I love the honesty and humility that you approached this. After listening to you I wrote in my Bible, “God has made this simple enough for a child to understand; One needs a PhD to disbelieve.”

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

3 ай бұрын

What a fantastic way of putting it! Thanks

@billcovington5836

3 ай бұрын

@@johnjoyce1073 The scientists of Answers in Genesis answers all your concerns.

Well done, Stephen. I agree with the young earth view, and I applaud your honesty and integrity in your search. I'm no scientist, either. In fact, as I've often quipped, "I ain't never even had me no kolige edumacashun." But man is finite, and man-made knowledge ("science") is limited at best, and outright wrong at its worst. And the list of things that for generations were accepted as "science" that are now known to be false is staggering. Not to mention the things called "science" in recent times that are patently false ("global warming" and the ever-changing narrative about the Chinese Kung Flu and the vaccines they were pushing are just two examples that come to mind). If we are to be "people of the Book" then we must not take our cues from man's "science" but from the Word of God. The Isaiah quote at the end of your video was spot on.

@sumo1203

15 күн бұрын

lol just ignore virtually the entire body of demonstrable evidence from many, many different scientific fields. There is monumental evidence for an old earth and a plethora of evidence that outright precludes a young earth - like the heath problem (look it up, even Answers in Genesis journal admitted there’s too much radioactive decay, the accelerated decay required for a young earth would literally melt the earth) No kidding you’re not a scientist, as you seem to barely understand it. Science may have limits but it’s by far our best tool for investigating natural reality. Just because science has limitations doesn’t somehow make religious texts superior. There’s no evidence to support these outrageous religious claims. The Bible was written in a pre scientific age. Genesis is adapted from earlier Canaanite beliefs/stories. It was never intended as historically accurate specific - that would be absurd

Stephen great channel. A key statement by way of your comment here; " no serious Hebrew scholar thinks that way anymore. I'm thinking that concept has been well adopted into "Christendom" as well. As a personal note I think the correct reading of - ( Genesis 1:2 ) - correctly reads; " But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters." For me I clearly see that "Scripture" gives adequate proof and reference to the "gap" consensus. I think content and the intention of the content found throughout "Scripture" supports such. Thanks for all you do your work here is very important. Blessings.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

Ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

"the text is inviting us to count the years" may be one of the most profound statements concerning this matter.

A good explanation for me concerning the word “Day”, since every word has 2 or more meanings depending on context is this: All 3 basic definitions of the word Day are presented in their own particular context in the first 35 verses in Genesis. 1:3-5: the daylight portion of a day. Verse 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31: a 24 hour day. And then chapter 2:4, “these are the generations of” “in the day that the Lord God made” I believe a case can be clearly made that this represents the period of time that God created. I didn’t come up with this so I’m not taking credit, but thought it would be helpful and relevant to the conversation.

Good word brother. Keep digging! God bless.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

Thank you, I will

Thank you for your honesty!

I know that you are probably familiar with them. But answers in Genesis has some absolutely amazingly lectures and teaching that go through creation even dealing with dinosaurs and the flood its absolutely wonderful.

I still hold to old earth, but a literal six-day, local restoration. The area being restored is probably a large region in the Middle East. I also think the flood was local as well as the Great Commission, given to the apostles; this is not foreign to partial preterism. So the land was created in six days, not the whole earth, IMO.

I agree with you but would add there is a way to read Genesis 1 that could open the door to a poetic interpretation.

Many thanks for this. I've been trying to get my head round this topic too. For me, one big argument against an old earth would be this: at what point do we believe that death was introduced? If we accept an old earth, do we also have to believe that other creatures lived & died before the Fall, thus contradicting Scripture's assertion that death is a *result* of the Fall?

“Astronomers” 11:30 😂 goodness!

My issues theologically with Old Earth, not all, but some are here: 1. If days are not days, but billions of years then it took Abraham 3.5 billion years to go up the mountain to sacrifice his son. 2. There in my mind is no convincing case that any part of the Books of Moses go on long allegorical stints. Keep in mind Moses was taught in all the wisdom of Egypt (Acts 7). He would have been highly educated in recording history as well as poems and scribal tasks etc. No meaningful evangelical case has been made that Moses intended to hand over long allegories over to Joshua (Joshua 1:7-9) 3. If man evolved to something less animal-like wouldn’t that mean our sin natures should become more acute rather than more obtuse or stagnant. If man is improving, in what areas is he improving? The main issue I have is in working out the flood. I will admit, there is much I grapple with in terms of how and what happened. Outside of that though, I really don’t see from an exegetical standpoint any meaningful argument that an old earth view holds any weight

Ha! Always ever hear of the missing link in the evolutionary charts, never thought to apply this to the genealogies as well! well done!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Enjoyable video as always, and timely-I am also wrestling with this. Like you, I’ve generally leaned toward the gap theory for the most part. Always seemed to me the most elegant explanation (especially in light of Gen 6), but I’ve remained open to other views. We can all study this as long and hard as we like, endlessly interpreting and reinterpreting the scriptures. But the conclusion I’ve come to is none of us was there to witness the beginning, only God was-so we might as well just take his word for it.

I believe in a young earth, I believe as the scripture says,God created the heavens and the earth in six days,literal days because as it is written “there was evening and there was morning”,Jesus in John on his way to wake Lazarus,talks about 12hrs in a day,sunrise to sunset,but where I’m more convinced is Matthew 1 and Luke 3,Matthew says there are 14 generations from Abraham to David,14 from David to the exile and 14 from the exile to Christ,now from Abraham to Adam there’s no millions of years,and Adam is the first man,Luke’s genealogy stop with Adam,all the evidence is there, the problem people have is that they put their trust in what man teaches rather then putting their trust in God’s word

@IndianaJoe0321

4 ай бұрын

Exodus 20:8-11 defines "yom" in the context of the Creation account -- 24 hours.

@veneroantonio905

4 ай бұрын

@@IndianaJoe0321 absolutely,12hr day 12hr night

I’m with you on this. I was taught the gap theory and have good Christian brothers who believe it. But I do not see it. Though I don’t believe issue to part fellowship over. I am intrigued by particle physics (Michio Kaku) maybe that would explain a lot.

Thank you. Something I ponder and wrestle with too. More questions than answers...prior to the creation of the sun and our solar day, how long were creation days? Were they still 24 hour days, as we mark them? If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord, then isn't that telling us that there is some kind of elasticity in time, and that God is not bound by it as we are? Time does not appear to be constant - we have just had the leap day insertion and the atomic clock needs adjusting with leap seconds - so why are we expecting constancy in creation time? I'm not a fan of Augustine, but his reflections on time and eternity are very thought-provoking...i.e., what is time anyway? God exists in eternity, while we can only mark the passing of time - future time does not yet exist and past time no longer exists. Is there a finite unit of time? Can it be captured? Augustine makes the argument that dividing centuries into future and past decades leads us to dividing decades into future and past years, which leads us to dividing years into future and past months, and so on. Augustine stops with the division of minutes into seconds - both future and past, but he could have gone further had he known of nanoseconds, picoseconds, zeptosecond, etc. His point still holds - what is that thing we call time? It eludes us because it can ever be divided. It exists for us only in its passing. God did not need time to create - we do. Time is part of God's creation. From our perspective, we have to keep 'logically' adding zeros to the age of the universe, as we realize the complexity requires more time not less. However, for God, is it not an irrelevancy whether the universe was made in 13.7 billion years, 60 billion years, 6 thousand years, 6 days, 6 minutes or 6 zeptoseconds? Could it be that Genesis 1 is communicating a sequential orderedness in God's creation? Is it communicating Divine Wisdom? Do we even have the capacity to understand anyway? If God condescended to share with us how he made a butterfly wing or an acorn, wouldn't we have our minds blown? How big would be the book that contained the description and explanation of God making a butterfly wing? If we could read it, would we actually be able to understand it or would it be too lofty and fly over our arrogant heads? Would we be rendered silent like Job? Are we missing the point of Genesis 1 - not that it is allegorical, but that it's rich truths and profound depths are just way beyond our fathoming? Anyone?

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 ай бұрын

In so far as an answer if before the sun was a day 24 hours. I think the best two answers to that is that a day's length was predetermined by God before he created the actual physical celestial bodies, so accounting for the length of time that would make up a 24 hour day is no issue. But also god created light before he created the sun. There was some immedeat source of light god was providing, be it from himself(as his face was over the waters) or something else idk. But light existed in some sort of fashion before the sun was made. And for a day to exist you dont technically need a sun per se. You just need light.

For me, part of the key is where you got in the end. You're right, there are minority, fringe voices in the hard sciences that hold to a young Earth position. Now think about this: do you want those in the hard sciences to listen to the minority, fringe voices in theology that are closest to what they already believe in the subjects where they are experts? Or when they put their hands up and say, "This isn't my subject, I'm just quoting the experts," do you want them to go to the highest credentialed academic textbook on theology and say, "I'm not sure how this works with what I know in my field, but when I'm working with things in their field this is where I go. Eventually I trust that it will all come together because what's true always comes out in the end." And I'm not asking if you agree with everything in the highest textbook. I've never met anyone that studies a field in depth that doesn't hold at least one minority view very strongly. I'm asking in those cases where you're going to disagree with their conclusion anyway, do you want them going with the highest credentialed authority and putting the minority voices out, or picking the voice that's closest to what they already believe. I have a number of minority opinions. Even so, I would rather someone that isn't in the field disagree with me by following the scholarly majority than following what's closest to what they believe. I'm primarily a Majority Text guy, but when people not in the know ask me why they should trust me over the scholarly consensus I say, "I think the consensus is changing. Progress in almost all fields of study is made one greenstone at a time. (I forget the source for that quote, but it was originally applied to physics.) That said, you're right: if you're not going to put the years into reading about it that I have, follow the consensus. That's the NA and UBS." Why do I say that? Because I know that if they're going to just pick someone to follow at random because it sounds nice, it is just as likely to be the one on Tic Tok that says that the New Testament is entirely unrecoverable so we should just read Frued instead. Since that's how I want people to treat the subjects that I study, that's how I treat the subjects that I don't study, like biology and geology. After all, some ancient wise guy said to treat others as I would like to be treated, and it makes a good Tic Tok, so meh, maybe I'll follow it.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

None of us can become experts in everything. So in the end we trust expert opinion on so many subjects. If the doctor says someone has disease “x”, well, they generally trust the doctor or get a second opinion. I’ll never be a scientist in even one of the relevant of the fields. And I realize that YEC scientists are considered on the fringes of science. So I think I may be left with exegetical YEC but I’m not prepared to be too dogmatic yet. I don’t think it should be an obstacle for someone coming to faith. I do think that when nature and the Bible are both understood rightly, there will be a harmony.

Brother, what are the green books between the Church Fathers?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

I bought those one volume at a time. They are same series with different covers.

Again, an interesting food for thought! I'll try my own reasoning. I will begin by noting that the verb "bara" = "to create" in Gen 1:1 is used - according to the classical interpretation - only of the activity of God (HALOT: is a specifically theological term, the subject of which is invariably God). But the LXX with its ποειω (to make, to work...) sees nothing extraordinary in "bara". Let me take advantage of this: in Josh 17:15 (18), representatives of two tribes come to Joshua and claim that their territory is too small for their number. Joshua replies (v.15) that they should go up into the mountains and cut down (LXX: clear) the trees to get more space for themselves. The verb for "cut down" (forest) has the consonants b-r-´. (cf. Ezek. 21:24 and 23:47 for b-r-´). Our understanding of Gen 1:1 seems to be overly burdened by the Masoretic text, which had/has a major role in shaping modern lexica or concordance (Lisowski). If I return to Gen 1:1 with this finding (from Joshua 17:15), then the opening of Genesis would sound more like God "transforming" the status quo from something to something else in the beginning*. Gen. 1:1 might then read, "In the beginning God was transforming the heavens and the earth because the earth was formless and desolate. And darkness was over the surface of the bottomless watery deep (abyssos)..." Genesis 1:1 would not be a commentary on the age of the planet Earth, nor on the time of its own creation. This opens the way to the fact that modern scientific knowledge of the probable age of the earth would not contradict what Genesis is working with. Interpreting Gen 1 and 2 as a transformation from something to something - this also fits the sense of the LXX. If in Gen 1:27 it is written that God created (b-r-´) man, that is, transformed him, then in Gen 2:7 I find confirmation of this sense: man is "formed" from the dust of the earth. The same action took place as in the transformation of water into wine. Jesus did not need thousands of years to turn a few dozen liters of water into wine. Considering that the Bible works with the fact that God is the Creator of the entire universe, the sun, the moon, the earth and everything here on the planet, then the creation of man does not even take 24 hours😊 God even promises that He is able to resurrect billions of people... But this reasoning still needs an explanation as to why a "human" time period is used there: a "day". There are admittedly solid arguments for a longer duration of the creation day than 24 hours, such as the well-known statement about a day lasting 1,000 years in God's understanding and 1,000 years lasting as one day. The apostle Paul works with an even longer time span when he asserts in Heb. 4:4 (7) that God's seventh day, still endures. If at the end of the 1st century the Jewish historian Josephus in Contra Apionem (I:1) writes of 5000 years of Jewish history, then for us, that 7th day would stretch even further. But is it possible to infer, retrospectively, from the "eschatological" statements about 1 day being 1000 years, or from Paul's soteriological argument, the actual length of the creation day? It is possible, but then one would expect - given the length of the 7th day - that the term day would not appear in the text of Gen 1 and 2, but perhaps age/era (olam). But if God, by creating in seven days, gave rise to the later observance of the Sabbath (cf. Gen. 2:1-4), then this rather suggests that "day" at creation can be understood literally. If I argue that the account of Gen 1 and 2 is written from the position of a human observer**, then it would be inconsistent to claim that the creation day, lasted longer than 24 hours. Back to Adam: Luke 3:23-38 works its way up the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. This means that any questioning of Adam, as a physical and historical being, is a direct attack on the historicity of Jesus. Conclusion: I understand Genesis 1 and 2 as God's action of first modifying the conditions for life (like the clearing of the forest in Josh 17:15) and then quickly creating life on earth. It is this time period that is described - the cosmogonic issues of the origin of the universe, stars or solar system is not the subject of Gen 1 and 2. * Genesis 1:1 would not describe a "creatio ex nihilo" but only one milestone in creation. For Christians, this reasoning is simpler in that (also in Trinitarian ideas), Jesus was "begotten" as the first work of God = in the beginning was the Logos. **which will also clarify, for example, the problematic notion of "raqia" in Gen 1:6 - it is not a fixed "firmanent", despite being understood as such by the LXX, Josephus, Philo, or medieval Jewish commentators (Ibn Ezra), so it has also become subject to a coherent, settled interpretation (see HALOT for raqia).

The question of "trust the science" forces the question "which science"? The sage advice of Tommy Lee Jones may be helpful: “1500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat ... Imagine what you'll know tomorrow" (Men in Black)

Hi Stephen. So there is a lineage where it says "son of" and it's not a direct descendant, but far removed. Maybe a grandson or great grand son. I don't know if I can find that. I want to say in Chronicles. + Matthew 1 - See 1:3: Ram was Hezron’s grandson. According to 1 Chronicles 2:25, Ram was the firstborn son of Hezron’s firstborn son, Jerahmeel (whom Matthew does not list.) Therefore the ESV study Bible notes say: It may be that Matthew is giving not direct ancestors but those who would have been legally in line for the throne of David. If one has doubts about Young Earth go to the Ark Encounter. And learn from the resources of Answers in Genesis (AiG). It won't happen in a day or a week. It will take some time to evaluate the facts. Most of us grew up in the public school system and we were taught Evolution. It has some logic behind it. But falls apart in light of Noah's flood and the rest of the Bible. For example, how and why are there sea shells in the mountain ranges, like the Himalayan mountain range? The gap theory etc. is evil since it exalts Evolution over Creation. People put their trust in man more than the Word of God. However, there is a huge theological problem if we say there was death & destruction were before Adam & Eve.

I think what people miss with endless gap theories and stretchings is even if we suppose it took 13 billion years (one would need to apply verse in 2 Peter about day and 1000 years 3 times! 😂 And still twice shorter time that needed). We have human fossils dated way older than 6000 years. So one would need to assume death before Fall, which is completely wrong. Or reject secular dating methods, which proved themselves unreliable many times, but at this point - if you don't accept secular dates why do you hang on to billions of years and do weird biblical acrobatics to defend that?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

It’s a solid point.

Hey stephen. I know im late to comment here, but if you need help trying to work through any of your scientifuc objections to YEC, i feel that i may be a good recorce for you. At least for some things. i settled on YEC as true for more or less the same reasons a long time ago. But also i found issue with conventional timelines, and explainations even apart from the bible.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks! Are you pretty knowledgeable in science then?

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews yes. Though I am still just a layman. That is to say I don't have any degree, or specific career in science. I don't want to mislead you into thinking I have some sort of formal expertise to rely on. That being said I don't want to see myself short either. I think I would best be of help to you in the respect of being able to give you an immediate answer, or at least dirrection to go in in regards to many of the specific scientific objections of YEC, be it some of the Main objections almost everyone knows, or more obscure but still very scientifically supported, or at least very scientifucally plausible answers. I would say my main strength would be that I an great at conceptualizing, and explaining various scientifuc concepts that for one reason, or another are not communicated very well to us layman's by the main scientific body without really dumbing it down. In parallel with that I am quite good at presenting the whole case for a given YEC vs secular scientifuc inquiry in a way that is as unbiased as possible (though everyone has a bias, I just try to mitigate mine when presenting a case as much as I can) With all that being said do you have anything that immedeatly comes to mind as a scientific objection that always kept you adverse to YEC? Also sorry for any grammatical errors I make. I tend to get sloppy with that on comment sections especially. I know it doesn't paint a good first impression of me, but it is a hard habit to break.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

@@anthonypolonkay2681 I have changed my position but I do have niggling doubts about tree rings, the pyramids, starlight, geology, etc etc. probably too much for a KZread comment section. I would like to bring a young earth creationist on who has a relevant advanced degree in science but I haven’t found anyone yet. I don’t disrespect self-educated laypeople. I’m one myself. But it would be interesting to bring someone on that has formal training.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews yeah. I understand that youed want someone with the proper official credentials. I wasn't trying to suggest that I could be any sort of go to source for the information. I was more offering a shorthand "hey I been down this road before, here's the things you need to look into for the questions you have" type of thing. Though I doubt I am any kind of unique in that aspect, I do feel I have the strength of explaination, and presentation if said things down better than most others who have gone down all the same rabbit holes. For instance the answer to the tree rings issue is in the isochrons they supposedly use to verify samples reliability. When you realize it's very common for any given sample to not plot where it is supposed to the whole dendochronology check for radioisotope dating methods falls away. Or the distant starlight issue is remedied by the fact that light is actually instant. Which I realize sounds like bullcrap out the gate. Especially hearing it from a nobody in a comment section since we constantly hear about, and have operational sciences that rely on the fixed speed of light. It's pretty much the ASC that Jason lisel presents as the solution. Just alot of people, even many YEC don't bite for it because honestly he explains it like crap. I have found far better secular explainations of an ASC then I have ever seen Lisel present it. Because of how purely he presents it many people assume an instant one way speed of light is meaning some manner of Cartesian coodenate vector of light is instant, and the opposite isn't. Or that emmited light is instant, but bounced light is not. When none of that is the case. Without blowing up this comment to much more it's because of the desyncronozation effects of any two refrence frames in general relativity. Any two given refrence frames seperated by any distance, or motion (so pretty much all of them) will percieve the opposing refrence frame as in the past. I can explain more of u want but I'll let you ask if that's the case. Because I think the solution to the light travel time issue is just one of the coolest.

Let the Bible interpret itself. Exodus 20:11 gives the definition of "yom" for the Creation account -- 24 hours.

I too have wrestled with this passage. How do we harmonise the double creation account of Genesis 1 & 2? How can we harmonise the many differences between the man and woman of creation week, and the man and woman of the garden? Were man and woman created separately or together? Was the man created before or after the animals? Was man to work the fields, or to enjoy the garden? I see 1 & 2 as parallel accounts with differences that need to be considered. Is it a creation or a recreation? I find that G1:2 - 2:4 reads very well as the re-establishment of life and order after a destruction of the world. This is like Immanuel Velikovsky's model of ages and catastrophes. An aeon is destroyed and a new aeon begins, a new world with a new sun. The sky was fallen, and the earth was waste and barren, and a hurricane from God blew over the face of the flooded earth. Such events are also found in the histories of other cultures around the world. Velikovsky compiled accounts of destruction, with these features in his Worlds in Collision, ch 3 Hurricane. The man of Eden was made from the earth. When we die our bodies become part of the earth. This hints at a back story for the creation of man. What is the date, authorship and nature of the creation account? If I understood you correctly you say that God is the author of the book of Genesis, and Moses wrote it down? However it makes more sense that the prehistory of Genesis 1-11, was written later by an inspired man. It reads better as a representation of what we need to know about God, humanity and prehistory, rather than a strict historical record. I can find no references to the garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Enoch, or Noah before the times of Amos, Isaiah, Joel, Ezekiel, and the retelling of the history in Chronicles. On the other hand Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are referenced over 230 times after their lifetimes, in the subsequent old testament history. There are a couple of references to Adam specifically in the KJV, but if you look carefully at those two passages, they are nothing to do with Eden. So it looks like the early Israelites did not think of their ancient history in the form that we have it now. Rather, scripture has accrued over time, and has been heroically preserved by the faithful.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your take.

@IndianaJoe0321

4 ай бұрын

We shouldn't complicate things. Chapter 1 of Genesis is the macro view, and Chapter 2 is the closer, more detailed look at Day 6.

@kevincarrieson5857

4 ай бұрын

@@IndianaJoe0321 It seems complicated to match your proposal to the text. But I agree that chapter 2 is a closer look, similar but different. I'm interested in how you arrived at that reading. Is it based on the position of the chapter break and the toledot? Is it based on the parallels in the chronologies? Is it based on the word adam?

God needs no evolution. Life was a miracle. He created Adam as a mature man, so he created earth as a mature creation. As you said, the intention of the author of Genesis, Moses, is clear that he expects the reader to read 6 literal days. Also, check out the Septuagint timeline. The Hebrew text has errors in the numbers of the years simply because it is easy to make mistakes with numbers notation in Hebrew, there is no context to fix those numbers once the error is perpetuated. However, it is not the case of Greek. The Septuagint years numbers are more accurate in most cases, giving the earth roughly another 1000 years.

All ancient people viewed the earth as immovable including the Hebrews. So, young earth creationists need to recognize that ancient cosmological ideas influenced even biblical writers. So how literal are you willing to interpret creation passages? Nor can geocentric passages be shrugged off as purely phenomenological. There are many such passages, and the only time the Bible mentions that the earth moves is when God shakes it during an earthquake. Scripture agrees God holds it in place firmly, except when He shakes it. There is no talk of the earth turning, spinning or revolving round the sun, but there is plenty of talk about sun, moon and stars being made after the earth, placed above the earth just to light it and for signs and seasons on earth, and talk of the sun and stars moving daily, and constellations moving seasonally (as well as being moved BY the power of God) in the sky above the earth, as well as talk of the sun having to hurry back to its place each day so it can rise again. Psalm 93:1: “The world also is established [or fixed] that it cannot be moved” (something Luther & Calvin emphasized). Psalm 96:10: “The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.” 1 Chronicles 16:30: “The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” Psalm 104:5 states “[God] laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Job’s earth that is “hung” by God is never said to move, spin, nor be shaped like a sphere. And an ancient Mesopotamian writing claims in similar fashion to Job that the earth was “suspended,” held by their high god’s power. Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises” (NIV). Do we say with the Bible that “the sun will hurry back again to its place tomorrow?” Or do we say, “as the world turns?”) Compare Psalm 19:4-6, “In [the heavens] He [God] has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them.” Such a depiction is reminiscent of ancient Mesopotamian beliefs. In The Shamash Hymn, the Sun-god is said to “continuously cross the heavens, daily... pass over the vast earth,” and in a different text the sun is described as moving, “as far as the edge of heaven, as far as the edge of earth, from the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset.” Job 9:7, notes, “He [God] can command the sun not to rise.” That God would direct his command at the sun rather than the earth implies a belief in a stationary earth. Likewise, Joshua directed his commands at both the sun and moon, even commanding the sun to stand still “over Gibeon,” and the moon “over the valley of Aijalon” (Joshua 10:12) (also search for this excellent article, “The Day the Sun Stood Still: Interpreting the Miracle of Joshua 10”) Further passages that fit hand in glove with immovable earth passages include Judges 5:20 that says stars “course” through the sky each night. Another passage says God “brings them [the stars] out one by one” and “because of His great power not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26). Compare Enuma Elish VII:130, that states, “He [Marduk] shall maintain the motions of the stars of heaven.” In addition, Job 38:31-33 (NASB) states that constellations are “led forth” by God, like when God asks Job rhetorically, “Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?” But anyone with knowledge of astronomy knows the reverse is true of what is explicitly stated in the Bible. The sun does not “hurry back to where it rises;” the earth spins. Likewise, commanding “the sun” not to move makes as little sense as someone in a moving car commanding the scenery not to move. The stars do not have “courses;” they only appear to move in a large circle round the pole star each night due to the earth’s rotation. God does not “bring the stars out one by one by His great power;” there is no “great power” involved, it is the diminishing intensity of the sun’s rays reflecting off the atmosphere that “brings out the stars.” (Though to St. Philastrius in the fourth century CE the words of Scripture were irrefutable divine teachings, including those about God bringing out the stars from his treasure-house and hanging them in the sky every evening, to deny which was heresy and “false to the Catholic faith.”) Nor do “none of the stars go missing” when God “by His great power brings them out” because sometimes stars do “go missing,” they explode into dust. Nor does God “lead forth,” and “guide” constellations; they only appear to move (and dip high, low, or vanish for months beneath the horizon) due to the earth’s rotation, axial tilt and its revolution around the Sun. Some Christians and conservative Jews continue to defend geocentrism, asking their brethren, “Does the Bible depict God ‘commanding,’ ‘leading forth,’ and ‘stopping’ things that don’t really move?” They add that “God’s might is evidenced in His ability to maintain the immobility of, and also shake, the earth at will (Job 9:6; 2 Samuel 22:8; Joel 2:10; Isaiah 13:13; Revelation 6:12-13), and in His ability to lead forth and guide constellations, and direct His command at the sun to make it stop moving. Such actions are either demonstrations of God’s might, or, mighty deceptive language for God to have inspired.” Therefore, they say, “If you take the Bible at its word you ought to be a geocentrist!” Ironically, the same point is made by creationists, “If you take the Bible at its word you ought to be a creationist!” The O.T. depicts an underworld while above the earth lay relatively small objects “made and set” there after the earth itself was made just to light the earth and for signs and “seasons” on earth (the Hebrew word for “seasons,” appears again in the Pentateuch where it refers to “times” of worship or religious celebration, exactly the same reason the sun, moon and stars are created and placed in the sky according to the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish), while above those lay the heaven of the most high god with his angels (Google this, “The Holy Heavens of the Hebrews,” and also, “The Structure of Heaven and Earth: How Ancient Cosmology Shaped Everyone’s Theology”). So the Bible confirms the NON-phenomenological meaning of many geocentric passages via explicit context. Claiming one knows for sure what God “intended” or what the Bible “really teaches” is a game played by everyone from conservatives to liberals. All we can say for sure is that when it comes to immovable earth passages, their plain non-phenomenological meaning was shoved into the back closet after modern astronomy moved into the apartment-after scientific observations and questions about the natural world took on lives of their own, separate from the ancient answer book known as “The Bible.” (Google this, “The Cultural Divide Between the Ancient Near East and the Wealth of Modern Knowledge/Information -- Where Do We Get Our Answers From Today? What Expands Our Minds the Most Today?”)

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

I think this is a legitimate discussion point. We know that the earth rotates but in what sense is it immovable? Can scientific discoveries influence our hermeneutics? I actually get a lot of flat earth responses believe it or not. I would like to explore this question in a video one day. Thanks for taking the time to interact.

@edwardtbabinski

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I was simply pointing out that the Bible is filled with ancient cosmological ideas. I am agnostic but love a good NDE, and deny biblical inerrancy or even clams of its inspiration.

Sorry but even just a very natural reading of Genesis 1&2 would never get one to an old earth, it is clearly imported by external influences

lol just ignore virtually the entire body of demonstrable evidence from many, many different scientific fields Yes, science may be limited but it’s by far our best tool for investigating natural reality and that doesn’t somehow make religious texts superior. The Bible was written in a pre scientific age. Genesis is adapted from earlier Canaanite beliefs/stories. It was never intended as historically accurate specific - that would be absurd

To start with: the earth is not a sphere hurtling through space, so you need to go back yo the drawing board with scripture

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

There has been a resurgence of people who believe in a flat earth. That seems crazy to me. But why do you think that? I’m not saying you are crazy, to be clear

@FraudulentEarth68

4 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews here's why: kzread.info/dash/bejne/omidlZqtfsy_qdo.html Just use your own God-given eyes. Go to the coast or a large lake and you will see that water DOES NOT BEND, it always finds its level. The horizon is said to be less than 3 miles away when you look out at seas, yet I can see distant towns and their promenades that are 20 miles distant. Our Heavenly father tells us that the earth is FIXED and IMMOVABLE and that it is HIS FOOTSTOOL. I'm going to believe him rather than the forked tongue NASA and their lies. NASA: an anagram of Satan if you add the "T" minus which they use for countdowns or "T" minus for the PLANE(t), the flat world inside the firmament. Also, the sun and moon was not created until the 4th day so if you believe in the heliocentric model then what was the ball earth orbiting around for the first 3 days? WE'VE BEEN FOOLED BY SATAN AND HIS LITTLE SEASON - he has certainly gone forth to deceive the NATIONS.

@FraudulentEarth68

4 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews kzread.info/dash/bejne/omidlZqtfsy_qdo.html&pp=ygUkTXQgU2FuIEphY2ludG8gU2hvY2tpbmcgVHJ1dGggUGFydCAx

@FraudulentEarth68

4 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews TJ Nolan Media 1 - there you will find your answers. God's world is FLAT 100%

@FraudulentEarth68

4 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It clearly tells us in the Bible, so why does it sound crazy. You'd rather trust the forked tongue NASA rather then our Heavenly Father? FIXED and IMMOVABLE does not mean hurtling through space at the speed of light. Listen to or read Job 38

good points but how else can we explain dinasaurs bones and the age of the earth, IE: oil and coal deposits millions of years old it , even ancient megalithic structures built with technology that today we dont understand they obviously predate known ancient civilizations and history as we know it these don't align with traditional bible chronology but a gap theory would allow an explanation for these issues

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 ай бұрын

If I become a young earth creationist, I will become one because of scripture in spite of mainstream science. I am not as confident that young earth creationist scientists have all the answers. But they have at least attempted to explain all of these things. See this article for example, answersresearchjournal.org/origin-of-oil-creationist-answer/

@munen-muso

4 ай бұрын

If you take geology, you will see that EVERYTHING beneath us was formed by water. This includes every fossil ever made. Things sort by density and size, and separate into laters when submerged in water, eg, a smoothy left out for a few minutes. Consider, why would virtually every culture have the same "mythical creatures" of dragons and giants? Maybe because they called dinosaurs dragons and giants existed, hence, the pyramids etc.. BTW crocodiles are LITERALLY dinosaurs. Look up their "ancestors" and you will see that the only difference is size. Finally, evolution is impossible. Every symbiotic relationship disproves it. For example, you cant have bees without flowers, and you cant have flowers without bees, but you cant have life on earth without either.... think about it. I mean moths and butterflies single handedly make an absolute joke of evolution. Bonus: entropy not only disproves evolution, but it simultaneously proves special creation.

@Sirder

4 ай бұрын

Not long ago the found dinosaurs bones with soft tissue in it, remember blue whales are bigger than dinosaurs and still with us because the flood didn’t effect much of the sea creatures.

@johnjoyce1073

3 ай бұрын

Did bones take millions of years to fossilized or weeks months and years according to the availability of minerals?

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 ай бұрын

There's answers that rebutt all those issues even excluding the Bible entirely. The deep time evolutionary timescale of our world fails on its own merits without any intersection with scripture.

FIRSTLY.. The Earth is NOT a Spinning Globe According to the Bible... Over 100 Scriptures...

@johnjoyce1073

3 ай бұрын

Annnnd

@choicegospelnetwork

3 ай бұрын

@@johnjoyce1073 It validate Scriptures. Truth is important.

@johnjoyce1073

3 ай бұрын

@@choicegospelnetwork Is it flat?

@choicegospelnetwork

3 ай бұрын

@@johnjoyce1073 Based on the Bible and our own experiences. It's Not Spinning 1000 miles per hour. Do you own independent research and you will see that Nasa and the us 🇺🇸 Government says it flat because that's how Airlines are designed to fly .

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

3 ай бұрын

Yes sir, the globe theory was made popular by the CATHOLIC CHURCH, through Nicolas Copernicus. It is a Catholic and Masonic lie.

There were humans here before Adam and Eve. Cain spoke in fear of "the others" after murdering Abel. Cain created the first city with these "others" in the land of Nod after he took one for his wife. Impossible that they were ALL descendants of Adam and Eve. This is well established Biblically. Were/are all humans "of Adamic man" and "living" is the question. It is VERY possible that the Bible is more "racist" than we've been taught.

@kevincarrieson5857

4 ай бұрын

It's very possible that the Genesis creation account is more "inclusive" than we've been taught. That the creation week describes the whole world and all its peoples, and the garden account focusses in on the the world of the Bible, (called the levant in geography).

lol just ignore virtually the entire body of demonstrable evidence from many, many different scientific fields Yes, science may be limited but it’s by far our best tool for investigating natural reality and that doesn’t somehow make religious texts superior. The Bible was written in a pre scientific age. Genesis is adapted from earlier Canaanite beliefs/stories. It was never intended as historically accurate specific - that would be absurd