DEBATE: Is Evolution Compatible with Genesis? Michael Jones vs. Dr. Marcus Ross

[@ingersoll_bob]

00:00:00 Introductions 00:04:31 Michael Jones Opening 00:23:58 Marcus Ross Opening 00:45:24 Michael Cross Examination 00:56:06 Marcus Cross Examination 01:06:40 Moderated Dialogue 01:27:44 Audience Q&A 01:55:25 Conclusion

[@milk-man7964]

🐐

[@isaiahben-yahweh3245]

Give this man a cape

[@OopstheTurkey]

Thank you so much

[@TheLionFarm]

@Soldier yet we have Genesis so

[@kurtwinslow2670]

@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD Yet before humanity sinned, there was another rebellion.

[@isabellatambwe9525]

I kind of hate how Dr Ross seems to be sarcastic and talking down to Michael Jones. There's a slight level of disrespect, I don't appreciate. I appreciate that Michael kept his composure

[@StandingForTruthMinistries]

Hard to not be sarcastic when your opponent (IP in this case) literally has the worst possible arguments. Hard to take IP's theistic evolutionism seriously. Dr. Ross gave IP a free education and IP should be thanking Marcus for that

[@isabellatambwe9525]

@@StandingForTruthMinistries I rather like what IP had to say and considering both with respect is best

[@icypirate11]

Three weeks ago I would have strongly sided with Ross. Now I'm totally on Jones' side. I've learned so much about ancient Near Eastern mythology in the last three weeks. I'm now completely convinced Genesis 1-11 is Jewish myth and a polemic against the other Mesopotamian religions.

[@isabellatambwe9525]

@@icypirate11 myth is a long stretch i would say an allegory

[@pauljohn1979]

@@icypirate11 The Devil has got you big time.

[@GoTeleOnTheMountain]

I’m just here to note with everyone else that whichever guy represented my pre-existing views really owned the other guy whom I happened to disagree with already. 🙂

[@jmorra]

Yeah!!! He DESTROYED HIM!! He agrees with MEEEEE!!

[@jacknickelson8096]

Nah, I became a theistic evolutionist *after* I heard Ross say "Well that's your view but it's not the scriptural view so we need to work on that." When that's the whole topic of the debate. So him revealing himself to be a supreme douche harmed his cause given that Jones is very disagreeable, but remained pleasant through the debate.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

​@@jacknickelson8096I wouldn't become a Christian because its beneficial. Id most likely get murdered if I'm the type of Christianity to speak loudly and don't care what anyone says if it's only me murdered but then again eternal life and One relationship with God who's beyond the foundation of mere existence as we conceive of it. But I certainly wouldnt lean to theism because some guy failed to provide emotional support it's disruptive to hear any atheist curse and slander their Christian opponent. Atheism is wrong on almost everything that it doesn't already steal from God.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

​@@NSOcarththat's what I was thinking. My views weren't pre existing. But if his foundation of his strength faith is firmly steady then I guess it's good.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

​@@jmorrayeah we're probably both wrong mabey God made the universe trillions of years old bruh. Trillionaire earther vs billionaire earther vs thousand year earther fun dun dun! Realistically It's up To God to tell us ultimately we shouldn't fight over this silly stuff. It's not nonsense. But IT IS nonsense to fight for it.

[@sidtom2741]

I WAS HERE!!!!! Edit: First time coming to a CCv conference, and it was a blast. Thank you so much, Cameron

[@yekkub9425]

What does CCv stand for?

[@daMillenialTrucker]

​@@yekkub9425 Can't stop Christ violinists. They make amazing music

[@albertomartinez714]

@@yekkub9425 Closed-Circuit Vision. It's a surveillance company.

[@Third_Camp_fellowship]

This debate was very educative and intellectual. I haven't done enough research on the subject so this is a good reference. Good job to both Mike and Dr. Ross for working and bringing their findings to us, and Cameron for hosting; loved the way you moderated

[@Apostola33]

So glad I was there to attend! Very good debate, and well moderated. I enjoyed the honesty and intellectuality of the speakers, particularly Inspiring Philosophy! Edit: As fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, can we please be thoughtful and kind in the reply section? Our differences in our interpretation of Genesis shouldn't distract us from our mutual belief in Jesus.

[@sidtom2741]

I think both came short in some ways. Dr Ross seemed to be attacking Mike’s worldview rather than critiquing the translations by scholars. But Mike wasn’t as concise or firm with his arguments, and I think that’s why many say “Ross won.”

[@Apostola33]

@@sidtom2741 I did notice that (on IPs part I mean, specifically in his opening statements). While I disagree with Mr Ross's YEC view, I would partly agree that he won the debate. But, you can win the battle and lose the war. Cheers! :)

[@StandingForTruthMinistries]

Agreed. Dr. Ross definitely won. IP must be exhausted after nearly 2 hours of twisting and turning the scriptures on its head.

[@sidtom2741]

@@StandingForTruthMinistries that wasn’t even what he said, and you’re acting like such a child

[@Apostola33]

@@StandingForTruthMinistries Thats not exactly the most respectful way you couldve put that. Even as a YEC you should atleast give credit where it is due and praise IP, not just start saying he twists and turns scripture to fit his ideas that are contrary to yours.

[@BUCK3Y34991]

I think what frustrates me about this debate primarily come from Dr. Ross. First, he often “jabs” and belittles Michael Jones’ views with side comments(though this is my smallest issue). Second, he tries to pin Michael to a specific interpretation of the text. Michael’s position in the debate to say Evolution is compatible with the text, not “this is my view if the text.” Michael merely has to argue that one can interpret Scripture faithfully and believe in evolution, that case is made. Third, there are times where Dr. Ross dismisses points the Michael makes essentially because Dr. Ross presumes he’s right. His engagement on more than one occasion amounts to “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” What’s the point of a debate/discussion if you’re unwilling to actually interact with the other view. Michael in the other hand, really seems to be engaging with Dr. Ross’ view and wrestles with it.

[@PanzerFox]

That summed it up nicely, Dr. Ross was really unprofessional and childish here.

[@thebestSteven]

The... “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” is a common type of fallacy but I forget the name for it.

[@WebCitizen]

@@thebestSteven Protestantism? 🤣

[@kveldulfpride]

@Soldier didn’t sin enter the world through one man?

[@alvarobetico1476]

@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD My understanding is that sin = disobeying God. Just because God forbids something doesn't mean that something didn't happen before. There is no record in the scriptures that murdering was a sin before Cain and Abels time, however, when Cain murder his brother, he committed sin.

[@SaintsEdified]

The opening statements were great. Loved the mutual respect. The cross-examination, Dr. Ross started to use debate tactics and appeal to snarky remarks, which in my opinion is a sign of desperation and frustration - that was a bit disappointing. Apart from that, this was an excellent debate. I'm no where near a theistic evolution interpretation, but I do hold to a Framework position. (It was neat to see Jones use it a bit to touch on the priesthood of Adam and temple theology.) Overall, I agree more with Ross in this debate. I just wish he kept that same energy in the cross examination. Jones was pretty consistent and sharp throughout the whole event. Good job on moderating, Cameron!

[@collegepennsylvania837]

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." Philippians 2:3 Humbly serve others following the perfect example of Jesus. He said that He came not to be served but to serve others and give His life for others. (Matthew 20:28). Let us be humbled by the awesomeness and greatness of God and the unworthiness of ourselves. CS Lewis said that true humility is not thinking less of yourselves but rather thinking of yourself less. Let us look each day for opportunities to serve God and thus others, and be empowered by the Spirit to do these things glorifying God. Hopefully this impacted you positively today. God bless you!

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

56:36 Dr. Marcus Ross says that John Walton says that Genesis 1:1 MUST be translated at “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” because otherwise it would contradict with Walton’s view of functional ontology. This is simply untrue. I specifically asked John Walton in my interview with him on my channel and he explicitly said that translating Gen. 1:1 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth” would add more evidence for Walton’s view of Genesis 1. This was a very odd claim by Dr. Ross. The video is called "Bible Scholar Puts Genesis 1 in Context ft. John Walton" and the time stamp is at 22:03 if anyone is interested.

[@dustinkfc6633]

Wasn’t This translation around since the 1700s, instead of the more traditional view of ex nihilo?

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

@YAJUN YUAN The video is called "Bible Scholar Puts Genesis 1 in Context ft. John Walton" and the time stamp is at 22:03.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

@@dustinkfc6633 The most popular view in the 1700s was either gap theory or day-age. This is a bit different as there's no gap at all since creation wouldn't start until Genesis 1:3.

[@dustinkfc6633]

@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou “When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void.” JSB My mistake, not 1700’s, but the Middle Ages. I thought Hebrew scholars back in the Middle Ages thought it be translated this way?

[@abelcainsbrother]

@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou But there is a gap. But you must study the bible honestly to realize it.

[@fullchurchahead6849]

You have no idea how happy I was when I saw that these two guys are debating. I have been listening to Michael for a couple of years now and I love his content. I am currently taking online classes at Liberty University and just finished a class where Dr. Ross helped teach. Okay, now time to watch the debate. Thanks!

[@coolbeans6148]

How did it go?

[@Tessinentdecken]

Ross is wrong. Moses didn‘t write Genesis. The Author is unknown.

[@cthefro]

​@@Tessinentdecken there is no definitive evidence that is was written by Moses and there is no passage that says Moses writes like in the rest of the Pentateuch. However, the theory with the most evidence and scripture backing is that Moses wrote Genesis.

[@Tessinentdecken]

@@cthefro what evidence do you have that Moses wrote Genesis. Give me only one.

[@AndrewBarton-ho1iu]

@@Tessinentdecken Question, why is one of Moses' miracles a literal scientific fact that has only been observed recently?

[@deion312]

I definitely believe the earth is old, but I'm not too confident on my understanding of adam and eve, the days in genesis, and origins... i'm open to be persuaded... I have no problem with God using evolution to create all of all life.

[@austinapologetics2023]

Not to toot my own horn but I've made a few videos on the subject. There not the best quality in the world but if I was successful in my task I did a decent job of giving an explanation of Adam and Eve and the days in Genesis

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

When you are done watching Austin’s videos, you can come over and finish watching mine 😉😉

[@ancientfiction5244]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

[@ancientfiction5244]

​@@austinapologetics2023 You don't need to. Genesis is a creation myth modelled on the older Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. Don't tell your followers that though, huh? 😉 *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

[@405servererror]

@@ancientfiction5244 We don't really care the ancient wisdom is known and written down in other narratives, but there are significant differences. But nice of you to take the difficulty to copy and paste you're message everywhere.

[@encounteringjack5699]

I would love to have a Bible that had all these nuances of grammar accounted for and included, that Michael Jones points out.

[@jacob18310]

The Oxford Annotated Bible and the Harper Collin’s Study Bible have pretty thorough footnotes which touch on some of the grammatical details that Michael mention. I personally liked the Harper Collin’s notes better, but the Oxford Bible also included a lot of scholarly essays as well.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

John Walton and Craig Keener’s Niv Cultural Background study Bible has a lot. It doesn’t really talk about IP’s view of Genesis 1:1 but it’s great otherwise.

[@taylorj.1628]

Is this a genuine statement or is it a dig at Michael?

[@encounteringjack5699]

@@taylorj.1628 lol a genuine statement. Love might be a bit exaggerating for it, but it’s genuine. I like the idea of having a bible to read that has accurate wording.

[@Jack-vy2vx]

Get a Jewish version of Bible. These grammatical anomalies have been discussed at length and in depth. In fact, everything he mentioned came from these commentators.

[@the_banshee6708]

Young earth creation almost made me turn my back on god how can u see out into space millions of light years but space only being 6000 years old inspiring philosophy saved me from turning away from god bc I didn’t have to deny basic logic and science to believe in god

[@tonyabrown7796]

So what view do you actually hold? A special creation long ago or a big bang?

[@the_banshee6708]

@@tonyabrown7796 a big bang and since posting this I have read the Bible cover to cover and decided I am no longer Christian and I’ve completely dropped “faith” idk how anyone could read that book and say that a all loving all powerful god wrote that book when it was clearly written by barbaric savages that didn’t know any better

[@tonyabrown7796]

@@the_banshee6708 I'm sorry to hear that.

[@the_banshee6708]

@@tonyabrown7796 there’s nothing to feel sorry about honestly

[@WerdnaFPV]

@@the_banshee6708nobody says that God literally wrote that book. Much of the Bible is descriptive, not prescriptive I highly suggest you check out the book ‘Is God a moral monster’ by Paul copan I will be happy to share more resources with you if you like. Remember, Jesus is real and He loves you so much

[@koidotjpeg9944]

Interesting how much more civil this is than the "Is Child Marriage Wrong" Debate with Daniel LOL. Reasonably so, very interesting discussion

[@albertbecerra]

That was a real debate?

[@EmberBright2077]

​​@@albertbecerraMichael's opponent was a Muslim

[@DarkArcticTV]

@@EmberBright2077 ahh explains it

[@demonking86420]

​@@albertbecerrayeah look up Mike Jones vs Daniel Haqiqatjou debate

[@albertbecerra]

@@demonking86420 oh brother. Alright then

[@soulcatcher770]

What an excellent debate! I'm proud to see see both sides produce such compelling ideas. Though I believe for myself at least, I side with Michael.

[@travispastranafan10]

Michael you have greatly helped me in the process of keeping my faith being in the minority of an evolutionary theist, thank you for your work, and keep it up!

[@Bogey1022]

Ditto

[@haronsmith8974]

Im catholic, when you mean being a minority of an evolutionary theist is that mean most of your church believes in young earth creationism?

[@Σιλουανός]

@@haronsmith8974 from my experience as a non denominational protestant, yes.

[@haronsmith8974]

@@Σιλουανός Yea I went to a friends "service" theres a lot less worship and a lot more culture war stuff thats just garbage.

[@historia9275]

Who really cares whether macro-evolution is real? Why would that impact your belief in God?

[@tunarout]

Thank you bro.Michael, it's really inspiring to know more about Genesis. God bless!

[@someguyontheinternet2729]

He does inspire because he's the inspiring philosophy

[@1969cmp]

Terrible theology. Trying to massage Darwinian evolution into Genesis is a waste of time. Darwinism is a failure while the historical approach to Genesis is more sound.

[@DrDoerk]

Half his beliefs he just made up out of thin air without any reason or proof

[@cchhiicckkeennss]

I am a YEC and Micheal did a great job bringing a new perspective and I found it quite interesting, my mind has not changed but I think theistic evolution is still a strong option but not the strongest one personally.

[@ThePoliticrat]

I wish more creationists were like you.

[@Orthosaur7532]

As a Theistic Evolutionist, all I can say is thank you.

[@telleroftheone]

Very good and charitable take. Most of the discussion in the comments have been good too, which is nice to see. I'm a former YEC, now an OEC/TE, but I think Dr. Ross has moved up in my book as the best defender of the YEC position and I really appreciate his defense, even if I disagree.

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

@cchhiicckkeennss, my problem with Mike argument is that it's not backed up by the physical evidence. There are no "Pre Adamic" grave found

[@johnle231]

@@telleroftheoneso are you an OE or TE? I think there’s a difference right as OE don’t hold to evolution?

[@quad9363]

In the back and forth (around 48:48), Dr. Ross says that God might’ve formed the Sun out of the Light that was there from day 1. But, this would be reading the term ‘made’ in IP’s way of reading it, where God takes something that was already there (the light) and organizes it for a purpose. If this reading of ‘made’ from Gen 1 16’s ‘God made the two great lights’ is open to Dr Ross, why can’t IP use that same understanding for the other uses of the term ‘made’ in Genesis 1?

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Because of context. Ross' explanation of the light/sun is based off of what scripture explicitly says - whereas IP's wasn't (its founded on speculation). So it's not at all the case that Ross was doing what IP was doing.

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@Ttcopp12rt Actually he was doing the same. Other creationists who dont believe in literal days but long periods use exactly the same argument - bara means to give functionality to something that already exists, in this case to give light to the earth and as a time-keeper, ie calendars. But I disagree, I think the text implies the sun and moon were created on the 4th day (ie after the earth), which is one reason why I reject a literal understanding of Genesis as that is not how it happened in reality. It seems Ross wants to have it both ways, whichever is convenient for his position.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@PC-vg8vn If you want to argue ad nauseum - go ahead. Simply stating something over and over doesn't make it true lol.. You stand corrected by my comment above.

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@Ttcopp12rt You clearly dont understand what 'ad nauseum' means.

[@yomamma.ismydaddy216]

@@Ttcopp12rt “simply stating something over and over again doesn’t make it true.” Lol that’s one of the most ironic statements I’ve read in a long time given your previous comment. But if you didn’t get it when they explained it to you then I’m sure this comment will do no good lmao

[@JamesS805]

Best debate I've seen on this topic. Kudos to both guys.

[@edihoxhalli]

I gotta say our family in Jesus has got some of the smartest people I’ve seen, Jesus really spares no knowledge and wisdom to those who want it and search for it. I got alot of pride in being with Jesus and his family wouldn’t trade Jesus for a single thing in this world. Hands down best thing I’ve ever done in my life is go to Jesus. Much love to all you guys God bless whoever is reading this.

[@jehandesains8674]

Well then, lets put that to the test, shall we? PResent ANY SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, FACT, PIECE OF EVIDENCE, OR EXPLANATION EVER MADE that was gained specifically through your religious beliefs and not scientific research. Alternatively, admit that all knowledge comes from us studying the world, and not from believing in fictional characters like Jesus and God.

[@edihoxhalli]

Can you give me one specific recent example of evidence of evolution that’s not “millions” of years old? Whats imaginary is this theory of evolution that’s been placed by Darwin even though all he had under his belt was a degree in religion. This theory is as credible and evidential as the Big Bang theory.

[@jehandesains8674]

@@edihoxhalli do a simple DNA test between you and your parents. What you'll find is genetic mutations in your DNA. These mutations are Evolution. We find that in every living thing, in every generation. If your dog had puppies, you can do a DNA test between them and you'll find genetic mutations as well. That's Evolution. Banana's have been cultivated by man to be the way they are. Wild banana's are short, straight, bitter, and filled with large seeds. Domesticated banana's are longer, curve, have small seeds, and are sweet when ripe. Dogs are bred by humans from wolves and are now available in a wide variety. Various vegetables are the result of human intervention through selective breeding. Bacteria evolving nylonase to digest nylon, which is not a natural product and thus an example of Evolution. Humans growing larger brains and smaller jaws. Tetrachromic vision. Malaria resistance. Cholesterol resistance. Ability to digest lactose. Etc. all examples of Evolution within the last 10.000 years. And you're right, both Evolution and the Big Bang are scientific Theories, meaning they've been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Gravity also has Theories btw.

[@daMillenialTrucker]

​@@jehandesains8674 but their still theories. You atheist know for sure just as much as a Christians do. When the earth was created there were 1 of 2 things, energy and mass, guess what energy and mass can't do lol create organic life.

[@jehandesains8674]

@@daMillenialTrucker a scientific Theory is not to be confused with the layman term for theory. You're thinking it's "just a guess". In SCIENCE, the word Theory means that it's the best conceived explanation for all the facts, data, and evidence, which has been rigorously tested and scrutinised by the best of the best in the respective fields of science to make sure there are no mistakes, no inconsistencies, that it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Theory of Special Relativity are 2 Theories on Gravity. We atheists know far more for sure than you Christians, because all our claims are proven beyond reasonable doubt. For example, we know with absolute certainty God does not exist, because history proves we made him up, along with all the other gods. Earth was never created. It formed through natural processes. And Abiogenesis shows that life can form from non-life, and no, it has not been refuted, as the refutation you're thinking of talks about spontaneous generation, which is not the same.

[@jasonwolfe2991]

I'm a YEC. I've been following Michael and Cam's ministries for years (ironically I'm unfamiliar with Marcus Ross), and I just wanted to thank Cameron for hosting this debate at his conference and giving him his own breakout session the next day. I hope he continues to foster dialogue on this important topic.

[@richardhouseplantagenet6004]

YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. You should just raise your kids atheist, and skip the part where they apostatize due to YEC nonsense and become leftists for a couple decades. Or, you know, raise them with a biblical interpretation compatible with the natural world (i.e. old earth).

[@salmonkill7]

Just curious how do you deal with the fact that rocks and minerals in the Grand Canyon and other surface to very deep rocks and minerals contain samples that can be dated by radiometric dating and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating that are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of one another (the factors that lead to the dating technology is completely unrelated from each other). Radiometric dating uses daughter products from radioactive decay, while OSL dating using metal oxides (rocks are Silicon oxides primarily) and they absorb and integrate the radiation background until the moment they are analyzed. Interestingly enough BOTH of these dating techniques give the exact same dates for GRAND CANYON sediments taken from the top of the Canyon to the bottom at regular intervals. Isn't it amazing that they are in TOTAL AGREEMENT over the entirety of this geological column? Even if you don't concur with these dating techniques, you must take issue with the fact that no HUMAN BONES are mixed with DINOSAUR fossilized bones. I have personally reviewed all the ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos tapes and there are FATAL FLAWS with absolutely ALL OF THEM. If you have to LIE to reveal BIBLICAL TRUTH then there might be a PROBLEM WITH THE STORY YOU ARE TELLING!! Note I am not saying there is any problem with the BIBLE, my PROBLEM is with these YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!! It's amazing how COCKY Marcuss Ross comes across like he knows all the answers, yet they GLOSS OVER ANYTHING THEY HAVE ISSUE WITH! My challenge to YOUNG EATHERS IS TO PUBLISH their "scientific work" in REPUTABLE SCIENCE JOURNALS and submit yourself to the same SCRUTINY that all Scientists have to submit to!!

[@jackpeeters4200]

​@@salmonkill7 DAYUM 🫡😤

[@gospelfreak5828]

Though I strongly disagree with Dr. Ross I’d say he did the best he could for his position and he seems very intelligent. Also I appreciate his ability to somehow make us laugh and bringing down tension. He has a great personality and confidence from what I can tell. I still agree with IP though even though I don’t believe in evolution yet

[@jameswatts2338]

I think a good source for arguments against the theory of evolution, but not necessarily against an ancient earth, would be two books called" signature in the cell" and "Darwin's doubt"by Dr Stephen C Meyer.

[@calebsmith7179]

Why don't you accept the most well-established scientific theory we have to date?

[@calebsmith7179]

@@jameswatts2338 there are no good arguments against the scientific theory of evolution.

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@calebsmith7179 In my look on the internet for the evidence I didn’t find anything very compelling. I found the data didn’t necessarily lead to what people say it does. To be fair that was from a basic internet search so I’m sure academic books from scholars in the field would be better. But until I see the evidence and conclude that it leads to the type of evolution most people are talking about, I’ve yet to be convinced

[@calebsmith7179]

@@gospelfreak5828 to help me understand where you are coming from, how exactly have you come to know evolution? There is misinformation everywhere these days.

[@yomamma.ismydaddy216]

Ross is such a master debater that all he has to do is the same thing over and over: states his personal interpretation as if it’s objective fact and then acts confused when he gets challenged

[@rebeccad6840]

This was not doc's interpretation. He quoted the Bible. Michael on the other hand, interpreted freely. I 'll ask you the question : is God limited in Creation? Do you believe the ressurection of Jesus or did that took billion of years too? Do you believe , that when Jesus says in revelation , we will be ressurected is a lie or is it truth? Will that be billions of years too?

[@yomamma.ismydaddy216]

@@rebeccad6840 the answer to your first question is n/a and the answer to the other questions is no

[@richardhouseplantagenet6004]

@@rebeccad6840 wrong, he quoted his interpretations. You didn't notice, because you agree with him. Like when he dishonestly told Michael, "that isn't the scriptural view," that was a lie. In reality, that just wasn't *Ross's interpretation* of what the scriptural view is. They literally disagree about what the scriptural view IS.

[@williampennjr.4448]

@@rebeccad6840 No Ross interpreted freely. Like when he assumed that Adam was the first man on the earth because the bible ways "there was no man to till the ground" focusing on the "no man" part, but ignoring the "to till the ground" part. He also showed he doesn't understand how analogies work. I don't know where he gets that analogy's only work forward in time. When your comparing two things an alalogy only works backwards in time because we don't know the future. Also when he said that the mountain tops could still be seen even though the flood covered them. The problem with that is a little thing called gravity. Water flows to the lowest point because of it, unless he's suggesting God kept the water from flowing off the mountain tops, but the bible never says that happened.

[@FatTLivR]

@@rebeccad6840absolutely no one is arguing that God couldn’t have done *anything* It’s arguing that God set in place natural scientific laws. Evolution may be a mechanism made and lead by God

[@anthonywhitney634]

Very interesting debate. I commend Cameron for giving a YEC advocate the chance to present their views. Please include them (us) in discussions more!

[@belialord]

Yes, I would also like to see a debate between a young earth creationist and a christian flat earther

[@Thedisciplemike]

@@belialord I'd like to see a debate between a flat earther and one who believes we live in a matrix

[@dagan5698]

There is no debate Anthony. The earth is much older than 6000 years. By a lot.

[@Thedisciplemike]

@@dagan5698 figuratively or literally?

[@anthonywhitney634]

@@dagan5698 Ok so I just watched a (Nothing) for 1hr 55mins. Interesting theory...

[@followthru1000]

This was some heavy duty stuff. Fantastic debate!. Loved every minute of it

[@ajpalazuelos3831]

I think Dr. Ross’ arguments were very compelling. It seemed more consistent with scripture and didn’t require assumption. Michael Jones is a very formidable debater.

[@richardhouseplantagenet6004]

Too bad YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. Raising your kids YEC all but guarantees they'll turn into atheists as adults. Meanwhile, old earth Christians have no problem with science. Also, Ross was a condescending prick (probably why you found him compelling).

[@relgof8871]

Dr. Ross assumed a lot of things

[@PizzaFvngs]

I would say its weird to assume anything outside of what God purposely revealed to us. If we trust in Him to preserve his word, it would be weird to argue that "In the beginning" was never there, though all translations have it. @M.E-Martinez

[@monsterhuntervideos4446]

Michael Jones is far from formidable. His interpretation of scripture is based on assumptions and external scholars, rather than on the clear and contextual reading of The Bible itself. I just can't take him seriously at all. The concept of evolution was alien when all 66 books of The Bible were written. Only now, in the modern age, have people tried to reinterpret The Bible and make it fit the evolution fairy tale. If evolutionary theory didn't exist then no Christian would get it from The Bible. They would just be believing in the creation story as it's presented. People are just taking manmade modern theories and injecting them into scripture. That's an observable fact. Show me anyone in the past who taught evolution is in The Bible, and who didn't accept the creation story as it's presented. This interpretation of scripture is a very serious sin in my opinion. It's the fear of man, where people go along with the popular accepted theory in society in order to fit in. It's either due to cowardice or brain washing. Those Christians who affirm evolution are either under the fear of man, or they've been genuinely brainwashed. That's the only two possibilities. The latter is more understandable, but the former is due to spiritual weakness. There is a lot of pressure to go along to get along, especially when your job, social staus, and even relationships can be at risk.

[@monsterhuntervideos4446]

@M.E-Martinez Excuses for what? You comment makes no sense.

[@gianni206]

After watching Ken Ham and Kent Hovind utterly fail at logically defending YEC, I’m glad to see Dr. Ross finally defend the position seriously. I still don’t agree with it anymore, but it’s very refreshing to see.

[@thetheoreticaltheologian2458]

That was actually one of the best debates I’ve ever seen to be honest. The only thing that I was surprised about that was not talked about or at least more in depth was the ages of the pre flood people. Sure this would be in favor for the YEC so I was interested in seeing how IP would’ve responded to that question/topic.

[@bornagainbart8352]

He's made videos on that. His argument is that Hebrew numbers have certain meanings and that the ages actually symbolize important characteristics or accomplishments of the people rather than their actual time on earth.

[@vladislavstezhko1864]

@@bornagainbart8352 sheesh. It looks like the Bible is enough study for life, but life is not enough for the Bible study.

[@SamuelMoerbe]

@@vladislavstezhko1864 Well, I think it’s important to know the nature of the language that the scriptures are written in. I guess that’s why certain people are vocationally called to study the linguistics of the Bible, and why we can be grateful for their work.

[@kriegjaeger]

@@bornagainbart8352 If the text is inspired I don't think one would require tremendous external academic knowledge to understand. When Jesus came he didn't go to the Pharisees, he went to Fishermen, he spoke to the laymen first and in ways they understood, not debate the academics above the heads of everyone else. We should study the bible exhaustively to understand what it tells us about how to live, but finding interpretations to meet contemporary scientific theories seems like a waste of time. Most of them are going to reject it whether it fits with their timelines or not.

[@gareth2736]

@@kriegjaeger but if the text is inspired should it be easily understood by a 21st Century American or a 5th Century BC Jew or an illiterate 18th Century Chinese Peasant? The most central parts of scripture are easily understandable - the greatest commandments are love, God is a Father, Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Do all the details need to be easily understood as they clearly aren't. Revelation says that the number 666 should be understandable by anyone and the church has frequently debated what it means since (as the meaning was presumably obvious to 1st Century Christians but not as obvious to all peoples subsequently).

[@NoahRichardHarris]

This is great. So many debates on this are just people talking past each other. Here they actually probe the real differences.

[@williamstdog9]

With Dr. Ross all the way 100% 👍😊 God bless all who are sincerely searching for the truth - REGARDLESS of where it may lead 🙏

[@jimamberg9467]

I came in leaning toward theistic evolution but honestly I think Dr. Ross has moved me a bit the other way...I'll have to look into this more. Thanks for posting this!

[@Zandman26]

It's a hard position to take when all evidence humanity have gathered points the other way.

[@jimamberg9467]

@@Zandman26 that’s a bit of a bold statement but could you point me toward a source I can check out that you think really supports theistic evolution? I sincerely appreciate the help.

[@Xenosaurian]

@@Zandman26 That's a very bold claim which an entire camp of scientists supporting the young-Earth concept would evidently strongly disagree with you on!

[@Zandman26]

@@Xenosaurian It would be great if science deniers actually tried to argument using evidence that could be tested, instead of trying to use the argument from authority (fallacy).

[@Xenosaurian]

@@Zandman26 What is that supposed to mean? Stop being obnoxious and make some actual sense.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

In 1:00:53, Dr. Ross was not telling the truth when he brought up Exodus 20:11. God did not create, or bara, in six days, but rather God made, or asah, in six days. These words have different meanings, and was an unscrupulous tactic from Dr. Ross

[@jmorra]

A tiger, with its gloriously designed retractable claws, is made by God to snag the hind limbs of fleeing prey. " Eating only plants" is absurd. It has to mean something else, unless you see claws and teeth as mutations brought about by the fall. A tiger, in every way, is designed to kill, even though he can eat papaya if need be.

[@lindsayball5080]

Denying adam was literally first man denies Christs geneology. Death came through adam.

[@jehandesains8674]

Well, we know for an objective fact that Adam and Eve are fictional characters, as was Jesus. That's why first of all, our genetics and fossil record prove we evolved, and secondly, not a single contemporary historical source exists nor any other form of evidence to suggest Jesus ever existed. Also, biblically, death came through God. Adam and Eve, according to the bible, had no concept of sin, no concept of evil, no concept of disobedience or wrongdoing. They weren't even aware of their nudity or why that should matter. Only AFTER they ate the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil" (gee, it's like the name is telling us something we should probably take note of) did they become aware of what has happened. Only AFTER they ate the fruit, were they aware of their nudity and were ashamed. This means that God deliberately made Adam and Eve, completely oblivious of what it means to disobey, then deliberately took them right to the thing that they weren't supposed to eat, did absolutely nothing at all to prevent them from doing so, had a walking talking snake (not Satan in any way btw) there that told zero lies, then deliberately left and gave them some time to play around, and when he came back he was "shocked" that the thing he caused to happen, happened. This is like putting two babies in a small room, and put a loaded gun between them, tell them "don't shoot each other" and leave the room, waiting for a gunshot, then come in "oh no, didn't I tell you not to shoot each other? I guess I'll have to torture the one who's left for the rest of its life now". If a human did this, he'd be considered an extremely evil monster. If God does it, you praise him as the goodiest of good goods that can be. And you wonder why atheists aren't convinced.

[@animalsaroundus2]

That’s what I was thinking!

[@austinapologetics2023]

Nice performance by IP

[@Ttcopp12rt]

I assume you're being sarcastic and your comment is implying that Ross therefore had a fantastic and scriptural-supported performance in that respect.

[@calebadcock363]

@@Ttcopp12rt Just say you disagree man

[@theoverreactor8731]

I'm an old-earth creationist, and I will admit that Dr. Ross won this debate.

[@ManlyServant]

@@theoverreactor8731 thanks for being honest!

[@kahnlives]

@@theoverreactor8731 He did win.

[@justinpartogi]

Excellent debate...IP totally won this

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

Perspective is an interesting thing. IP had to totally dance around scripture in order to justify his positions. Whereas Carter used scripture as his basis and confidently won this debate.

[@justinpartogi]

​@@TheSaintFrenzy Show me where IP did not use scripture as his basis?

[@Checkmate777]

I find his opinion unconvincing. His opinion to me always sounds like he thinks God has to bend the knee to the laws of nature or that he’s subject to them. He takes specific verses bluntly and then other loosely to fit his worldview. He believes the science then works backwards which is why his interpretations seem odd.

[@justinpartogi]

@@Checkmate777 no rather the law of nature has to bend the knees to God, basically God working through the ordinary, God working through nature, what we see in nature is God's work, so he trying to show evolution is compatible with God and does not deny the existence of God at all

[@Checkmate777]

@@justinpartogi disagree. I think the whole continuity and narrative of the Bible is destroyed when you disregard Genesis as history. If you don’t believe the Bible just don’t believe the Bible. No need to pervert it. God is not a deceiver or confuser. Especially to a THEORY that doesn’t have any actual proof other than fossils and animals that look similar.

[@enlightenedcentrist96]

This is both the best I have ever seen a YEC do in a debate and the best I have ever seen someone do against IP. I still agree with IP, but mad respect for Dr.Ross!

[@alanhill897]

Why are short-earth creationists all so stuck on temporally-limited causality? Is God limited to working within human understandings of linear history?

[@PC-vg8vn]

What Ross also fails to appreciate is that 'earth or 'world' typically mean either the known world then or a local area. Even in the NT it is used for the known world, ie the Roman world. We only refer to the 'world' today to mean the globe because we only now know that the earth/world is this large globe.

[@MrWholphin]

The word ערץ is the same used as in the beginning… (genesis 1:1) so is introduced as meaning the whole Earth. The flood account is a recapitulation of the creation narrative, but other contextual details make it explicit that the whole Earth is in view

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@MrWholphin But again, the whole earth did not mean a globe as we now know it to ancient Hebrews. Youre reading the text with a 21st century understanding.

[@UnderTheFloor79]

Ok, great point. So the flood could have been a local flood that was 20 thousand feet above sea level, covering the tallest mountains in the region.

[@theTavis01]

@@UnderTheFloor79 do you not know what hyperbole is?

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@UnderTheFloor79 It may be a case of hyperbole which a number of OT writers were prone to. Another reminder that we are not to read the Bible as a scientific textbook. The Hebrew translated 'mountain' could just as easily be translated 'hill'. Or it could simply be that from the point of view of those on the boat, it seemed that everywhere that they could see from their position was covered in water. I understand this is quite possible due to the curvature of the earth - a fascinating insight.

[@mtichellswanson4119]

IP had the better arguments. Ross looked flustered and he was difficult to follow. He never demonstrated evolution and Christianity were incompatible.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Right, he didn't show how evolution and Christianity were incompatible but he DID show how evolution wasn't compatible with Scripture i.e., Genesis. Case closed

[@zedek6658]

IP Lost

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@zedek6658 how so?

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@Ttcopp12rt But he didn’t actually. He brought his preconceived notions into the text instead of drawing them from the text as IP noted

[@zedek6658]

@@gospelfreak5828 IP kept quoting scholars who don’t even agree with each other , it was brought To his attention in the debate. Also the scholars that he kept mentioning like John Walton and Michael heiser, believe that most of Genesis was inspired by Ancient near east texts, the problem is that most of the Ancient near east tablets that survive today are only dated to 700 BC or later . For example the library of Ashurbanipal. Each civilization and peoples in the ANE had their own unique beliefs and traditions. To properly interpret an ancient text , you have to first interpret scripture with scripture. Then after that compare with other outside texts from the same time. You have to interpret the Bible in it’s own context and language first.

[@CCiPencil]

I love IP, love his channel, his ministry, his teachings, I genuinely love his stuff but I’ve always disagreed with his arguments on theistic evolution. Maybe it’s my bias, but he missed the mark for providing a coherent and consistent argument for his position. Love the debate

[@dan_gocavs4110]

I like IP also, but yes. I agree with you. He lost this debate because theistic evolution doesn't make sense. (I'm an OEC)

[@jessecurle716]

"Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" by Fr. Seraphim Rose. This book changed my mind on a subject I'd never have thought possible.

[@Tornadospeed10]

Yea do this book is like $480 on Amazon rn lmaooo. Do you have any idea where I might be able to read it without paying $500?

[@jessecurle716]

@@Tornadospeed10 Holy cow. It was only 50 bucks a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know of anywhere else to get it right now. I'd try finding a pdf, but it's a long read for a screen.

[@briangray6476]

@@Tornadospeed10pirate it Edit, ha I just looked it doubled to nearly $1000

[@DaughterofAslan16]

@@Tornadospeed10just in case you never found it or anybody else is wondering, you can look up the title along with “internet archive” and it shows up 👍

[@Tornadospeed10]

@@Alt-c9x thank you!

[@drchristopherjsernaque]

Dr. Marcus Ross did an excellent job in this debate. May God continue to be with him and his loved ones.

[@PC-vg8vn]

what, and not with Jones?

[@adamedgar5765]

@@PC-vg8vn unfortuntaely, Mr Jones did not adhear to the TEist strengths. Trying to put a theological argument forward only to support TEism will always fail when confronted with sound theological doctrine from the Bible. Mr Jones should have avoided that approach...he was never going to survive the problems associated with his view from that angle. It also doesn't help when one is up against a Dr of Paelentology who also happens to be a very well doctrined academic theologically and a YEC. Big ask to defeat this kind of opponent. Mr Jones gave it a great shot, but even from his opening statement, the huge theological flaws in his speech were clearly evident from the outset.

[@marcleysens7716]

@@adamedgar5765Agree fully. I though Dr Ross' analogy of an argument or reasoning being like cotton candy i.e. it tastes great but in the end there's nothing there, sums up the point you make well. On the whole Dr Ross' arguments were far more scholarly sound than Mr Jones' "mostly, could be and maybes."

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@adamedgar5765 💯

[@1969cmp]

@@PC-vg8vn Jones' theology and understanding on Genesis is woeful and flies in the face of what was believed by nearly all of the early church fathers of the first few centuries, and most importantly affirmed in scripture. Jones had to constantly rely on modern scholars opinions to affirm his inaccurate interpretation of Genesis. Cheers, ex-atheist.

[@PC-vg8vn]

Ross wants to believe the 'days' in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days but ignores the very definition of what a day is - a single turn of the earth on its axis in the light of the sun. His is a completely illogical position.

[@bobbyfischersays1262]

That definition of a day isn't in the text. You're reading that into it.

[@karozans]

@@bobbyfischersays1262 If that is true, then why do YEC use the same definition of a day back then as a day is today? If back in Genesis a "day" was just the difference between light and dark, then you cannot say it was the same length of time as we call a day right now.

[@bobbyfischersays1262]

@@karozans What I have said is true. The OPs definition is objectively NOT in the text. I can't speak for all YECs. I only speak to the truth of the Scriptures, which are easily understood by their plain meanings, when a little common sense is applied. God fixed a set period of time, begun by a morning and finished by an evening, which He called a "day". He created the light and separated it from the dark (Gen 1:3-4) during the first day. On the fourth day, He created the sun, moon and stars to be additional lights for additional purposes (Gen 1:14-19). Each of the seven days are described in the EXACT same way, with an evening and morning, the light being day and the dark being night, both before and after the sun and moon were created to be the ruling lights of day and night, respectively. It could not be more plain that these were seven literal, 24hr days.

[@abelcainsbrother]

@@bobbyfischersays1262 Although I agree with you about 24 hr days.It is important to know and understand the difference between the words created and made.Claiming that these words are used interchangeably is just not so. Moses is really trying to get us to understand this in Genesis 2:1-4 so that we will read Genesis 1 and the rest of the OT properly. Gap Theorists understand this and they are correct about the difference between bara and asah in hebrew.God mostly made things in Genesis 1 and it is very important to notice what God made and what he created.

[@bobbyfischersays1262]

@@abelcainsbrother If you are theorizing some kind of millions-of-years long gap in Genesis, then you are reading that into the text. It's simply not there. It seems you are trying to reconcile modern Scientism with the Genesis account. You cannot serve two masters. Let God be true and every man a liar.

[@ADHD_Samurai]

Also, the YEC standard "that's how Jesus read it" is really a poor argument since they are assuming Jesus read it the way THEY do.

[@DrDoerk]

It's better than believing in sonthing put of thin air just because you want to.

[@ADHD_Samurai]

@@DrDoerknice straw man

[@DrDoerk]

@@ADHD_Samurai you literally believe in somtbing that man made up out of thin air..... Why do you believe man, but not God?

[@Roufus55]

The belittling comments after Michael answered a question got really tiresome. If anything, it taught me how not to reply to a faithful debate opponent

[@chandlerking6438]

Good debate. I never thought a YEC would give IP a run for his money. This debate was so close.

[@TeePee-t9z]

IP IS AN ECHO CHAMBER

[@bryansphere6359]

I think Dr. Ross is doing good at challenging Jones on consistency issues with respect to hermeneutics.

[@anthonywhitney634]

In answering Michael Jones' question about where the pre-sun light came from, I think Rev 21:23 would have helped: And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

[@bobbyfischersays1262]

Amen

[@johnozomoge9153]

Or in the Gospel of John, where God is also described as light. I still think though that the Earth is old.

[@ancientfiction5244]

Guys, Genesis is a creation myth. *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

[@PC-vg8vn]

That is not relevant to whether or not 'day' should be understood as a literal 24-hour day, which is how Ross understands it. The definition of a day is a single turn on earth's axis in the light of the sun. The sun didnt exist until 'day' 4 per Ross, so 'days' 1-3 could not have been literal days.

[@anthonywhitney634]

@@PC-vg8vn I think you're demanding too much of the text, asking it to define a day like you would. From a plain reading it's pretty clear all the days are the same.

[@unknownangel3101]

Very interesting debate! I am so happy to be part of it! I think it maybe a wrong interpretation of languages, and some chronological issues written in the time! Bless you all! Anna UK. 🙏🏻

[@kriegjaeger]

Few points I really appreciate here; The civility This isn't a salvation issue If either side is wrong, it's an issue of interpreting the text My contention; If scripture is inspired then I would expect God continues to manage it in some degree to ensure the gospel can be understood by the laymen, not interpretations that require academic study and outside knowledge. It seems the intent behind re-interpreting scripture for millions of years and evolution is not to get closer to the truth, but pre-supposing that contemporary theories are truth and if the Bible disagrees, it is wrong.

[@doublev1454]

I’ve paused this video at the 5:40 mark. This is within the first minute of Michael Jones’s opener. He’s claiming that if we read the opening lines of Genesis in its original language and context, that it should read something different than what’s in our bibles today. He says it should say: “when God created the heavens and the earth” instead of “in the beginning” So to put it simply, Michael Jones believes the Bible has been translated incorrectly from within the opening lines of the first book. I already have major issues with this.

[@Philmagroin9]

What is the major issue with saying that?

[@Phill3v7]

Other than the frustration that the debaters didn't seem to focus on the debate topic specifically, Dr. Ross's continued insistence on "focusing on the context", in response to verses and words that seem in conflict with his view, and then proceeding to merely offer the context the "right" context by reinterpreting such verses in light of his model apart from using the text itself, is blatantly eisegesis and concordism (reading science into the text). He would have been better off simply stating that he wasn't sure why the text read the way it does.......was very frustrating 😜

[@thechristianmetalhead]

The first CCV conference was a great time. Wish I could've made this one too

[@gamalieltrejo3894]

Although I agree with Dr. Ross in that I hold a young earth creationist view, I think he did a great job presenting his information, but a poor job interacting with his opponent. In my opinion, he had plenty of sarcastic remarks and face gestures that weren’t very professional. During cross examination, I noticed Michael’s goal was for Ross to validate his view, while Ross’s goal was to to simply discredit Michael! Not the best approach as it seems more like a fear tactic. Overall, great debate, and just proves that even very smart men don’t always have the right answers! God bless!

[@adamedgar5765]

50 minute mark...huge mistake from TEside...before the fall, Adam was not a Priest making intercession as per sanctuary service doctrine. Sin had not entered the world...a priest makes intercession for sinners...Both Adam and Eve had direct access to God. There was no need to intercede. To call Adam that kind of priest is absolutely errant. In watching this video on a desktop PC now (instead of my mobile as in the previous paragraph of this comment) i now notice the body language of the TE proponent Mr Jones. He seems to me to be very animated in his bodily movements when listening to answers. I don't wish to sound accusational or be viewed as steriotyping, however, it concerns me that clearly Mr jones is not interested in listening to the answers given to him in the cross examination. This is indicative of someone with a very short concentration span and one who does not adequately consider the arguments being presented. I must ask, is Mr jones ADHD? At the 1 hour mark the discussion about Mr Jones use of text in Jeremiah to claim the parallel reference in Genesis is an allegory or metaphorical has huge problems...the question by Dr Ross citing his backwards application of this text to Genesis is a major problem in Mr Jones theology. It doesn't work that way...this is a deeply flawed interpretation of the Genesis text when viewed backwards from the Jeremiah passage. Big fail on this point. Mr Jones at the 1 hour 9 minute mark makes reference to Exodus 1 citing "did Jacob die after Joseph...it doesn't say in this verse Jacob had died. This is a stupid point...read Genesis Chapter 50 Mr Jones...its very clear in that passage exactly when Jacob died.... Exodus 1:7 Then Joseph went to bury his father, and all the servants of Pharaoh accompanied him-the elders of Pharaoh’s household and all the elders of the land of Egypt- 8along with all of Joseph’s household, and his brothers, and his father’s household. Only their children and flocks and herds were left in Goshen. In summing up Mr Jones view here...he clearly does not understand the concept "bible interpreting itself" also requires contextual analysis before applying principles from different sources within the text to explain others. I would love to hear Mr Jones theology on the book of Revelation...i suspect it would be an absolutely chaotic mess! I think unfortunately, this debate really wasn't a fair battle. To put an academic with a doctoral thesis against the likes of Mr jones predetermined a grossly one sided result. It is very clear the TEists in this debate got absolutely smashed. I don't think that Mr Jones has a sound enough theology to defend his position and Dr Ross clearly came prepared to attack that position. Mr Jones should have stayed with TEist strengths...sound theology is not one of them. Mr Jones claim that there was no law prior to Adam and Eve in the garden has a major problem...how then does he explain Lucifers rebellion and fall from Heaven? We know that sin is rebellion from God eternal law(Gods law has always existed...Sinai was simply a reminder of the law to a people who had just spent hundreds of years in Egypt corrupted by Egyptian culture...it (sinai was not an initiation) Is Mr Jones going to claim that this happened later and that the humans on the planet who evolved besides Adam and Eve were not tempted? Is Mr Jones going to claim that Cain could not have murdered Abel because the law did not exist until Sinai? I do not think Mr Jones understands the realtionship between Gods eternal law and the writing of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are an expression of Gods very character to his people who had long forgotten it! Mr Jones conclusion of the insertion of Adam into Eden is ignorant of the text shortly after where Moses tells us in Genesis 2:19 "Adam named all the animals" Mr Jones clearly subscribes to the "gap theory" at 1:17:35 . Hang on, a minute ago he was talking parallel societies (ie that outside of Eden there is another group of people). Which is it Mr Jones, gap theory or another group outside the garden who evolved???

[@SincerelyBradley]

This was a pretty good debate. Appreciate that Dr Ross wasn’t as belittling to the opposing view as other YEC.

[@SincerelyBradley]

@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell you seem like a lot of fun

[@briandiehl9257]

@@soldier7332 How do you determine what is heretical or not?

[@renlamomtsopoe]

Hi Cam! Thanks for putting up good contents always. Just a suggestion, it will be really helpful if you can put timestamps on the description for debate videos. God bless!

[@josephromano2883]

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:46-47

[@hermanwooster8944]

Great verses.

[@Hope-kx9lz]

After decades of studying the material theory of evolution and the spiritual Vedic theory of devolution, I have to say that the young earth theory is far ahead of all other worldviews. It has tons of measurable evidence and archaeological finds to support it, which is not the case with the other theories. Michael represents a variant of M. Heiser's worldview which in many respects resembles the Vedic rather than the Hebrew worldview.

[@rickojay7536]

Let's see your finds of all your "studies" of the "theory" of evolution 🤣

[@GhostScout42]

​@rickojay7536 pretty crazy if someone didnt believe in evolution especially when we can see drastic changes so fast within animals

[@andyvhot]

I agree :)

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

@@GhostScout42 Changes/Variations within kinds, absolutely, animals morphing into completely different species, not so much.

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

@@rickojay7536 Evolutionary ideas aren't new, they didn't start with Darwin. I'd encourage you to read "The Long War Against God" by Henry Morris.

[@beautybehindthemadness7735]

This may come off as an incredibly stupid question, but so far Im not sure where I stand on this issue and im trying to learn more about the YEC perspective. What confuses me moat about it is don't creationists believe the Genesis 1 account of creation are used to estimate an age for the Earth and universe of about 6000 years? So what do they think about all the bones of animals and artifacts found by scientists and archeologists that come from say 10000 years ago? Even Marcus seems to acknowledge this at around 38 minutes when he shows events that happened more than 6000 years ago How do creationists reconcile believing the earth is 6000 years old with artifacts and bones being found from even further back? This is one things I can't wrap my head around.

[@darthnightstrike1808]

Either God intentionally created everything with age, or during Noahs flood, nuclear decay sped up exponentially. These are the 2 (equally stupid) arguments ive heard.

[@luciddream2033]

To say the account of Genesis is a myth is to call God a liar. That is blasphemy. To deny the account of Adam and Eve is to deny adamic sin and to spit in the face of Christ who came to die for adamic sin. You can't deny the Word of God and accept God because the Word of God is God.

[@canbest7668]

Genesis is absolutely ridiculous. No wonder this religion is fading in the west.

[@PopoolaTemidayo]

English is limited in expressing what God create and made. Both words are used differently in the entire Bible. Bara (create) is specifically creating out of nothing. Subsequently the other things that came to existence was made from already created things e.g Adam was made from the earth …. Michael Jones was right

[@405servererror]

Then why does gen 1:27 use bara for creation of man. You also have to ignore many other verses. Or if you read isaiah 43. Verses 1 and 7, is it creating out of nothing there?

[@abelcainsbrother]

@@405servererror A simpler way to know the difference between created(bara) and made(asah) is when something is new God created it but not when God made things.Things that God made were not new.Things that God created were new. Now read Exodus 20. and notice God made it in six days he did not create it.So it was not new.Old earth

[@PopoolaTemidayo]

@@405servererror you didn’t read the text well. The text in question about man isn’t about actualization of its existence but in preparation of it. God creative processes in this regards is in his mapping of human existence in one man which was actualized in making of Adam. Note: the text says 27. So God created mankind (species) in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 NIV Let me add little knowledge I have here: note: I’m not imposing my view or opinion on anyone. It remains what I think and which I used mostly in explaining to people who need to know. When it is time for Adam existence, God made him from existing materials then putting what will animate and what will help him replicate himself in him. We know a Man contains XY chromosomes (X- Female) and (Y-Male) {male and Female) he created them. When Woman was made from Man, God took from the Man’s side (X) and made a woman. God by his supernatural power doubles female chromosome (XX) to enables her able to produce part of herself (X) in forming her kinds along with the Man. No matter what the man give from (XY): Male (Y) or Female (X), the woman is readily able to match and produce their kinds either a new (XX) or (XY). All these happens making process called reproduction. Reproducing what God already made or produced.

[@albertomartinez714]

Great job from both Mike Jones and Rick Ross. I thought Ross crushed it.

[@blusheep2]

The only way for Ross to win the debate is to demonstrate that Michael’s interpretation is impossible in a meaningful way. He didn’t do that. He argued why he thought his interpretation was superior which isn’t an argument that his interpretation is the only rational interpretation.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Apparently you watched the wrong debate... You guys are amazing 😒

[@blusheep2]

@@Ttcopp12rt That was a rather meaningless comment. It would be more helpful if you explained how I got it wrong.

[@jesusstopsbullets5111]

Bereshit does mean when, period. Bereshit means "in beginning"

[@blusheep2]

@@jesusstopsbullets5111 Some scholars disagree with you. Bereshit can mean "in the beginning," it can also mean, "at the start." There are even more then that. "When it all began," and "In the beginning of the beginning..."(Rashi) I'm not anexpert and don't know Hebrew myself so I am just listening to the smart people that do and it appears that "Bereshit" isn't as straight forward as you claim. Rashi says that the word itself doesn't make sense. Its tenses are all wrong and in English the sentence wouldn't make sense. Heiser points out issues with the vowel points (the original Hebrew wouldn't have had vowel points) has problems which then created issues in the LXX. So, I think you are saying that Ross demonstrated Michael was wrong because Michael was wrong about Bereshit which effects other conclusions of his. If so. Let me ask you in curiosity. Would you find his arguments more convincing if bereshit did mean "when it all began."

[@jesusstopsbullets5111]

@@blusheep2 rashi is not an expert either. He is just a man who puts on his pants one leg at a time like we do. Why place him on a pedestal? Hebrew can be learned and it's not hard. So why rely on what "scholars think" why not become a scholar yourself. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@echoecho3155]

The scariest answer to the Problem of Evil - or at least the Problem of Suffering - is that, to some degree, the world was designed to be this way.

[@DANGJOS]

Is it just me that finds the audio and the video to be wildly out of sync?

[@ElaineGDuarte]

no one will talk about the fact that his name is Ross and he is a paleontologist????

[@HERObyPROXY]

Lol! Nice spot there xD

[@jogeirlianes3704]

Christians should not use much time to look at friends who's focus is to make sin funny and acceptable. Hopefully that's why. Unfortunately I was not where I should be at that time myself, and got your point....

[@emmanuelmakoba6085]

😂😂😂

[@rangersNHL]

Listening to Michael Jones is frustrating. I like his position on somethings and I think he does a good job on his defense of God as creator. But listening to this, when scripture plainly says that Satan, the devil, the accuser of the brethren was the Old Serpent, and in other places, and he shakes his head. It seems like he wants to claim that he believes the authority of scripture, but then he denies the plan reading of the text.

[@Joleyn-Joy]

Because "the plain reading" is normally out of historical context.

[@genekrobel4707]

I like that so much of the New Testament was used by Dr. Ross. Be cool to see Michael address this theologically within the New Testament from Paul and Jesus as well. The missing fossil recorded disposes I feel of millions of humans preadam. Just that alone screams a young earth.

[@briandiehl9257]

"The missing fossil recorded disposes I feel of millions of humans preadam. " I literally don't know what this sentence means

[@joewarhurst5646]

I don’t really understand the opening argument. Even if Gensis 1 does say ‘in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’, how would that contradict evolution and/or suggest a young earth? It literally says nothing about the age of the earth.

[@tonyabrown7796]

Elsewhere it says he created male and female from the beginning. If it took millions of years before different sexes evolved, wouldn't that contradict the statement? And if Adam and Eve were the original humans and we have a short genealogy then that contradicts a long age.

[@masteringr6714]

What happens if evolution is false, Michael? Doesn't that mean either you were just trying to fit your interpretation of Genesis into the world view of evolution or that there's something fundamentally wrong with Genesis? I think it's the former but the notion that Darwinian evolution is not plausible is becoming more and more accepted. I'm sure you've seen discussions about irreducible complexity and the fact that Darwin himself said that if the cell turned out to be irreducibly complex then evolution is essentially debunked but if not I recommend looking into it.

[@jehandesains8674]

Actually, Evolution (no need to bring Darwin into this, we've moved beyond him long ago) is more solidly proven every single day. Every single day, more proof is presented to support it. Nobody in science questions the validity of Evolution. To claim Evolution is not plausible is as silly as claiming Gravity is not plausible. It's an absurdity of the highest degree. Yes, we've seen the argument of irreducible complexity, and we've thoroughly debunked every single example presented by it, proving all of it CAN be reduced in complexity. The eye, the cell, the watch, the flagellum, all of it can be reduced in complexity. I recommend you google the debunking of all your arguments, because I've talked to hundreds if not thousands of creationists, and not a single one has ever made an argument that hasn't already been debunked, nor managed to provide any evidence at all.

[@Jewonastick]

​@@jehandesains8674couldn't have said it better.

[@hermanwooster8944]

​@@jehandesains8674 "Nobody in science questions the validity of Evolution." The YEC in this video is a paleontologist. I think what you meant to say is, "Nobody who agrees with me questions the theory of evolution."

[@jehandesains8674]

@@hermanwooster8944 no, not a single SCIENTIST questions the validity of Evolution. Creationists, by definition, are anti-science. A paleontologist denying Evolution is like a physicist denying Gravity, or a mathematician denying numbers.

[@darthnightstrike1808]

​@@hermanwooster8944behold discovery institute, a group of scientist (all creationists denying evolution)

[@izerman4261]

From a debate standpoint, Michael Jones won. He was able to put forth his point and show that it is compatible with Genesis. Dr. Ross lost the debate by saying, "That's an interesting point. I disagree with that interpretation." That shows an opinion that he has verses how it is impossible for that point to exist.

[@thehopelessdeterminist]

John Walton's view of Genesis has been refuted in _Review of John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology_ by Nathan Mastnjak, John Day's _From Creation to Babel_ pages 4-5 and here's an excerpt from William Lane Craig's criticism: "Walton has a particularly difficult time with the firmament which God creates. He thinks that the ancient Israelites believed that there literally existed a solid dome in the sky - the firmament - which held up the waters which are above the earth. So he says if we take Genesis 1 as an account of material creation, then it implies the existence of something “that we are inclined to dismiss as not part of the material cosmos as we understand it.” There is no firmament in other words. He says we can “escape from the problem” by interpreting the text purely functionally. It doesn’t really mean that God created the firmament in the sense of bringing this thing into existence. Here I think Walton has very clearly allowed modern science to intrude into his hermeneutics. The issue isn’t whether the firmament is part of the material cosmos as we understand it. The issue is whether or not the firmament was part of the material cosmos as the ancient Israelites understood it. Trying to justify a functional interpretation by appealing to the non-existence of the firmament in modern science is an example of concordism, which you will remember is allowing modern science to enter into and guide your exegesis. This is a view that Walton himself rejects. I find it tremendously ironic that Walton, after inveighing against concordism earlier in the book, should find himself guilty of this very hermeneutical fallacy himself in saying that because the firmament doesn’t exist according to modern science therefore we should think that this narrative is not about material creation but functional creation."

[@thehopelessdeterminist]

@N/A The functional/material distinction is the main point of Walton's argument. He says rather then Genesis speaking of material creation, it's speaking about assigning "functions" to various entities. The paper I cited shows this is a false dichotomy and John Day's book makes the point that Gen. 1:11 implies material creation of vegetation while it's "function" as food isn't mentioned until Gen. 1:29-30. As for the solid dome, the Ancient Israelites certainly believed it was real. See Day's _From Creation to Babel_ pages 2-3.

[@snowforest6487]

@@thehopelessdeterminist even in English it's obvious this is functional, just read it, God created light for and luminaries TO SERVE AS SIGNS

[@chipan9191]

Yeah... The problem with this argument is that Walton is not using his argument as a hermeneutic. The fact is he did the hermeneutic prior when he said the verse calls the sky a solid dome. His comparison is only to make a further argument that either the Bible is making a literally false claim or it is not about it's not a claim about the material. That's not a concordance approach to hermeneutics.

[@chipan9191]

@N/A it's a school of knowledge pertaining to interpreting the Bible. So what I was saying is that John Walton gave an interpretation of the passage, that it refers to the sky as a solid dome. He then argues that the implication of this interpretation is either at the Bible makes a literal false statement or it is not talking about the creation of a material solid dome sky, but instead refers only to its function.

[@chipan9191]

@N/A well John Walton would argue that the Bible making a literal false statement is problematic. But his point isn't that it could refer to a solid dome sky. It's that it does, but that this reference could either be a material reference or a functional one. The material reference would be a literal false statement, but the functional reference would not.

[@GodzillaFreak]

Excellent debate. Very well organized.

[@williampennjr.4448]

"No man to till the ground" does not necessarily mean there were no people. It could mean there were people but they didnt know how to till the ground because nobody had eaten from the tree of knowledge.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

2dys ago i watched the rest of this. Took me about 4hrs. I took many of Mike's points and I falsified them from Scripture. The primary one being his interpretation of Rom. 5:13. Scripture itself proves his interpretation that sin is not imputed without the Law false. Yes, I know what it says but one simply can NOT rip a verse completely out of context and have it saying the OPPOSITE of many other CLEAR passages of Scripture that shows Sin WAS imputed without the Law. That said, I lost the whole reply when I somehow did something that caused the whole tab to refresh. I was hoping that by listening to this again I might remember what all was said. But I'm not. However, one thing did come to mind. Paul in the very next chapter CLEARLY says that the wages of sin is death. People died before the Law. Ergo, Sin was imputed before the Law. They got what they earned because there IS another Law and this is shown in Romans 2:15-16. The entire purpose of Rom. 5:13 is NOT to say sin wasn't imputed before the Law of Moses. That is evidenced by the "But/Yet/Nevertheless" in v. 14. Scripture is VERY clear that the sin of the people was imputed to them all the way from Adam & Eve who obviously had their sin imputed to them well before the Law all the way up to Paul's writing of Romans and beyond. For Paul CLEARLY says the Gentiles were without the Law! This one segment was the one biggest and greatest part where Marcus should've focused on tearing apart Mike's theology. My previous was a LOT better and a LOT longer but that's a decent summary. The other thing I did was show Mike consistently making claims that are just flatly nonsensical and totally illogical. Such as he did with the question at the 1:45.00min mark. To claim something doesn't exist simply because it's not been named is beyond foolish. I would hope that whenever any Believer hears that the Holy Spirit would immediately bring to mind something that irrefutably falsifies it. For example, the first thing that came to my mind is "So, if a couple has a child and let's say takes a week to name it then it really didn't exist before then?" And then Marcus makes a superb very astute question when he quite accurately exposes the flaw in Michael's claim by the fact that there are things God created that He did not name until later. Which immediately brought to my mind Gen. 2:19!! So, according to Mike's hermeneutic and interpretation God lied because HE says that He BROUGHT the animals to Adam to be named. How did God do that if they didn't actually exist? The same could be said for his hermeneutic regarding the animals. Mike rejects the idea that Adam & Eve were the first "CREATED" human beings but rather some kind of "election" to fit his Temple Inauguration idea. The problem is that God uses the same exact language with "created", "made", and "formed" for ALL of Creation as He does Man. Were the heavens and earth "elected" on Day One? How about all the other animal life except for Man on Day Five? Were they just "elected" too? That's the kind of stuff that Mike did a half dozen or more times where some Scripture immediately came to mind or another easily understood example would quickly falsify the claim. Oh, one more just came to mind and then I got a call and now it's gone. So I'll just point out that Mike OFTEN stresses the word "ASSUME" that's followed up with "we can't just assume". Marcus should've jumped on that like white on rice. Genesis says God "created". Mike says God "elected". WHERE is the world "elected" found? Where is in 2000yrs of Biblical/Church History was this idea of Cosmic Temple Inauguration found? The last thing I'd like to address and highlight is Josh's critique and claim that Marcus didn't realize prove that Evolution is not compatible with Genesis/Scripture. In a debate there is one who takes the Affirmative and one who takes the Negative. The job of the Negative is typically to falsify the Affirmative. By destroying Mike's theological claims, by showing the errors in his hermeneutic, by exposes his eisegesis and failure to employ sound exegesis, and by punching holes in Mike's logic, Marcus succeeded in his role. I will say there was one point back around the 1:05:00min mark that Marcus had Mike on the ropes and about one or two punches away from a knockout but he let Mike get up and recollect himself or it would've been over. I can't remember the specific now but Marcus went down some rabbit trail that Mike led him and completely got off the main scent that would've killed the rabbit. I think I said it in my previous comment from a few days ago and I alluded to it above with my comments on Rom. 5:13 but I'll reiterate it here. Marcus should've focused in on Scripture refuting Mike's theology AND that Mike was twisting Scripture like a pretzel in order to make Scripture fit the "Science". Whereas the Calvinists twist Scripture to make it fit thru the TULIP filter, Mike twists Scripture to make it fit the "Science". Which really isn't Science at all. And that NEVER even got brought up.

[@damieno3470]

Well put! Long read lol, but well put! 👍 Funny thing! I was at 1:05 on the video just as I was reading about that very part on your comment and I definitely see what you were saying, wonderful reaction to that question!

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@damieno3470 - Thank you. MUCH appreciated. Not for the pat on the back but because it's nice to know that my "long reads" don't always fall on deaf ears. I always try to make my replies more than just my opinion or empty rhetoric but rather specific critiques (good or bad) to specific things addressed in such a way that they have Scripture SUBSTANCE behind them. And in the hope that it will be edifying to some in The Body. So thanks again.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

​@N/A "I think that this entire response misses the fact that Genesis was written in an ancient near-east context and isn't a scientific modern 21st century text" I really have no idea why you would think that or how you would derive that conclusion from what I said. One of the primary suppositions I put forth and points I made is that Mike is attempting to interpret Genesis thru the filter of "Science". Whereas I am interpreting Genesis thru the filter of Scripture. Mike is arguing the affirmative that Genesis teaches/supports Evolution and speaks of "billions of years". Where in ALL of Scripture is that found? I know of no such Scripture passage. Therefore it must come from someplace and it naturally follows that Mike is taking it from Modernity Science. "regardless of how the ancients might have viewed concepts of forming and providing functions." Hermeneutics can't be ignored when interpreting Scripture. "But regardless of if the raqia did or did not physically exist before God named it" That's completely illogical. One can't just ignore Truth and Reality when trying to determine what a passage is saying and for Mike to make the claim that something didn't exist until it was named is one thing. To have someone think that is irrelevant is a whole nuther matter. "is irrelevant in the broader reality that the raqia isn't nor was ever a scientifically real thing to begin with." How do you know that's truth? Are you making any assumptions? What observable evidence to you have to support that claim? Many biblical scholars are getting behind interpretations of "in the beginning" referring to "when" God chose to bring order to things, rather than it referring to an actual material beginning of the cosmos." Appeal to Authority Fallacy. "That's just how the original Hebrew is written." What is the "that" there? "But either way it's kind of a moot point when you realize that Genesis isnt a modern scientific description of origins." it's not a moot point for the reasons I enumerated. Mike made it part of his argument. All one has to to is falsify ONE truth claim in the argument and the whole claim collapses. "It's an interesting topic to debate, but ultimately, either conclusion is still within an ANE context which heavily weights against YECism." How? WHERE is this "weight"? I certainly haven't seen any of it. And your entire reply begs the question...WHAT is your Final Authority by which you determine the Truth of the Bible to come from? Or do you even believe that Scripture is the Word of God and true?

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@N/A "you're misunderstanding Mike's entire position." Your faux-omniscience exercised from your high and lofty self-built throne crafted out of your self-imposed god-complex is failing you miserably. Unless, of course, you're trying to prove your in the Flesh at the very least. "He's not trying to say that the Bible describes billions of years, he's describing it in an ancient near-east context." See the above. "News flash, the râqı̂ya‛ never existed to begin with" PROVE IT. Until you do your OPINION is duly noted and summarily dismissed because, well, it's just that and MORE IMPORTANTLY God says otherwise. And God said, “Let there be an expanse(râqı̂ya‛) in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And GOD MADE the expanse(râqı̂ya‛) and separated the waters that were under the expanse(râqı̂ya‛) from the waters that were above the expanse(râqı̂ya‛). AND IT WAS SO. And God called the expanse(râqı̂ya‛) Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."(Gen 1:6-8 ESV) You can call God a Liar at your own expense and peril. I'm not. Furthermore, using your hermeneutic there is no Heaven which would follow there is no Jesus in Heaven. "so the question of when God gave it function or brought it into existence in an ancient near-east view is irrelevant to the broader topic." Wrong. "And you asked me how I know that the râqı̂ya‛ wasn't real? Are you serious?" Yes. "A solid dome with windows in it that open and close to let water through?" I never said that and that doesn't have to be what the râqı̂ya‛ is. "Genesis 7:11, 8:2. God set the stars in it and there was a celestial ocean of water restrained above it that was released by these windows during the noachian flood." So you say. That's NOT what God said. "And you're asking me how I know that such a thing never actually existed?" Nope. I asked you how you know the râqı̂ya‛ never existed. Your exegesis is as pathetic as your hermeneutics. "You know how we know it wasn't real? Because the earth isn't flat with a solid dome over it." Your eisegesis isn't evidence that God lied. "I certainly hope you would agree." I agree that the Earth isn't flat and nothing more. That's the only thing that's correct in all you said. Now I'm STILL waiting on some evidence from you to support your claim. God said He " MADE the expanse(râqı̂ya‛)". Now, you can continue to try and prove God a Liar or you can try to and find a logical way to make sense outta that or you can just accept that God is a wee bit bigger than you evidently think He is and that the entire Creation Event was SUPERNATURAL to begin with.

[@damieno3470]

@N/A Um, so how did the subject of a flat earth come in to play? Nothing was said about a flat earth at all. Just shows an ignorance to the subject and willingness to make baseless assumptions. How do you KNOW that there wasn't a raqia? Were you there to observe that it never existed??? What other events, locations and or people do you deny in the word? You deny the raqia and seems Genesis altogether because to you think it sounds ridiculous, do you deny that Jesus was tortured brutally, killed, buried than 3 days later was resurrected because it sounds unbelievable? If science has replaced God for you (I certainly hope not though) than you've chosen unwisely. Every week it seems now events in the world are proving the words of the Lord to be real and this farce science being pushed to be a fools belief system! Science even keeps disproving farce science! The James Webb has done a fine job proving the long standing "big bang theory" to be nothing more than imaginative storytelling! Now that the best in field theory has been upended they will need to come up with yet another God denying theory and yet again recalibrate the "clocks" on everything as they continously have to do every time there is a new discovery with more advanced technology that destroys previous thinking and theories. Science has gotten very little right and so very much wrong. The bible has gotten everything right every step of the way and in fact the possibility that one of the prophecies come true in the bible is paramount to taking a plot of land the size of Texas and staking silver coins 50 feet high throughout then placing one red coin hidden among them and you, blindfolded happening to pick the red coin on the first try! Now multiply exponentially for every single prediction to come true to date! The same goes for the beginning of life and of Darwin's evolution model, abiogenesis fails miserably to explain how it happened and the Uray-Miller experiment ONLY produced a very few building blocks (NOT LIFE) and an over abundance of toxic sludge that destroys those building blocks of which only have a 19 day half life and absolutely no instruction of what to build and how! The big bang theory, Darwin's evolutionary philosophy are a violation of physics and are being proven false day by day. Scientists are coming around to these facts and realizing the fact that God exists and created everything you see now and the things you dont see! How do you KNOW the raqia never existed? How do you KNOW what things actually look like outside of your bubble? NASA admits to photo shopping pretty much everything! The creation of the blue marble was completely CGI and artistic imagination. All of those pictures of earth are not real and they admit this! The ONLY ones they claim are real are the apollo shot in the 70s and the most recent one from just a few years ago, and I seriously put into question those too. With all of the satellites and flights how is it we don't have any real shots? We should have TONS and TONS of photos from all kinds of angles but we don't! ALL of the data, including trajectory data, original pictures and videos of ALL of the moon landings are GONE, NASA can not find them, not a one! Astronaut Don Pettit even said we can't go back to the moon because everything was destroyed and it's too painful a process to get it all back. Huh??? The Apollo astronauts say you can not see anything in space, that it is pitch black, a void, not even stars. But the space station astronauts (including Don) say you can see EVERYTHING with an unbelievable vibrancy, you can see stars, planets, the milky way, galaxies just everything! So which is it??? Someone is lying! Astronauts saying that they are unable to get out of low earth orbit a maximum of 1,200 miles. Why would they say that? Plenty of NASA green screen bloopers of things like an astronaut disappearing or fading away like some ghost as he enters a porthole, a guy on what is obviously a cable harness "floating" past a couple of times as the 2 astronauts in the forefront pass an invisible object (perhaps a hat) and try to hang it on the wall! Or the time a female astronaut just "conjures" up an orange from thin space air and passes it to someone. The times the green screen background glitches badly (or perhaps they were attacked by a mini blackhole lol)! Two words "SPACE BUBBLES"! I personally like the NASA archived pictures of the earth from various years put together to show just how much the earth changes from year to year, like land masses changing drastically in size and color and the oceans changing dramatically in color and other photos where they copied and paste the same exact cloud formations over and over again! I'm not saying everything is flat, I'm not saying it's a globe, I am saying we truly do not know because things are being hidden and there is a story being spun to us. So, how do we really know again what everything looks like out there since most of it is ambiguous at best? Neanderthals, once brutish bigfoot animal like creatures pre modern human, now absolutely no difference between them and modern humans and in fact had culture and lived with modern humans and now are considered to me just heavily inbred modern humans! We have been lied to about history, politics, health, ect ect. Do you really trust the words of man or the words of GOD?

[@Maxineroblox-gm6fp]

1:32:39 micheal trying to pick up the water bottle made my day a tad bit better, hes funny lol

[@gianpopo2007]

Why didn't Michael ask: "If you interpret Genesis and the Bible literally why don't you believe that the earth is flat with a dome?"

[@rebeccad6840]

Because yom and eretz implicates a rotating earth.

[@cindilincoln]

Because the Bible never says flat

[@jray1429]

Yea, I have to agree with others, the idea that the Bible promotes the “flat earth” concept is false. If someone says the Bible teaches that, ask them where it states that and in context.

[@animalsaroundus2]

The Bible never says the earth is flat

[@gianpopo2007]

@@animalsaroundus2 Literal interpretation would conclude the sky is a dome and that the earth is on pillars

[@SakutoNoSAI]

It would seem to me that Adam represents the first human who exists within the specific construct of time or history. That is, the first to be a man and not an ape.

[@ThatsTheFam]

“Let us make man in our image” should be a clear and concise end to that idea of thinking.

[@animalsaroundus2]

@@ThatsTheFamthat’s kinda what I was thinking too. Like Adam was made in the image of God and I believe he was immortal until the fall. He was in a state of glory until sin perverted that.

[@irlc1254]

Thank you for a great debate. I just can’t help thinking that we are looking at it the wrong end when we interpret Genesis, particularly Gen 1. I think if you look at the end, rather than the beginning, we will sense which interpretation correct. Here’s what I mean: “… *in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye* … the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” 1 Cor 15:52. “*But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare*.” 2 Pet 3:10. “*Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” … coming down out of heaven from God*, … He who was seated on the throne said, *“I am making everything new!”*” Rev 21:1, 2 & 5. I just don’t get the sense that God is beholden to *any* naturalistic methodology in bringing an end to the current universe, making us incorruptible, or ushering in a new heaven and a new earth. I can’t think of any Christian who would think that. I think he’ll do all this in next to no time - as he said. He won’t wait for 14 billion years for new life to form, or the heavens to take shape, or for the new Jerusalem to be built. If we think otherwise, I sincerely hope that it will not be a case of “according to faith it will be done to you”(!), because I seriously do not want to hang around 14 billion years for a new body, or a new heaven and a new earth. If it’s the case that God will remake us, heaven and earth in next to no time, why do we think he could not have created the heavens and all life in next to no time the first time round? I think the consistent theme of scripture is that God can just snap his fingers and it will be done; whether it’s the first heaven and first earth and first man, miracles, or the new heaven and new earth and the new man. Happy to hear opinions to the contrary.

[@scottb4579]

We can look in the Gospels and read about the miracle the Lord did to feed the 5000 in Galilee. Jesus made fish and baked bread appear in the basket instantaneously. No natural process. FULL GROWN FISH and BAKED BREAD. From nothing. Instantaneously. Over and over until all 5000 were fed.

[@anto69-420]

Well, according to your line of reasoning, why did God create the earth in 7 days and not in an instant? The 7 creation days COULD actually just be symbolic allegories.

[@irlc1254]

@@anto69-420 Yes, thanks for pointing this out. Perhaps I was a bit imprecise. I mean to say that because he can do it in an instance, doing it in a day or 7 would not be a problem. And just as it reasonable to argue that God really means "in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye" as opposed to keeping us waiting for billions of years, it is therefore also resonable to argue that he meant a day, and not billions of years.

[@briangray6476]

@@irlc1254realize God isn’t beholden to time, scripture goes to say that a thousand years to us is a day to The Lord

[@irlc1254]

@@briangray6476 Thanks. Here’s a little thought experiment ... The argument often put forward is that Genesis was so written because the ancient man would not have been able to understand the concept of evolution, that it needed to be written in a metaphorical, poetic form so that our ancestors could understand. Personally, I don’t think the ancients were mental midgets. They built pyramids, they built temples, they created incredible works of art and culture. Ancients or moderns alike understand the concept of starting simple then developing into something complex; start with a simple hut, then progress to houses, temples and pyramids, simple boats to ships, villages to cities, etc If Darwinian evolution were true, I see no reason why the Genesis account could not have been written something like this: “In the beginning God created heavens and earth. Out of nothing he spoke matter [or dust if you prefer] into being. And God gathered the matter/dust together to form stars. In time, God also formed the earth and the moon and provided the sun to give the earth warmth and light, and days and nights and the seasons. A long time later, God caused life to arise on the earth. First tiny life. And God, by his wisdom and power, enable this tiny life, over a long period of time, to develop into plants, and animals, insects and birds, all living things. Life developed from simple forms to complex forms. And God saw what he created and established was good. In the course of time, after the hominids [or whatever appropriate term] had emerged, God chose a special pair. He called the male Adam and the female Eve, and God breathed his Spirit into them and said, you now bear my image; in my image I have created you. And God saw all that his hand had made, and it was very good. …” If God had written that, no one would have batted an eyelid. It would have been an accurate, albeit, simplified, account that would have fitted perfectly well with an evolutionary narrative. *But he didn’t*. This leads me to think that the Genesis account is accurate and does not fit well with an evolutionary narrative. Afer all, God is the only one who can tell us what he had done, since none of us was there to say otherwise. (Edited for clarity)

[@DennisDunham]

I love Michael Jones, but I can't agree with his point of view on this issue. I do, however, believe in natural selection. But, I was already sold on the scripture which says that God created the heavens and the earth. Nothing Michael said dissuaded me from that. Still, I am a big fan and watch him every day.

[@michaelmalaki7176]

Marcus Ross is a good debater. He used straw manning and emotive reasoning to good effect. He turned the debate from that proposed in the title to "Is IPs view of Gen 1-2 correct?". If I was uncharitable I would say that's intellectual dishonesty. But this is how most debates are. Its not about the best ideas but the one with the better polemic.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Your assessment is demonstrably false. It is invalid to cherrypick and quote mine others to give the false impression that said person also hold the same view as you. IP got called out on the fact that he was appealing to scholars who didn't necessarily hold the same view that he does and siding with their interpretation for a part here and a part over there etc. IP even agreed that he was doing this. Thus, by doing so, Ross rightly pressed IP to bunker down and state his view and defend it since IP was not representing the views of others (In their entirety).

[@michaelmalaki7176]

@@Ttcopp12rt You didn't demonstrate anything false in my assessment. You don't necessarily have to believe everything a scholar believes to make a certain point. Just because Heiser and Walton disagree on certain points doesn't mean one cannot glean the essential from both their views- that is in fact what IP does. Besides that even when the scholars IP quoted disagree on finer points, they still hold Old Earth view. So IP wasn't cherry picking as the scholars he pointed to hold the same view on Old Earth.

[@SolarxPvP]

I disagree that this is bad. Turning the debate into critiquing every Theistic evolutionist's view of Genesis would be far too wide of a scope and ridiculous. I agree that IP doesn't have to agree with every position of a scholar he cites, though. I can agree with my favorite philosopher Michael Huemer on dualism, but can disagree with him on Christianity.

[@davelikesbacon]

Ross bringing up that Michael may agree with a scholar on one thing but not another felt like he was just trying to waste time. I felt it was an absolute irrelevant point to bring up. Ross would obviously know that you can agree with somebody on one topic or one point but even disagree with their conclusions or on another point. Michael was demonstrating that throughout the debate when he would agree with Ross on on a point but not agree with the conclusion.

[@davelikesbacon]

@@Ttcopp12rt Michael never claimed he was representing their view. He said he agreed with them on a particular point or they shared the same view on said point. You can cherry pick a point that you agree with and still disagree with the conclusion. Michael did it throughout the debate with Ross. He said multiple times at this is what he's arguing but he clearly comes to a different conclusion. There's nothing wrong with that. Hell, doctors do this. They can agree that there's something wrong with a patient and disagree on what caused the problem. Two mechanics can agree that a vehicle transmission isn't working and coming to completely different conclusions as to why it's not working.

[@xaindsleena8090]

IP's claim that prior to Adam and Eve there was no sin because there was no law makes no sense. Does he really think humans had no conscience prior to Adam and Eve? That they didn't think that certain actions are wrong? Or they did think that certain actions were wrong, but they weren't really wrong because god hadn't yet made a law? Why would god write his moral law on our hearts at a time when there was no law?

[@TruePT]

Their were humans before Adam and Eve?

[@xaindsleena8090]

@@TruePT According to almost all scientists who study human origins, there were no first humans. IP reinterprets Genesis to mean Adam and Eve are the ancestor of all living humans today, but that they weren't the first humans

[@Iffmeister]

Pretty sure the bible makes a very similar point in Romans 5:13

[@xaindsleena8090]

@@Iffmeister Do you believe humans had a conscience before god made his moral law?

[@TruePT]

@@xaindsleena8090 I see. It seems to me that IP’s line of thought was going towards how Sin only entered the world through humans. Since the Devil wasn’t on earth when he sinned. That’s the only way I can make sense of it.

[@Degenwise]

Dr. Ross crushed it ! Great attitude and sense of humor was a bonus !!!

[@williampennjr.4448]

What? He made a lot of false arguments. His arrogance and condensending attitude was annoying. Talking down to your opponent is not winning an argument. He used gestures and a demeaning attitude because he didn't have facts or logic on his side. Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam and Eve were the first people as he infered. It says they were the first people "to till the soil." He also assumed that when Moses said Adam was the first man that he was referring to the entire human species. and not just modern humans. That was not Michaels argument. There could have been humans around before Adam that were not modern humans, like Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. They didn't have farming, therefore could not till the soil as genesis says.

[@hermanwooster8944]

@@williampennjr.4448 Neanderthals had tools and musical instruments. They could till land.

[@williampennjr.4448]

@@hermanwooster8944 Ok, if that's the case then Adam and Eve were Neanderthals.

[@michaelmouse5375]

I am a believer in the Christian faith, however, I also believe in Evolution, it’s an undeniable fact already, Michael has helped me maintain my faith in a theistic evolutionist world.

[@DrDoerk]

Macro evolution has never been proven. We were made in the image of God..... if we evolved, we'd no longer be made in his image. See how evolution doesn't work?

[@Jewonastick]

@@DrDoerk If evolution is a problem for your religious book than that's too bad for your religious book.

[@jehandesains8674]

@@DrDoerk "macro evolution has never been proven" -> that's because there's no such thing as micro or macro, it's just Evolution. The same process of Evolution that makes you not a clone of your parents, is the exact same process, repeated countless times over, that caused the wide variety of life as we know it. Creationists deliberately try to create a wedge, a fake divide between "micro" and "macro", but there are no separate processes. It's all one and the same process, repeated many times. It's like walking. Doesn't matter if you walk 10 meters or 500 miles and then 500 more, it's all the same process of one step after another. So if you agree with "micro", then you agree with all of it, because it's all the same process. "we were made in the image of God" -> show me the image of God. Not an artistic rendering of God, but the actual, certified, confirmed, proven, real image of God. Because when I look around, I see a looooot of different faces, body types, and other differences. So, no, I don't see how Evolution does NOT work, because I constantly see that it DOES work.

[@DrDoerk]

@@Jewonastick give evidence of evolution...... I'll wait

[@Jewonastick]

@@DrDoerk You are placing doubts on the most well substantiated and most accepted scientific theory there is! I'm sure you could give me a detailed explanation of why you disagree with it. It's really weird how literally EVERYONE who has a problem with evolution always wants others to educate them on the subject.

[@joshuaracey7967]

Is it just me or is Michael's voice cracking throughout this? I'm glad this debate happened. Neither of these guys seem completely comfortable with in-person debate. Good practice, at the very least.

[@SatanFollower1]

His voice cracks regularly in every debate I’ve ever seen him in lol

[@CSWRB]

I watch lots of Michael’s livestreams. His voice frequently cracks. That’s even when he’s joking around with his friends. I don’t think it means anything. My voice cracks a lot too. LOL!

[@RichyK]

I think Dr. Ross had some good responses to IPs claims

[@tieferforschen]

Being a theistic evolutionist, I expected Michael to win this easily. But I am suprised to say, Ross performed way better here. If someone "won" the debate, it was clearly him (although he is still wrong).

[@Genesis1_27]

Evolution is a Satan's lie

[@tieferforschen]

@0 I agree. But most of the biblical arguments made by Ross here were simply stronger. Gen 1-2 clearly reads like a harmonious place. It is not Ross reading that harmony in the text, but Mike reads hostility and war in the text. He does that by resting everything on one word. In contrast, Ross clearly showed example after example how the harmony is demonstrated by the narrative.

[@covid19alpha2variantturboc7]

@@tieferforschen theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It's just a sad attempt to Darwinize Christianity.

[@Doom_Guy_Slayers]

@@tieferforschen so you're saying the Bible support young earth creationism? Also if evolution is true, does that contradict the Bible?

[@Doom_Guy_Slayers]

@@tieferforschen does the bible support evolution? What's your view?

[@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473]

I'm very open to old earth, but Dr. Ross I think had the best arguments.

[@eswn1816]

The newest version of the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) agrees with Michael.

[@trickjacko8482]

Debating young earth creationist must be really frustrating because logic tends to leave the building.

[@JoelKorytko]

Εν αρχη (in the beginning) means "at first" in typical compositional Greek. James Aitken (one of the world's leading LXX scholars) has made this clear recently. Gen 1:1 in the LXX should be translated "At first, God created the heavens and the earth" or "First of all, God created the heavens and the earth."

[@blusheep2]

That is interesting. Did he comment on what that means for this passage. It seems indeterminate to me as if it could support both interpretations but neither strongly.

[@LennyChildOfJesus]

It’s because we read the hebrew to understand what the original authors were meaning.

[@RedefineLiving]

More like Inspiring Compromise. He literally reads his secular interpretation of the science right into the scripture and imagines it is consistent. All scientific conclusions are interpreted based on one’s worldview. When he appeals to an evolutionists interpretation of the science to support his deconstruction of the scripture, he is using circular reasoning.

[@atanas-nikolov]

And people aren't using circular reasoning when they think the Bible describes scientific stuff?

[@RedefineLiving]

@@atanas-nikolov The Bible tells us how to interpret science. Do you need me to elaborate?

[@atanas-nikolov]

@@RedefineLiving Yes, please.

[@RedefineLiving]

@@atanas-nikolov Take for example the “fact” of the geological column. The secular interpretation, from their naturalistic presupposition, will be that these layers were laid down over deep periods of time. The biblical worldview interpretation of the geological column is that these layers were laid down in a global water catastrophe. The Bible makes clear that there was a global flood. Either you will view the geological column in light of the truth which is clearly stated in scripture, or you will place something as a higher authority than the scripture, and interpret the geological column in light of that authority.

[@atanas-nikolov]

@@RedefineLiving How do you decide whether to read the Bible as a book of scientific facts or not though? The Bible says nothing about geology actually, we have inferred it through logic based on... a presupposed philosophy we have. And it is this philosophy that I question.

[@isaacsauer961]

Glad to see these brothers being so cordial, especially Michael.

[@ItsMe-ic1gb]

I just have one question. Who cares about contradicting a theory made by man? the way he stated "without contradicting evolution" in his intro made it sound like he revears evolution over God. It might just be me though.

[@omarwalker3056]

If it is not truly accurate to say "in the beginning" in the book of Genesis, then why does the phrase appear in the beginning of the book of John? John, who wrote his book long after the events of Genesis, would have surely understood the significance of the phrase and would not have included it if it didn't hold meaning for him.

[@hermanwooster8944]

Correct.

[@wyattnolte]

Crazy how it's just genesis that we've had wildly incorrect translations of for the best part of two thousand years. I can rest easy now, knowing the ancient authors of the bible had a scientifically accurate understanding of birth of the universe and life on this planet. Big weight off, thank you.

[@theoretical-b1h]

Lol nop even science is not even accurate on the age of the earth, they calculated the age of the earth with assumptions that everything was constant which may be incorrect

[@berserkerbard]

No one is arguing that genesis is a scientific account of creation, nor that the authors knew about modern scientific theories. Genesis is not a literal account of creation, it is an allegorical account that tells philosophical and theological truths about creation. You can believe in natural revelation through the sciences and also believe in the deep, philosophical and theological revelations of scripture. None are incompatible.

[@theoverthinker1978]

He missrepresented the certainty of that translation of Genesis 1:1 by the way.... it CAN be interpreted that way, but doesn't have to be.