theory to some degree and a couple other interesting topics from science and how people date things with carbon dating etc. just in case you ever wanted to look into it. I appreciate the content y’all put out.

Re creation, "God has involved himself in natural history." How did he do this?

@dagwould

Жыл бұрын

God blending into the world, pushes us towards paganism with god and world merging. The creation account shows God as the distinct originating 'actor' who goes through a cycle of will, word, and evaluation. For sure the creation is created to work, but God is very much the separate, although obviously involved and present creator (Genesis 3:8 drives this point) for the purpose of relationship with his creature-in-his-image; certainly not as a 'god in the machine' type of panentheistic deity.

Romans 5:12-21 NKJV - 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

it doesnt seem to be billions of years old....it is about 5 days older than Adam.....

If you believe that Christ is the Son of God, and that He is your Savior… Then you are a Christian. Nothing else really matters, and really only causes division in the Church.

The title of the show is simply an oxymoron. Either the first three chapters of Genesis are true or the entire Bible is nothing but a bunch of fables

@healingthroughchrist1988

Жыл бұрын

Just because the entire Bible is true doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted due to mistranslations or something.

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

True but not hyper literal!

@markpfahler7299

Жыл бұрын

I agree with the first 3 chapters of Genesis. And that is the world and science attack, attack and attack to create doubt to the believers mind. Well what else could be in error. Once you adopt there theories as truth you have lost your foundation. And any argument you have from here on, your just flapping your gums. Besides if you don't think God can do all that is stated in Genesis Chapter one, then your God is very, very, very small.

Thank you for this episode. I didn't know there was a name for what I've always believed to be true about creation. I would love to see a part 2 to this where he gets into more detail about the big bang theory, creation of humans vs. theory of evolving from primates, and much more. This topic is a huge stumbling block for many non-believers and old world creationism could open the door for them to accept there is a God who sent Christ as our redeemer.

@zachgramling5882

Жыл бұрын

Apparently a big stumbling block for this guy too. He talked for an hour with no substance just rambling. People didn't evolve, Adam and Eve were created by the Almighty, you can read about it in the first book of the Bible (Genesis). It would be hard to believe the Bible and evolution by the way.

@koriclaypool9548

Жыл бұрын

The video is basically him saying they were to dumb but we are way smarter today.

If the Bible is correct. It doesn't need science to try to explain everything. If science is correct, why does it change every few years?

As a former day age believer who grew up with a confused faith as a result of going to secular school being taught geological and biological evolution, I can tell you it did nothing but confuse me and nearly ruin my faith. I finally had to decide that no scientists existed back then and there is only one historical account of the events, if the Bible truly is infallible and inerrant. The idea that God would create an earth that had all sorts of natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, tornados, volcanos with poisonous gases and molten lava reaping havoc across the globe) and an Adam and Eve walking across dead animal bones with some of these animals, including dinosaur fossils showing all kinds of cancers, I'm sorry, I just cannot bring myself to believe in a God that would create mayhem and cancers and death and disease when He gives us a history that paints a picture of a perfect world. If Dr Keathley and Dr Ross are correct, then the Atheist can rightly and justly say that the God that we serve is an evil and unjust God. After finally accepting the Biblical account as accurate, as it reads, without doing exegetical gymnastics in the chapters preceding Genesis 12, it was then that I started seeing "scientific" proofs for a young earth. It was then I started seeing all of the assumptions I had bought into from my studies in geology in college that had led me down the wrong path. It really is an important issue. Do I think all like Dr Keathley are "going to hell?" No, after all he is a brother in Christ in my denomination, but he is wrong. He's wrong because until the old earth theologians can figure out how to come up with millions of years of a perfect world with no sin or sickness or death in it until Adam and Eve sinned, then Houston, we got a big big problem here. The problem is, Dr Keathley, like I use to do, makes his Bible subservient to modern day geology and astronomy just like Hugh Ross does. That's devastating to one's view of how authoritative the scripture is. Is my Bible driving my world view or is modern science. And yes, there has been a revival of young earth thinking among evangelicals for good reason. It makes a god that is unjust and evil. What Dr keathley failed to mention was that before old earth evolutionary theory became the dominant view, young earth view is what drove God followers to establish modern science in the first place. It's a fallacy to believe that just because the majority believe it, it must therefore necessarily be right. No, think again.

The exegesis in this discussion was egregious, confirming the claim there is no biblical basis for Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Dismissing a serious discussion of "yom"? Why? Avoidance of the truth? The Bible's assertion of the age of the earth lies in the details. The grammar and the diction -- the critical, determinative details -- of Genesis 1 reinforce the correct interpretation that these are six literal, 24-hour-long days. Exodus 20, verse 11, which discusses the Sabbath day as God speaks the Ten Commandments, buttresses this interpretation; and Jesus did as well when He stated God created them male and female "in the beginning" (Matt. 19, verse 4; Mark 10, verse 6), not 13 billion years after the beginning. If the earth is billions of years old, and if that's the correct timeframe God always intended man to understand, why is the year 2022-23 only the year 5,783 in the Hebrew calendar? Why would God deceive man by not telling him what He actually did in the beginning, during the mythical "gap"? Creation was a miracle of God. God's miracles are always performed immediately and always transpire over a short period of time. There is no instance in the Bible in which a miracle takes billions of years to be performed. So, we must conclude, it was with Creation: God spoke, and Creation instantly and rapidly obeyed. As a serious poet, I can tell you Genesis 1 is absolutely not poetry. Its prose is starkly different from the clear verse we find in Psalms. Because God is beautiful, everything He does, even when He recounts history, is going to be done in an ineffably beautiful way. The beauty of God's prose, the historical narrative that is Genesis 1, should not shake us from the truth that this is how He created the world. Why is the age of the earth so important? It's important because in order to turn the world back to God we need to raze the edifice of evolutionism, and the quickest way to do so is to strike at the very heart of that false religion: lots of time. OEC, an enabling ideology, feeds the beast, giving evolutionists all the time they need to make the impossible possible. This discussion does a disservice to the Kingdom by propping up arguably the Enemy's most inimical ideology to truth: evolutionism. It assumes everything in the atheistic academy is based on unbiased truth when we know that's not the case. Money; self-aggrandizement; sin; biases; and bad, nay prideful, assumptions (e.g., carbon dating) run rife in the increasingly self-discrediting academy. No Christian should relegate a clear, careful, studied reading of the Bible to the false, hostile, satanic narratives pouring out of the academy.

@profoundgreetingsfromneptune

5 ай бұрын

Why even respond to a 7-month-old "convoluted" post, then with a silly claim based on silly assumptions and for which there is no proof? So not sure what to say about your limp attempt at debunking. Or are you just an atheist troll?@@D-Bunker-zv1bj

I mean no disrespect to the Dr. nor the program, but it would have been nice to hear from a scientific perspective and not from a historical literary criticism. This is the first time I have been disappointed in the shows content.

Old Earth Creationists cannot prove their view any more than Young Earth Creationists can by the standard you just put forth. Neither view can be absolutely proven because we cannot go back in time to creation to see what God did. While we should never take this area where we can agree to disagree on as a stipulation for salvation, your reasoning in the realm of well understood logic is faulty. Either view has to be taken on faith.

The lip smacking between sentences and as commas is driving me nuts

Was the point of this episode to bring understanding of why someone believes an old earth creation theory? Or was it because you, Josh, believe this and you want to present it to your audience? Because it seems like you agree a lot with this guest and don’t push back when he doesn’t give good biblical answers to questions.

@chad_stewart

Жыл бұрын

Is it ok if Josh thought that the guest did give good biblical answers to the questions?

@leatherwooddan

Жыл бұрын

@@chad_stewart it’s ok if he agrees with the answers given but there was not good biblical answers for the questions raised…he didn’t want to address the meaning of Day and it’s implication.

@chad_stewart

Жыл бұрын

@@leatherwooddan I see. You were hoping for more on the question of what the writers meant by "day". It might be tough to fit everything in during an hour. For this entire discussion about what the Bible has to say about the age of the Earth, to have a good idea of what Hebrew Bible scholarship says about these questions, including the authors' use of "day", I'd suggest John Walton and Tim Mackie. The scholarship is fascinating whether you agree with the conclusions or not. It's a wonderful exercise in learning to read the Hebrew Bible in it's ancient context, and each passage and scroll in the context of the whole Hebrew Bible.

Bring Kent Hovind to the podcast to lay out young earth creationism

@joshuas1834

Жыл бұрын

I hope not. Literally any other YEC would be better than that guy. He's not even a trinitarian. He believes in modalism, an actual heresy. Plus two of his ex-wives credibly claim that he is abusive and a con-artist.

@davefigthe3rd

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuas1834 I rebuke the spirit of division in the name of Jesus. My discernment through the Holy Spirit tells me that Kent is a warrior in Gods Kingdom. I have followed his ministry for over ten years. His ministry was a major reason why I went from atheist back to Christian.

Dr. Keathly is also a Molinist…👎🏼. Now you can bring Ken Ham on to speak on YEC. 😊

"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires." 2 Timothy 4:3

Very interesting presentation. A thought that I had during the discussion is that possibly, Quantum mechanics may present a scenario where both young and old earth creation are correct. The other thing that this conversation did for me is further solidify my belief in ultimate universal reconciliation. Your conversations about meaning, intent, language, and understanding, relating to scripture and the development of theology blows away the dogmatic approach to interpreting certain scriptures in certain ways. This was thought provoking and challenging to traditional religious thought. Thank you. Maybe you should have on some young earth folks for comparison. Also it would be wonderful to hear from some inclusion or ultimate reconciliation scholars and theologians like C. Baxter Kruger or maybe Steve McVey.

@Eloign

Жыл бұрын

Lake of fire sounds pretty clear.

@bradharford6052

Жыл бұрын

@@Eloign A pretty clear metaphor for refinement, purification, destruction of wood, hat, and stubble and anything ungodly. Never a place of eternal torment. Fire either purifies or destroys. It is not for torturing living people. God is a restorer, not a destroyer. A liberator, not a jailer. A physician, not a judicial, tyrannical king. It takes a pretty big, pretty smart, and pretty wonderful God to redeem and reconcile His entire creation to Himself. Is you god that big?

(around 45:00) Respectfully Dr Keathley, your own view betrays what you are saying. You include all of Genesis, including Genesis 1-11 as history, yet you allegorized the creation account by describing it as some grand speech that Moses would have given publicly to radically change the pagan world view of the Israelites. If it is history, then you have to take it as such, in that the person writing it is intending for you to understand it as historical fact. "Day age" allegorizes the story. That's not history, that's allegory. Let's call a spade a spade. (around 46:35) And you say the prose in Genesis 1-11 has to be taken differently than the "prose" speaking about the history of Abraham and following. I want to ask, WHY? You just arbitrarily decided it changes there like most commentaries I read today of Genesis 1-11? Why do we do that when there are perfectly good "scientific" explanations for young earth believing that the genealogies and the creation account are true history.

creation of man and woman in gen1 was not same event as creation of the Garden of Eden in Gen2. in gen1 both man and woman created at same time and told to have dominion of all earth and they may eat everything. Adam in gen2 lives in garden bounded by 4 rivers and were told not do not partake of tree of knowledge of good and evil Gen2 not same as Gen1 read carefully. Adam lived about 6000yrs ago but time between man and woman and Adam is not specified in bible. Only Adam recieved the breath of life.

I strongly hold to a Young Earth view. Old Earth is almost explicitly isogesis, no support from Scripture. The two key areas, death before Adam’s sin, and a local flood for Noah. This makes the stories of Genesis make no sense. To say the writers of the Bible had no idea about ancient cosmology is an insult to Biblical inerrancy.

@josephbrown6906

Жыл бұрын

Why is death before Adam's sin an issue?

@slawsonscot

Жыл бұрын

@@josephbrown6906 apologies for interjecting in another person’s point but I struggle with that very idea because the implication of the Word is that death is wages for sin and it is something that flows out of Adam’s disobedience. If the implication being made is that death was always part of God’s creation, then that has serious implications for how we understand everything else. Romans 5 amongst other places paints a picture of death and sin being intrinsically linked.

@kevinevans5921

Жыл бұрын

@@slawsonscot excellent points. It can be summarized like this, if the Earth is old God made death, if the Earth is young we caused death. The latter is much more consistent with both the nature of God and the clear reading of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments. The Garden of Eden makes no sense surrounded by a world of death, disease, fossils, chaotic weather, and natural catastrophes.

@josephbrown6906

Жыл бұрын

@@slawsonscot You're fine for your interjection. You make good points. However, there is still a way around that. Death is more than just a state of non-living or separation from God, but is also an entity, the final enemy. It is quite possible that Adam's sin gave the entity Death (Maveth/Thanatos) entry to the world and power over humanity because of sin.

@slawsonscot

Жыл бұрын

@@josephbrown6906 But surely if that were the case then nothing could have died prior to Adam's sin? So how could there be an old earth creation which, according to my understanding, is framed as one which must have known and experienced death prior to Adam?

It grieves my heart that you boys are thumping so hard on old earth heresy. This is poison.

@davidjanbaz7728

9 ай бұрын

You're in herecy !

How did this guy get his doctorate? He claims to know what’s in some books without ever reading them. He raises questions that are answered in the Genesis Flood, which proves that he never even read it. He’s wrong about the prevailing understanding of what the church fathers believed . Watch out for these guys. Do not be deceived.