Thank you pastor. Amazing

Very good. Jesus was called the Light of the World. He was there at the foundations of the world. The first of God's creation, the Light that drove away darkness.

I was blessed by your teaching your congression is blessed to have you as their pastor!

When I was studying my Bible I discovered that God created light on the first day. This light seems to different from the sun that was created on day 4. Am still continuing to study the text and use this to bring the light of the gospel to the people.

Very "illuminating" (See what I did there?) Seriously, very good, I wish we could have more preaching like this in our churches. Thank you for not being dogmatic about the age of the universe/world

Don't know if you still check comments; but, I appreciate this series.

Wow, this was breath taking.

That answers my question, what's with the light ... thank you so much

@lmathews5608

3 жыл бұрын

@@autumn5852 oh dear, I'd really have to watch the while sermon again to remember why I wrote that. I'm sorry if I did something offensive

I see chapter 1 of the book of Genesis as beautiful scientific poetry. It is scientific and poetic. How would you tell man, without the capability of understanding what a singularity is or the knowledge of the quantum world, how the universe came into being and how man was made? You would have to explain in a way they would understand. What’s more, imagine if man was shown a vision of the creation of the universe. How would they explain these things? Why do just assume the words themselves are not poetic symbols of something more complex? I for one can identify literal scientific terminology from the creation story that aligns with man’s understanding of the universe from a scientific perspective. God did create all of this and our reality.

Hello brothers and sisters Sorry to bring up this question but got confuse ! If earth already existed what did god create? Génesis 1 clearly express that in the begging god created the heaven and the earth !!! Did I miss something here !

Amazes me how many HOURS of discussion there is on the first 3 verses. anyone agree on anything ?? Smh

The source of light was not physical, it was spiritual indeed. The Gospel of John speaks about this Light. The Epistles also talks about this Light. This Light represented God’s nature which is holiness and Life. This light gave life unto unsaved men and women who were in spiritual darkness. The scriptures say we were dead in trespasses and sins. But God has shined in our hearts and brought us life. So too the earth was dead because of trespasses and sins. It was full of chaos, frozen in water and surrounded by darkness with no life. Then God shined His light on the earth to begin the process of restoring a structured order and to give it life. This is why the Gap doctrine is a sound doctrine.

@b.goodfellow465

3 жыл бұрын

Asa Lee I have been reading the comments, while at the same time listening to the pastor, boy was I getting confused. So, I was really glad to read your comment, which seems to be the clearest one written! Thank you! 🙏🙏🙏

@stevetaylor4577

2 жыл бұрын

Proverbs 8:22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old; 23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. 24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”

I have a question.. how can creation not be connected days if God created plants on day three but not Sun until day 4? Do not plants need sun to thrive and grow and stay alive?

@NewBeginningsChurchLynnwood

2 жыл бұрын

That would be a very naturalistic understanding. And it's certainly possible, but the event being described, we must remember, was entirely supernatural. Is God capable of sustaining plants without sunshine by Himself? Of course He is. So you certainly have a good and valid point, but the supernatural nature of creation may keep us from knowing absolutely.

Matthew Chapter 18 1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh! 8 Wherefore it thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them. 21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven. 23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshiped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27 Then the Lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. 28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him a hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. 29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was worth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my Heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Many Christians, such as yourself, Pastor Toby, overlook the fact that the text in Revelation 21:23-25 and 22:5 is talking about a geographically local city, not the entire material 'New Creation'. A disinterested contextual inspection will show that what these verses mean by 'no night' is the absence of poor lighting conditions anywhere in the New Jerusalem, a condition that plagued ancient cities and even many parts of the most modern, most well-lit cities. Many Christians, for interpreting certain parts of Genesis 1 in an unnaturally 'plain' way, go so far as to presume that the Sun does not exist in the 'New Creation'. Yet the text of Revelation 21-22 gives no hint that the stars no longer exist. And, unlike, say, Psalm 19:6, these final two chapters in Revelation make no mention of the need for heat in relation to the supposed material absence of the Sun. And the only implication of a geographic issue is that limited to the New Jerusalem; nothing in the text can be seen so 'plainly' to imply the entire geophysical world in relation to the 'no more night' condition. So the only God-given natural way to read these chapters, in their actual terms given, is that in which there is seen to be merely a Divine crescendo condition in terms of the Sun and Moon's usefulness for the Divine city in terms of lighting. There is not any normal way to read these chapters as implying the material absence of Sun and Moon. There simply is no Biblically normative way to support the idea that the actual terrestrial oceans do not exist in the New Creation. The only 'Biblical' way to support that idea is by way of what may be called the Less-or-More Clueless Hermeneutic: “whatever any bit of the Bible can seem to say out of either all context or all appropriate context, that's what that bit means.” Such a hermeneutic is difficult to combat when the person who accepts it is, in certain ways, too dull of mind: too restricted in his knowledge to the mere words of truths, and to whatever to which he already is bent as to how to interpret those words. But, in fact, given the sheer abruptness with which Revelation mentions, and then leaves alone, this 'no more sea', that abruptness alone is plenty indication of its normative meaning: a **special** meaning: As with the term 'night' being about poor lighting conditions, the same kind of issue can readily be seen for the term 'no more sea' in Revelation 21:1. It has to do with what is the 'former' and 'New' sets of Earth-and-sky. First, there is no normative way to say that the 'former' set constitutes the continuity set that existed from Genesis 1:31 to the 'New' set. Rather, the 'former' set is the ruined set. Second, and more to the point, the natural world prior to the Flood almost certainly lacked any particularly adverse conditions of water, such as rocky coastlines that involve violent waves, and river rapids so swift and bolder-strewn as to be a great hazard to any human that goes into it. That pre-Flood world also likely was a world in which all land masses were connected, so that the planet best served human beings. And it is doubtful, indeed, that the present state of the natural world better serve ocean creatures than did the state of the natural world before the Flood. And all this would explain why the peoples of the Ancient Near East have the view of the sea that they have: chaos. So the 'sea' in Revelation 21:1 is by no means necessarily that of the global bodies of water, but far more likely is merely the condition of that water in terms of its adverse actions upon life. Even whales have to avoid getting right up to the more violent coastlines, where even with their great size they would suffer extreme injury, even death, from being bashed against the rocks. Even for tiny krill, those smashing waves are dangerous. In the end, the question is why the actual absence a global abundance of surface water, presumably along with ocean creatures, would make Earth objectively more beautiful, and more ecologically balanced, than the planet originally was? To presume that Revelation 21:1 means the absence of any material sea, as such, is to seem to have allow for the utterly abnormal: that God's New Creation is going to involve a radically different way in which the physics of things balance out to support life. Of course, we could opt for maintaining that the New Creation involves all present normative functions and creatures except global oceans as such. But if we go with that conceivable combination, then on what normative basis, if any, do we insist that Revelation 21:1 means the absence of global ocean as such? The startle factor, combined with a rigidly mindless loyalism to the Bible's authoritativeness, may persuade some Christians to think that it really is the actual oceans, as such, that are absent in the New Creation. But I see no precedent for that interpretation. Besides, the material absence of oceans, as such, would render God's originally having created the Earth's life-support cycle either as a kind of Divine mistake or as a deliberately inferior system. The latter could be supported on the view that humans were deliberately designed to be able to die if they sinned: Adam and Eve had merely provisional immortality, not the fully Divine kind according to which the angels were created. But does that provisional immortality justify thinking that God created the hydro-balance power of water as a deliberately inferior substance? Granted, God never repeats Himself in vain. Rather, He makes greater the second time something that He had done the first time that then had been undone. But the New Creation already shall be a greater thing than was the original, and this by the continual presence of God's own Personal glory, and of a Divine City that was not spelled out in the original 'very good' state of Creation. Humanity was given full opportunity to bear God's image. They failed the one most explicit, and most simply maintained, part of that image. So it is possible that the New Creation merely completes what God foreknew would become necessary. Of course, that includes that God's saints shall have glorified bodies. But that does not mean that actual water will be done away with. And if water is not done away with, then neither would ocean, as such, be absent. It simply would not be the ocean as it is known to us in the post-Flood geology.

What bible’ is he using?

@NewBeginningsChurchLynnwood

2 жыл бұрын

We preach from the NASB95.

How do we know what God said, nobody was around.

@NewBeginningsChurchLynnwood

2 жыл бұрын

Do you think it's possible that God told Moses what He said?

If light exists because God is the light, then why did He day let there be?

@NewBeginningsChurchLynnwood

2 жыл бұрын

God is spiritual light. What was created was physical light.

@stevetaylor4577

2 жыл бұрын

Proverbs 8:22 “The LORD brought me forth as the FIRST of his WORKS, BEFORE his deeds of old; 23 I was FORMED long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. 24 When there were no watery depths, I WAS GIVEN BIRTH, when there were no springs overflowing with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I WAS GIVEN BIRTH, 26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.” Wisdom was formed, given birth. It was created. First. As Proverbs 8:22 declares. Wisdom is life, as it also declares, and this LIFE is Light. We belong to the Light, “live as children of the Light”, “we belong to the “Day”.”

@zitpopper9296

2 жыл бұрын

Because he was creating divine light to cleanse the earth of corrupt angels that followed satan to make the earth formless and void, Darkness is not in reference to dark, but to satan, the prince of darkness, the fallen angel, Gods first son. Separating light and dark, is in reference to God separating satan from the archangel Michael, because satan created the serpent to battle Michael, who lost to Satan and consequently made the earth a formless mess through destruction.

Amen: '2=2= 4' is not (not) a polemic. Yes, in may be **used** polemically. But it is not a polemic contrivance. But much I think you get wrong in this discussion. First, about 'was'/'become' in v. 2: The word 'was' in the phrase 'was formless and void' is the Hebrew word ha-ye-tah (hay-y-tayh). Only when most loosely translated does it mean something approximating our English 'possess', 'become', 'was', etc. That's where a particular segment of persons stop in seeking to determine, from readily available sources, for the exact Hebrew meaning of that word. And most persons in that segment instead fixate on 'become', and this only in the most narrowly self-serving way: they draw a hard conclusion right then, and this in favor of some proposed glorious age of the Earth between v. 2 and v. 1. In still other words, such persons see this 'become' in terms of an equally utterly ignorant interpretation of 'formless and void'. Even John Walton, who thinks that the account is mere metaphor, recognizes that the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians understood 'formless and void' as something along the lines of formative for life-support functions. The Bible has a total of 111 instances of that same form of that Hebrew word. In all 110 instances after that in Genesis 1:2, each of those instance clearly, in its immediate context, means something along the lines of the active taking/having possession of something formative, usually constructive. (biblehub.com/hebrew/hayetah_1961.htm) So, from merely the meaning of the word, there is no precedent for thinking that the word 'was' in v. 2 is merely a result of some former action. Rather, the sole word-meaning precedent would indicate that that word is about the particular nature of the substance of the 'formless and void': formative water. This seems to be how Peter, in 2nd Peter 3:5-6, knew what he was talking about. Peter seems to have been referring to the exact Hebrew word that, in Genesis 1:2, is commonly translated 'was'. Virtually all English translations render it as 'was'. The question is why. The answer is that that Hebrew word refers to an active possession of something, not a passive state of some former act. For example, 'I am me.' That 'am' is possessive. And that 'me' is analogous to water. If I said, 'this paper is useless', then that 'is' is fairly neutral. But if I say, 'This fire is hot', that 'is' is possessive and formative. The same is readily understood when 'formless and void' is a powerful formative substance. That is what v. 2 says. So it seems that v. 2 does not say two different things: one about a state of destruction, and another about water. Rather, v. 2 seems ENTIRELY about one PRESENT thing: water.

No true. On the second day whenThe Lord separated the waters from the waters, The scriptures does not say “It was good”. And there was a reason why.

THIS SHOULD BE ONLY GENESIS 1:1. NOT WHAT IS 1:3-5. I WAS LOOKING FOR 1:3-5. WE ALREADY HAVE 1:1-2 .

@NewBeginningsChurchLynnwood

5 жыл бұрын

Hi James, I'm confused by this comment. This specific video does go into Genesis 1:3-5 - the reading of the passage is around the 11:25 mark, with the exegesis after this.

As for your good sense about a litmus test regarding the age of the Earth. You rightly note that it is nonsense for there be a litmus test there. That is, you note the principle of 'valid hermeneutics'. Therefore, let me add one such that no one today seems have seen. Consider the term 'darkness upon' in v. 2. Then please carefully consider all these verses for that same essential term: Luke 23:44, Exodus 14:20, Deuteronomy 4:11, Joshua 24:7, 2Samuel 22:12, Job 3:5, Job 17:12, Job 22:11, Job 38:9, Psalm 18:11. Then, when you have done that, consider why it is that the account bothers to mention an exact location of the 'spirit' of God. I personally **disagree** with Hugh Ross on a lot of things. Nevertheless, this is one thing that I think Ross gets mostly right: an **implied** dense cloud cover, and its final normalized dissipation on Day Four.

Of course the first week of creation were 7 days made up of 24 hours each. Why leave the door open for evolution and it's millions of years of time if creation week was not days of 24 hours each??? Yashua the Creator set the template of 24 hour days before HE instituted the sun, moon and stars to do the same. After all, the luminaries were created to measure time for man, made up of 24 hour days, with day and night separated, just like time is measured today. It's as simple as that. No philosophy required!!!

Firstly, Jesus never proclaimed he nor his Father created in 6 days.Mistakes in Genesis 1.As we all know, evening is the setting of the Sun in the West and Morning is the rising of the SUN from the East.... So, how can there be evening & morning in the first, 2nd & 3rd Day in Genesis when the SUN is ONLY created on the 4 Day...???..... Fraud in Genesis... Genesis 1:16 So God made the two large lights. He made the brighter light to rule the day and made the smaller light to rule the night. There is ONLY ONE large light in our solar system, i.e. the Sun because the Moon is NOT a light... The Moon does NOT give off light itself; the Moon reflects light from the Sun..... Genesis is false..... Science : Energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed..... Genesis 1... On which day did God create Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Saturn, etc...?...... Genesis was written by ancient people who had no knowledge of the solar system and the universe. Genesis is outdated and false..... In Genesis, God created Earth first (on 1st day) then the Sun later (ie on 4th day). In scientific discoveries, it is the opposite .... where the Sun was created first then the planets.

@netelsg

5 жыл бұрын

If God is the light that created day and night on 1st 2nd & 3rd day, does this God's light still exist today...? If so, where is this God's light now...? Science refute Genesis 1 on God created the world in 6 days.

@krisc5508

5 жыл бұрын

Yes God made the sun and he also made the moon that is a astronomical object to reflect the sun which creates light the lessor light at night .

@netelsg

5 жыл бұрын

Jupiter has at least 67 known moons. Uranus has 27。Saturn has 62 moons, so how many large lights are there in the solar system or the universe...?