Genesis 1a: And God Said!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

For those who think William Lane Craig has refuted this whole idea, we did a hangout where we went through Craig's critique of John Walton: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aV6weZqEr8eVe8k

[@eliasarches2575]

There's a second part.

[@slukky]

isgenesishistory.com/gnostic-world-of-john-walton/ I agree w/ most of what Walton says, BUT, I acknowledge that it is all speculative & more the realm of philosophical/metaphysical assay. Science is sight, religion faith. We might just be asking of each the wrong type of question(s).

[@jgee8421]

Video on plants before the sun thing plz

[@greenzombi_9141]

So lf God came and gave a new function to the earth then what was it's old function? Did God cause the big bang to create time space and matter for no apparent reason and then billions of years later decide to give a function to the earth?

[@dodleymortune4312]

@@jgee8421 The sun and moon were already there before plants. In the first day God seperated light from darkness, but he did not tell how. In the fourth day he says that he made sun moon and stars to separate day from night LIGHT FROM DARKNESS. Meaning the sun and moon were already there in the first day he just didn't tell what it means to separate light from darkness until the fourth day. Why ? Because in the fourth day he introduces us to the creation of living creatures ( first three days is only vegetation, seas,etc. nothing alive), therefore he specifies that sun and moon are there for seasons and times wich is very important for living creatures.

[@jimmydale7207]

I’ve always been content that my salvation doesn’t hinge on knowing exactly how and when God created the universe. I still don’t, but this series is a breath of fresh air. Thanks for all your research.

[@kaeljadondavis2779]

That's where I'm at. It doesn't matter if Jesus was the plan since time began anywhere from a couple thousand to several trillion years ago - it only matters that He did. Granted, I still like to believe the earth only took 144 hours to make for several reasons, but I also love studying what others have found that betray different conclusions.

[@pattyb6003]

God is a fair judge, simple as that.

[@latergator4154]

@@kaeljadondavis2779 I mean if the universe isn’t already trillions of years old it definitely will one day, since we’ll be with Christ forever. I’m thankful we don’t need to understand the little details like the age of things 100% on this side of eternity.

[@Logan_Bishop_YT]

Amen. Theistic Evolution doesn't have as many major implications on the Gospel that people think it does. Some examples are that Romans 6:23 is a parallel passage to John 3:16, meaning that the wages of sin is Condemnation, but Salvation is through Jesus Christ our Lord. And also, there can be no remission of Sins without bloodshed, as Hebrews 9:22 puts it. That still happened. Jesus still shed his blood.

[@TheBrunarr]

I have never seen a convincing argument against IP's biblical interpretation, just people quoting bible passages and saying hes "overanalyzing" never actual arguments. How could anyone deny that the old testament should be read in the context and language of which it was written in? Are you really going to tell me that it should be read in English within a 21st century western culture?? Get real.

[@theapistevist8128]

Well, it's actually not IP's interpretation, but anyone who reads the Bible objectively and puts aside the view that the Bible is divinely inspired or that you must maintain biblical inerrancy/infallibility may come to conclude a similar interpretation as this one. In my later years as a Christian, I wanted to make my own commentary regarding the Bible and decided that I'd accept God as is, but take everything else said in the Bible a little more naturalistically. This included miracles. If I had no biases, I couldn't experience cognitive dissonance when my studies presented what would have otherwise conflicted with my views at the time.

[@TheBrunarr]

@@theapistevist8128 well, of course I dont mean its "his" in the sense that it's his creation. I mean its "his" in the sense that it's the interpretation that he holds to.

[@theapistevist8128]

@Everything Biblical What about it?

[@tyresestlouis8469]

Ikr

[@philroe2363]

@The Apistevist: Did it happen or not?

[@kaylacarter6817]

My brain feels like it's breaking, but I'm all here for it.

[@withlessAsbestos]

This is my kind of content.

[@pseudonym9854]

Questioning young earth creationist here. Wow. That was amazing. I had never heard this before. I love what Genesis 1 says for our learning (Romans 15:4). God can take chaos and formlessness and turn them into what is good and proper. He does the same when he redeems us through Jesus.

[@rayhanakram9912]

And how he turned the killing on an innocent man into the greatest act of love EVER

[@SHADOW-zj7jb]

as a non religious person who is interested in just the information and facts in the bible, this is a breath of fresh air. No doctrine or moralizing, just straight facts. Very interested in learning here. Finally a bible study I can watch.

[@TheEchoeman]

God did not write the Book of Genesis, unfortunately. It was written by Anonymous people.

[@marcellofunhouse1234]

@@TheEchoeman no moses wrote it so ive heard

[@TheEchoeman]

@yuri According to rumors, yes.

[@TheGogogwo]

@@TheEchoeman no according to old testament scholars that have years of research on this. Also god didn't write any book in the bible it was written by people who were inspired by god. We know its inspired due to the prophecies that the bible predicted.

[@TheEchoeman]

@@TheGogogwo These so-called prophecies were nothing but anachronisms. The bible scholars themselves have debunked them repeatedly numerous times. People are just in denial.

[@eddeewhat5553]

I’m starting to think this might be one of my favorite channels. I really enjoyed this video

[@TheGer775]

Dude, youre awesome! You help me clear the confusion and questions i have about the things written in the Bible! God bless you and your work!

[@samchoate1719]

Bro, thank you. During this video I actually said out loud, “that’s dope”. You spark my interest in the Bible when I often feel turned off by the Christians around me. I do want to be friends with them, but you are helping me learn what I believe in by going IN DEPTH into these things instead of swallowing what we are conditioned in the west to think and believe. I cannot thank you enough, seriously. It would be good to get coffee some time. I think you and I would have good conversations.

[@bomark2002]

Gotta love us bro, 1 John 3:14-16 King James Version 14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

[@segun_the_polymath]

I know exactly how you feel. People like Michael and other people that run channels like this are a breath of fresh air.

[@Siamesemama1]

Oh, this blew me away! Treating a reading of Genesis w/the cultural lens of the Hebrew fathers really deepens other chapters in the Bible. Can't wait to go deeper-would have given 100 thumbs up to this video if I could have.

[@aoiojmnz]

I always wondered about this, how the chaos already existed before the creation account, but never gave it too much thought. Excellent video, it really cleared things up for me! It just makes me wonder when God actually created the chaotic matter and why He decided to bring order to it, and why He decided to bring order to it at the time He did. I can only imagine and suppose God being eternally Holy by Himself in communion with each other as Father, Son, and Spirit, and at a certain point (or perhaps not an initial created point, but a plan that always was) in His eternal wisdom and understanding, decided that sharing His goodness in community and family with heavenly beings and earthly sons and daughters, and all creation-from chaos, to order, to the fall, and to the redemption through Jesus Christ, and furthermore an eternal sharing of holiness with us as redeemed humans-to indeed be good and worthy of being created both materially and functionally. Thinking about God and His holiness and eternal existence hurts my brain, it is truly humbling! Oh, thank you, Father, The Great I AM, Yahweh, KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS, hallowed be your name forever!

[@cybersquaregaming]

"Thinking about God and His holiness and eternal existence hurts my brain, it is truly humbling!" So True

[@sjappiyah4071]

The Allusion to Jerimiah and how it was the reverse of Genesis in order to display that it’s meant to be a functional reading is brilliant!

[@stephenzerbel]

This actually makes perfect sense to me. I am really enjoying this series

[@karenmiranda7587]

Amazing Channel! The Bible applications are timeless, it’s a book that’s alive, it’s current and forever. 💕

[@ncedwards1234]

5 minutes in: Genesis 1: "In the beginning" IP: Yes, but actually no.

[@freespeechallowed277]

Nathan Edwards he’s wrong... bat is the meaning for “in”

[@falsegospel1640]

So, the same greek in genesis 1:1 is same the in john 1:1-2 John 1:1,2 1 When was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2 He was when with God. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (KJV) 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? *do not ye judge them that are within?* 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

[@rikardotsamsiyu]

😆

[@alt5014]

@@falsegospel1640 He was translating from hebrew, not greek. The old testament was written in hebrew and aramaic, but the new testament was written in greek.

[@falsegospel1640]

@@alt5014 em i think he did use the septuagint genesis 1:1. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGOXiI1qfdusqsUm30s

[@Xhopp3r]

Interesting take on the creation. However, I humbly disagree with it. Going by this interpretation then there is no creator of the universe. The earth simply existed in the universe until God decided to shape it and give it a purpose. The explanation is pre staged by another explanation of how the ancient authors in their cultural context, actually wrote "when: God created the heavens and the earth and not "in the beginning" as it has been translated. Therefore making verse 1 dependent of verse 2. This idea is then repeated throughout the video. As some say, repeat something enough and it will become truth. However, after the alteration of "in the beginning" to "when" the explanation focuses entirely on the state of the earth or function of it, and leaves out the creation of the heavens. It completely leaves it out. Towards the end of the video John 1:1-3 is quoted. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. This says clearly that Jesus created everything, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. In Job 38 God tells Job in rhetorical questions, that God laid earth's foundation, and he measured it. So obviously God takes credit as the architect of the earth. It was not just here and he decided to give it a purpose. Instead, He built with a purpose. So let's assume that "in the begimning" should have been translated as "when". I would read it in the following way: When God created the heavens and the earth, he created the earth formless and empty, or "unproductive". Read in this way, verse 1 is not dependent on verse 2, but rather verse 2 is a continuation of verse 1 to describe the look and feel of the earth at that time when God created. Much like a comet. Just a big rock moving through space. Then he starts to give it life...etc. In much the same way a potter takes dirt, mixes it with water and has a lump of wet clay. Then he spins and shapes it into a vase, or a bowl or whatever he or she envisions at that time. Let us not forget that the heavens and the earth were created at the same time. Without the heavens, earth wouldn't have a place to exist in. So all matter was created by God. He created the heavens or universe, and according to John 1 everything that is in it. This to me is the same small change the serpent made when he twisted God's word to convince Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We must be careful when we make such changes as to not take away from God's grandeur and glory. He is the architect of everything, invisible and visible.

[@mamaluvbug987]

Xhopp3r - exactly: thou shalt not giveth nor taketh away from (don't add nor remove)! Which has become a booming fad (well always was an issue with kings all jockeying to be "the empirical god" n controlling scripture - but all failed, zero even near His image)... So many study n research history, but still keep repeating the same mistakes (aka insanity)!!

[@tommyfosu9329]

God bless you ❤️🙏🏾

[@ShaunFish]

To be fair, he did say that other biblical texts show that God created everything through the Son, but that's not what Genesis 1 is saying

[@deludedjester]

What we have to remember is that the Bible is what God wants us to know, not a scientific textbook. He is telling us about the universe in a line or two but our relationship to Him in the whole book.

[@Xhopp3r]

@@deludedjester I agree. However, it is was important to God to let us know that He is the architect of the universe and everything that is in it. It was important to Him to let us know that besides Him, there is not other God. He more than likely did that not only to demonstrate His awesome power, authority, and intellect, but also because He knew humans will try to find answers about the universe and that they will leave Him out of the equation. In the end, He will be able to say to all of those seeking answers about the universe, why didn't you look towards me for answers. If anyone answers, because I didn't see any evidence of you, he will be able to say but I told you that I did all of that. So all they are left with then, is the realization that it was their unbelief that caused them to search elsewhere, other than God. And through their actions, drug down a multitude of others and caused others to not believe. So no, it is not a scientific book but it gives enough scientific proof to show He is who He says he is. He is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. The bible is the believer's instructions before leaving earth.

[@chikeokjr24]

I love this channel, I pray the quality and genuineness of ur work never dips

[@lloydmunga4961]

The great thing about dissecting it is that in the end, it doesn't change how I feel .... but it puts it in a new ( and often brighter ) light

[@albatross1688]

I'm the same. I'm not here because I'm doubting God or am struggling with my faith (though praise the Lord that vids like this one have helped people who needed it). I'm here because I'm genuinely interested in learning more and getting a fuller picture of what the texts are actually saying. Plus, stuff like this can be useful in helping me answer questions the younger generation may have.

[@jenna.hill712]

Not a part of Genesis chronology but is a part of the Scripture: Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. (Note: I'm neutral to the theology of this video.)

[@vedinthorn]

And the video doesn't dispute that.

[@ericalexcantero8249]

He also quotes other verses here 24:12

[@abelcainsbrother]

Yeah and notice the heavens were made instead of created.So we know the heavens were not new and God just did work on them to restore them.YEC's falsely claim created and made are used interchangeably and mean the same thing.

[@alexrivera860]

Issa poem

[@theapistevist8128]

@Abraham Girt The Hebrew is actually נַעֲשׂוּ. For something to be made isn't the same as to create, though "create" is used even in the sense of making something and not bringing something into existence from nothing.

[@Logan_Bishop_YT]

About two months ago, this video dealt the final blow to my Creationist worldview. And now, as I was having second thoughts, I thought I'd take a look at it again, and it makes MUCH more sense. Thank you, Mike!

[@crystalwords821]

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. HEBREW 11: 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. JOHN 1:10 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. So .... let the Blind wise men of the world = Mathew 15:14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch. We preach the Gospel = 1 CORINTHIANS 1: 18-31

[@enonknives5449]

Hebrews 11:3 completely undermines the explanation given by IP. The text clearly indicates that the matter of the world DID NOT EXIST beforehand. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) If the original creation wasn't intended to be literal, then neither was the work week. "Assigning of function" does not apply...time periods apply. God went out of His way to define His terms -- 'Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.' (Genesis 1:3-5) Every Hebrew scholar admits that the "days" of Genesis 1 mean literal days...even if they interpret them symbolically. I notice that IP interprets the creation (assigning of function) to the sun and moon, but conveniently leaves out, "He made the stars also." A literal 6-day creation week is important if it is to be used symbolically later in Scripture. Metaphors make sense BECAUSE they compare to literal things. The creation week was literal, so the symbolic uses later carry meaning. Comparing symbol to symbol means nothing...or anything you want. Just because the creation account is literal doesn't mean that it doesn't also have symbolic meaning -- it creates the symbolic meaning. IP appears to be forcing the text NOT to mean what it says so that it will conform to ever-changing scientific theories. Those theories are already on thin ice.

[@cameronosborne7405]

Enon Knives exactly my thoughts. Utter trash this video.

[@enonknives5449]

@@cameronosborne7405 -- But a lot of his videos are really good. This was a bad one.

[@aliciadupuy9228]

Man, I have had soooo many trust issues thru my life, and one of them was trusting the translators of the books!! Im so glad you mentioned this playlst in a short!

[@WillEhrendreich]

it's not that they "shouldn't be trusted". on the whole, we have incredible translations. the issues are in some of these details. if you were a scholar, and your job depended not only upon the translation of text per se, but also being able to get the people funding your translation to let you translate it how you most accurately see the hebrew or greek, and you try to translate Gen 1:1 as ANYTHING BUT "In the Beginning" you're going to have a very hard road ahead of you. many have made up their minds about what the hebrew says without knowing what the hebrew means, or how the grammar actually points to bereshit being a the beginning of a dependent clause, or if they've heard that, they don't care, because they're already comitted to a young earth, or .. whatever.. it's not the fault of the scholars, precisely, though some of course are to blame. it's that this is currently a contentious issue, with people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham making things so much worse every single day by demanding that the only way to interpret the bible for any "serious" christian who cares about the text is their own pet theology, their own reading of the English text from their own cultural perspective. That's the kind of person that bears the blame here, not simply scholars just trying to keep getting paid the very little they get paid already.

[@Serenity5460]

Guys, this doesn’t deny creation ex nihilo at all. It just puts a different interpretation to genesis 1. The kalam cosmological argument points out creation ex nihilo itself.

[@Serenity5460]

Mike Fedak Pfff 😂 Alright. A little bit of topic, but I won’t start with that one here.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Right, i do not. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M

[@Kevorama0205]

It’s not creation ex nihilo if God exists when it happens. If God is eternal, true nothing cannot exist.

[@Serenity5460]

InspiringPhilosophy Thank you for your videos by the way. I am 20 years old, studying theology and I really learn a lot from you. I appreciate your effort! Greetings, Cornelius

[@Kevorama0205]

@Valpurgis Tachyon I make things. I guess I don’t need a maker then. If everything needs a maker, so do makers. If not everything needs a maker, how can you tell which ones?

[@joeycad]

This is good, my mom asked me about the " wonders of creation " last week, and to make it short sweet and uncontroversial, I said " Jesus just said that God is spirit" john 4:24.

[@saidjwifjhhhh66]

Thanks!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you for the donation

[@elijahchesterthomas5334]

Been studying theology for years and never heard this exact take before. Beyond interesting to me. Thanks, IP.

[@leosailor4150]

Wow I always read the creation story literally and chronologically, now I know that that wasn’t the way it was written or meant to be read. As you said, having night and day without the sun moon and stars would have been thought of as just as silly back then as it would be now

[@jasongoodwin1269]

So true that I have to go back and research it now

[@christinemaemontano5174]

Romans 16:17-18 King James Version (KJV) 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

[@anunknownentity1637]

Are you talking about YECs?

[@paulspring]

Nicely edited video. I'm always impressed with good editing.

[@ReasonedAnswers]

Fantastic job explaining what scholarship has revealed about the probable meaning of Genesis 1. I'm sure many (whether atheist or Christian) will not want to hear it because they "need" the text to say one thing, but for those open to different ideas, this is much appreciated.

[@rockandroll3671]

Saying an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator God 'took' or 'showed up' in a pre-existant, chaotic cosmos and then simply transformed it to suit His needs ... Not sure where that is in the scriptures. I would be careful about interpreting God's Word VIA Egyptian, Assyrian, Ugargitic, etc. philosophy. Interpreting scripture in historical, cultural context is one thing. And ought to be done when possible. Interpreting the scriptures through ancient pagan philosophy is another thing entirely. Gnosticism comes to mind ...

[@jessepost1108]

Interpreting Genesis 1 to be God interacting with already existing material does not imply that God did not make that material. On that view, Genesis 1 doesn't address material creation, and Christians would use other reasons (Scripture and philosophy) to argue that God created the universe ex nihilo.

[@theapistevist8128]

It never says God created the darkness or the waters. Even Second Peter 3, I believe, mentions creation by water. This was a common motif in the ancient Near East. Given that the Old Testament is such literature, it is no surprise to see similar motifs. The concept of ex nihilo seems to have originated from 2 Maccabees, a book I'm sure no Protestant believes in. Ex nihilo doesn't even make sense, even for an omnipotent god.

[@jessepost1108]

@@theapistevist8128 Why would omnipotence be incompatible with ex nihilo creation?

[@theapistevist8128]

@@jessepost1108 If God can only do that which is logically possible, then God cannot create ex nihilo, since ex nihilo nihil fit, viz., out of nothing, nothing comes.

[@jessepost1108]

@@theapistevist8128 I think the difficulty comes about from imprecise use of the key terms. I think most everyone would agree that from nothing (that is, literally "not anything") nothing comes, i.e. "ex nihilo nihil fit". But when we say God created the world ex nihilo, we mean God created without any pre-existing matter or material, not that he created when there was "not anything" (obviously God had to exist to do the creating). So I do not think the two concepts, as typically understood in theology and philosophy, are in contradiction.

[@MichaelMusgroveYT]

I came back to comment on this video to commend you for your work. Normally when I watch a KZbin video the ideas discussed in it don't remain in mind. However, these past two weeks have been different. I have been finding myself often thinking over the content in this video. Thank you for your hard work, your concise speech, and your commitment. God bless you, brother.

[@lightshiner3742]

Very very interesting interpretation. Loving learning new things from your video. I know you already believe this, but my only critique was not mentioning that while the text supports God assigning roles and functions, it doesn’t imply that God didn’t physically create all of the things He assigned roles to, as He is the Alpha and Omega and nothing precedes Him. Otherwise amazing video

[@theboi553]

He did mention it at the end tho

[@lightshiner3742]

@@theboi553 Did he? I must've missed that. Thanks for pointing it out!

[@StarVarianth]

Yup, he mentions that at 24:03

[@Seththrelfall]

Enligthning! This makes much more sense of the text. Thank you.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

7:05 Isn't the term used actually bareshit and not reshit? Isn't it "bareshit bara Elohim"? There does seem to be a definite article there. Am I missing something? Help me out.

[@StanbyMode]

I don’t speak hebrew, but i would assume the ba prefix before reshit means “in”, so reshit is beginning and bareshit is in beginning

[@Anugreh971]

​@@StanbyModeCorrect 👍

[@Polack21]

Incredibly enlightening. Thank you for the time and work put into this

[@jbrobmXxX]

Light is a state of energy it doesn't need a sun to exist

[@WillEhrendreich]

but it certainly needs a source, and that source is either our sun or it isn't.

[@LoveLove-jk9kz]

Against Heresies (ca. 180 AD), by St. Irenaeus, second bishop of Lyons “Men, indeed, are not able to make something from nothing, but only from existing material. God, however, is greater than men first of all in this: that when nothing existed beforehand, He called into existence the very material for His creation."

[@Minecraft99Awesome]

Did you even watch the whole video? Try watching from @23:53

[@rikardotsamsiyu]

*Kent Hovind and Ken Ham want to know your location*

[@pJ005-k9i]

@Collin Lutz true

[@joanyanchulis1965]

My sweet and glorious God for you are the one who gave life you are the one who put me together in my mother's belly you were the first one who saw me be created cuz you created me you put my bones together in my mother's belly I was the one to child and you gave for me , I love my God with my whole heart and soul I love Jesus and the holy Spirit and I will pray he banishes every sin that I have ever committedwe are like kings and queens knowing good from evil he said my grace should be sufficient. A man sled think and you shall have it think about it Jesus said that to think and you can stay mountain move and if you believe that mountain can move it'll move you can have it washed into the sea our minds we use so very little not even what 10% at a tenth of a percentage even over the limit robbed of everything I had saved and all the precious coins my father had left me

[@sjappiyah4071]

Collin Lutz The problem with people like Kent hovind is not their interpretation of scripture, but it’s rather how they treat christians with different perspectives. In a debate kent hovind called Ip a false teacher.

[@stephencastro4723]

Kent Hovind and Kent Ham are false preachers. They discredit the Bible by not understanding it in it's proper context as well as giving false interpretations of the Biblical texts.

[@ea-tr1jh]

@@stephencastro4723 But is Ken as extreme as Kent? I don't follow him, but according to my knowledge Ken thinks context is important.

[@Onlyafool172]

Thats exactly how i was trying to understand Genesis, incredible, of course i cant compare to what your saying and i had to assume some stuff, but hey the" Bara "was exactly how i read it wow good to see i wasant streecthing or projecting

[@01ombladon]

Michael, I appreciate your work and what you are doing for the Church of Christ our God, I'm an orthodox christian and I would recommend you to read saint John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis, wich does not take literally the creation act but allegorically. And also I know that the Maccabees are not in the canon of the Old Testament but provides good information on the culture of the time before the incarnation of our Lord. 2 Maccabees 7:28" I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being"

[@luizthemaccabee8571]

This sounds interesting, Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) said that in the January of the next year he will demonstrate that Young Earth Creationism is more of a modern phenomenon (not entirely). 2 Maccabees 7:28 says that God created the heavens and earth Ex Nihilo, however this does not contradict the Interpretation shown in the video, as although God created the heavens and earth Ex Nihilo, this is not what Genesis 1 is about, Genesis 1 does not say that God created Ex Nihilo, however, it does not say that He did not created Ex Nihilo, and about the “And in the same way the human race came into being”, I would say that we have to remember that we are body and soul, and although our soul was created Ex Nihilo, the same was not necessarily the case with our body.

[@virgilschmidt1599]

From order to chaos... I'm guessing many have heard of Gerald Schroeder. He stated in one of his videos that the Hebrew words for evening and morning have an underlying meaning of chaos and order (respectively). So the verses in that light would read something like... "from chaos to order day one" "from chaos to order a second day" ...

[@eliasarches2575]

What does the cultural context of other pagan nations have to do with the what the culture of the Jews (including how it was shaped by God) and also what the Bible was saying? You used the example of a pagan nation's cultural context. What does that have to do with anything? As for the cherry-picked scholars you used to support your preferred interpretation of Gen 1:1. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that your view is a minority position. I think asserting that Hebrew scholars *may* be influenced by Western thinking isn't enough to call the traditional translation of Gen. 1:1 into question.

[@MrChaosAdam]

Being in a minority position doesn't exclude you from the realm of truth... Right wingers are right but they are a minority for example.

[@vernonherb]

Alexander Hamilton I was thinking the samething

[@ericalexcantero8249]

Being a minority doesn't mean you are wrong, Actually the Bible tells us to be precautious in being the majority (Exodus 23:2)

[@truethinker221]

It shows the context . The Jews weren't even Jews until after the Babylonia captivity They were in the midst of other cultures the unification under David and Solomon only lasted about 60 years. The children of Israel were expose to the cultures around them . We can put ourselves in there shoes buy understanding the setting. Learning this brings the O T to life. How much do you enjoy reading it ? That is the real question .

[@davelikesbacon]

It's called an example 🤦

[@frankm6546]

I once invited you to get a beer if you lived near me, and I wished you lived close enough for me to buy you that beer. John Walton, Michael Heiser, John Sailhammer.....dude these are all my theological heroes right now. I guess I should add IP in the list because you can take all of these people and make simple 30 minute videos that summarize super complex issues into easy to understand, scholarly competent, up to date information. Thank you.

[@gleasonparker1684]

I appreciate Michael going through these first chapters of Genesis. It is very effective and educational and something that most people just seem to say they don't understand but the inspired word of God is meant to be understood and it does seem to take some inspiration to get the truth the across.

[@Mansandanfan4335]

Despite what some say claiming you’re twisting the scriptures to suit your pro-evolution agenda, I thought this was video was really well done and I appreciate your attempt to interpret Genesis in its ANE context like the ancient Israelites would have done. God bless!

[@AZVIDE0Z]

Some appear to be too scared to think beyond their norms, I guess

[@TheBrunarr]

Is that a philly bo profile pic?

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

I have yet to see any good arguments that the ancient Israelites understood it the way this video claims.

[@305thief8]

@@truthtransistorradio6716 Apparently the Israelites knew about things in the 21st century. Check out Michael Hieser.

[@JonGreen91]

"Light appearing before the sun would be ridiculous" Why can't God create light without the sun?

[@davidburnham4404]

It's called The Big Bang Theory. You can believe and still believe in Christ.

[@truethinker221]

Because it says he created light on day four. Which is right ?

[@arthur6157]

@@truethinker221 The text states that he created "light-bearers" ("luminaries") on day four. He created light itself on day one. Both are right.

[@theapistevist8128]

There's nothing physically impossible about light existing apart from the Sun. Since visible light was only known at the time, any time it is said that God created light, there is no reason to think the original understanding had anything to do with invisible light (radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays). The problem arises with the notion that there could be days, since days and nights are determined by the rotation of a planet. I wonder if it was thought that light could exist independently of the Sun and Moon, since early mornings may reveal sunlight without seeing the Sun. Also, the Moon doesn't produce its own light as implied by Genesis 1.

[@truethinker221]

@@arthur6157 Could be but it says evening and morning ETC Day one. Genesis 1;14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will serve as signs† for seasons† and for(a) **days and years.† 15. They will be lights in the expanse of the sky to (b)**provide light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights ​- ​the greater light to rule over the(c)** day and the lesser light to rule over the (d)**night ​- ​as well as the (e)** stars.† 17 God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide(f)** light on the earth. 18. to rule the day and the night, and to separate(g)** light from darkness.† And God saw that it was good. 19. Evening came and then morning: the ***(h)fourth day. a. It says to be to "**separate the day from the night. b. It says to provide light as if there wasn't light on the earth yet. ****provide light on the earth.” c.The greater light **"greater light to rule over the day. could not have been a day before this. d.Lesser light to rule over the (d)**night. What about when the moon and sun are out in the day? e. **"​as well as the stars the stars couldn't have provided light before they were created and the sun is a star. f. **"God placed them in the expanse of the sky to provide(f)** light on the earth. No light again without sun and moon. g.**"to rule the day and the night, and to separate** light from darkness. Dark and light not separated until **day four.** h.**"Dark and light not separated until **day four.

[@larryuknow]

The problem is not what it's saying, but what people don't want it to say.

[@lloydmunga4961]

Or what people THINK it's saying

[@imaginarygiant145]

IP Man. your interpretation of genesis is why I follow your teachings. Thank you

[@Joshua.B.Buzzard]

I've been building anki cards for these videos. Thanks for the work. The perfect companion to my Genesis study.

[@1KMPLX]

I’ve been learning about this stuff just recently partially due to John Walton and Michael Heiser. As they say, the Bible was written for us, but not to us. We need to understand it in its ancient near east context.

[@haimlevy107]

The discrepancy between Genesis writing and science, comes from the mistranslated Genesis from its original Hebrew language to the English language. For example: Genesis1:1 "א "בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. Mistranslation = "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Genesis1:1 should be: 1. בְּרֵאשִׁית, "Be'resh'it" = "In one of many first/beginnings" 2. בָּרָא, Ba'ra" . = "Caused to exist" 3. אֱלֹהִים, "Elo'him" = "The creator" (Elohim, in the Torah describe, Creator, Guide, Ruler, Judge, etc.) 4. אֵת, "Et" = "including all, from A to Z" (Aleph to Tav) 5. הַשָּׁמַיִם, "Ha'shama'im" = "The heaven" (spiritual things) 6. וְאֵת, "And, including all, from A to Z" 7. הָאָרֶץ, "Ha'ah'retz" . = "the earth" ( material things) The correct translation of: Genesis1:1 Genesis1:1 At firstly, The Creator, caused to exist, the heaven, including everything in it, and the earth, including everything on it. Therefore, the universe can be millions or billions years old and not contradict the TORAH scripture. NOTICE: In Genesis 1:1, The word "Elohim אֱלֹהִים" (plural), is not "GOD יְהוָה" (singular) There are billions of, "Elohim אֱלֹהִים", but, there is ONLY ONE "GOD יְהוָה", Would love to have your input. Thanks, Haim Levy חיים לוי

[@BasquiatSama]

Uh oh, The Young Earth Creationists won't like this video.

[@drsheev7413]

Lol, very true

[@danielnosuke]

I don't mind since I am open to hearing other interpretations, but I didn't find it too confusing when considered with the rest of what the Bible (and science) seems to say.

[@generalviewer8347]

lol my dad is triggered with me watching IP

[@sawyerdodd7904]

I am and it doesn’t make much sense to me tbh

[@malcolmhayes9201]

I’ve been really struggling with genesis as of late. It’s the one thing I couldn’t really understand in the Bible. Your video really clarified some doubts for me. I knew there was something I had to be missing because if Jesus was real (which he was), if Jesus died (which he did by crucifixion, if Jesus rose from the dead (which he did) then the Bible must be true. So I knew there was something I had to be over looking here.

[@UltimateMustacheX]

I've been bouncing around your videos out of order, and this one makes a lot of sense with the context from the video about particles are waves, and reality not being set until we observe it. So God stepped up to the formless reality (waves of possibility with no humans observing). He then sets the parameters that the world would snap into once a human is there to observe it. When observing the world, light behaves according to the parameter he set on day 1 & 4, with the light functioning in the way we understand through science. The other days set up other parameters that become the basic science of out environment, as long as we're there to observe it. It does make is sound like God isn't really interested in the rest of the universe, but that actually makes sense. He created it for us. We are the core interest he has, so everything around us is irrelevant unless we are there taking it in as an experience.

[@J.F.331]

So if I am understanding Michael’s argument here, is he stating that sometime before Genesis 1 is when God created all material things but that Genesis 1 itself is actually focused on taking the creation that God created before Genesis 1 and bringing order to chaos and functionality to what naturally had no function? If that is what he is saying, I can actually see where that makes sense.

[@animalcart4128]

Yes. That's exactly what he's arguing for.

[@williamwrightjr.2765]

Very interesting, although I can't say I agree with every conclusion. However, it's clear you put a lot of work into this video by doing a large amount of research and have given me a lot to think about. Thank you for this! Also, a bonus thank you for the fact you mentioned and played a clip of Dr. Michael Heiser. Keep up the great work, IP! Been missing your video's since you demolished TJump. More, please. :)

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I have a discussion with Jackson Wheat at 2pm pst on his channel if you are interested.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

One more thing to ponder. How does he know that this is 'how the ancient Israelites understood Genesis 1?'

[@williamwrightjr.2765]

@@truthtransistorradio6716 Based on other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) scholars opinions, who study the ANE and Biblical texts and languages of the ANE. However, I can think of at least one prominent ANE scholar who says the early chapters of Genesis are to be taken literally. It seems Michael does take a good bit literally and has found a happy medium between literal interpretation, and an allegorical interpretation. He does acknowledge the historicity of Adam which is crucial IMO since Jesus mentions Adam, and Luke's genealogy traces Jesus back to Adam.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

@@williamwrightjr.2765 There have always been those who try and harmonize the truth of God's word with secular mythology. The first to do this was Philo of Alexandria. In Judaism, this line of thinking lead to the Kaballah, and in Christianity, it lead to Gnosticism. They wanted to read the bible esoterically the way they read the mystic writings. The mystic writings is the basis for the secret societies in the illuminati today. These were rebuked by early church fathers such as Paul and Justin Martyr.

[@williamwrightjr.2765]

@@truthtransistorradio6716 It is simply an attempt to understand the meaning of the text as written by an ancient Israelite. We in the 21st century may very well be reading our own modern mind into the text. Also, I don't see it as an attempt to harmonize the Bible with mythology. It's just trying to study all ANE writing to get into the mind of an ancient Israelite. Certainly though, the Bible is a unique, God inspired book, which separates it from it's ANE counter-parts. I also want to add I vehemently deny allegorical interpretation or school of though ala Origen.

[@StandardizedApologetics]

Surprise surprise, it's another fantastic video from IP! When's the Blu Ray box set coming out? Netflix special? Documentary?

[@Nexus-ub4hs]

Very impressive and thought provoking, thank you. God bless

[@DarkBlade37]

5:46 That argument is weak. It is perfectly normal to omit the definite article ה when with the prefixes ב, כ, or ל. This is even in the Wikipedia article on Hebrew prefixes. Furthermore, while ב can be used as “when”, this requires a bare infinitive verb, and ראשית is a noun.

[@Sapientia-in-senectute]

Wikipedia really?

[@brandonhines5420]

Did you watch the rest of the video?

[@tomgjokaj]

I absolutely love your channel your work. God bless you. Keep on doing what your doing.

[@Frostx-t7m]

Kent Hovind has Left the Chat.

[@TheUKMP]

IP: You say Genesis 1:1 starts with 'when' due to the greek. The Hebrew word is ראשׁית ( bereshit ) all other occurrences of it are translated as in the beginning.. (Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34 ). It also from the root 'reshith' which translates to beginning (19), choice (2), choicest (3), finest (2), first (16), first fruits (7), foremost (2). So what good reason would you have to think it means 'when' like Pistis what Hebrew scholar would say it means when? Or conclude that its a dependent clause just based on the greek translation of the Torah? Would be good to know your thoughts Thanks.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I cited a paper by Robert Holmstedt who points out the syntax suggests a dependent clause. Also, Ben Stanhope notes the normal way to open a creation account is with a dependent clause, so this would fit more with the customary way to open a creation narrative.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Why do you think that 99% of Hebrew scholars and translators say it is 'in the beginning'?

[@TheUKMP]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks IP, I read the paper by Robert Helmstede reagrding the restrictive syntax of Genesis 1 and Orlinsky's 1983 article who he refers to in the intro but i think i found a few issues that if you're not to busy would love a response on so I'll only touch on about 2. Although i will say that there does seem to be a good basis to conclude that reshit is dependent i would however argue that it only seems to be lexically relative but im not yet convinced that it is grammatically relative also. In the introduction he makes the statement "One problem with this position is that other instances of rēʾšît used as support are in poetry, whereas Genesis i is prose". Genesis 10:10 uses reshit to refer to the beginning of Nimrod's Kingdom and Genesis 10 is by no means poetic. Also Isaiah 46:10 seems to throw a big spanner in the works: declaring from the beginning(rēʾšît), the end, and from before, that which has not been done, Bareshit בְּרֵאשִׁית is a Hebrew relator noun, it will have a relative meaning at the lexical level, but will still function as a noun in the absolute state at the grammatical level. This trait of being lexically relative yet grammatically absolute, which is possible with Hebrew relator nouns, also explains why בְּרֵאשִׁית is not pointed with a definite article in Hebrew even though it is rendered with one in the traditional translation. At the most in Genesis 1:1 it is relative to Bara but it wouldn't be translated as 'when...' but 'in the beginning OF God creating the heavens and the earth'. This is why i am leaning towards the traditional view of Chapter 1:1 and I'd refer your to take a look at works by Childs 1960; Eichrodt 1962; Hasel 1971; Ridderbos 1958; Westermann 1990. Let me know your thoughts as i am still struggling to find any good reasons to take any part of Genesis as nonliteral as the rest of the bible seems to refer back to it as actual history that occurred, in the meantine I'll be watching and going through your other videos on Genesis. God bless brother.

[@TheUKMP]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Also regarding Ben Stanhope, since the basis of Genesis is that it is actually divinely inspired it doesn't need to follow the traditional way men composed creation myths so it only helps your point if the first point regarding relative clause interpretation is correct.

[@stickmansam8436]

Interesting vid but I don't find the 'functional-only interpretation' consistent with the Bible's teachings on creation. Exodus 20:8-11 compares the Hebrews' six-days of working with God's six-days of creation. It would've confused the Hebrews if the six-days (in God's case) were to be taken as only functional/allegorical/non-literal.

[@vedinthorn]

Why? In 6 days they work/function and on the 7th they rest and worship. Just like in 6 days God worked and assigned function, and on the 7th He rested and declared the universe as His Temple to be ready to take up residence in.

[@stickmansam8436]

@@vedinthorn "In 6 days they work/function"--- And there's the problem. Their 'work' involved material(obviously with functional purpose), in the same way that God's 'work' involved BOTH creation of the material and assigning its function. I don't see how this supports a functional-only view of the six days.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yeah so? Genesis 1 involved materials and giving them properly function and purpose. That doesn't mean it has to be material manufacturing just like Israel's work didn't have to be.

[@stickmansam8436]

*@InspiringPhilosophy* The Hebrews didn't simply declare functions of the material in their work. It may not perfectly compare to God's creation ex nihilo(since the Hebrews obviously needed already-existing material to manufucture), however the main point of the comparison with Gen 1 being about BOTH material creation and functional purpose at the same time still stands

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

But that is my point if it does not perfectly compare you cannot use it, which is why it doesn't come up in the video.

[@damenwhelan3236]

Right. So "the field and marsh" where places of being farmer and fished. Managed. It's saying "before we farmed and worked this land". Not "before there was land". Thank you so much for this insight.

[@MadolcheGabbana]

@InspiringPhilosophy I too noticed a creation prior to the creation narrative and it made me consider something in the Secrets Of Enoch XXIV “3 Hear, Enoch, and take in these my words, for not to My angels have I told my secret, and I have not told them their rise, nor my endless realm, nor have they understood my creating, which I tell thee to-day. 4 For before all things were visible, I alone used to go about in the invisible things, like the sun from east to west, and from west to east. 5 But even the sun has peace in itself, while I found no peace, because I was creating all things, and I conceived the thought of placing foundations, and of creating visible creation.”

[@sketchstuffs]

God didn't just "enter the cosmos" to assign functions, he created that cosmos from nothing to begin with. The whole Bible is filled with language stating that fact. While the explanation of the original language meaning that God was giving purpose in Genesis 1 is well and true, because he was, you cannot strip away the sovereignty and power of the Lord God by insinuating he didn't create, form, fashion, or mold it from nothing in the first place also. Regardless of how many thousand or million years someone believes the cosmos has been around.

[@thyikmnnnn]

The cosmos has been around for billions of years.

[@Kevorama0205]

@Dickheads Rebuked God has been around forever, and God is part of the cosmos, therefore the cosmos has been around forever. Our physical universe acts as if it has been around for billions of years, and besides an unscientific claim from many years ago based on nothing, there is nothing to support a different time frame.

[@TheBrunarr]

Sketchstuffs That's not what IP is saying AT ALL. He isn't saying that God didnt create the universe from nothing, he's just saying that Genesis does not _describe_ that event. Huge difference.

[@popeyeschicknbiscuit]

He isn’t saying that the universe is eternal with God. He is merely implying that God created the entirety of the universe before the earth was around. Then later, in Genesis, God orders the earth. Which is consistent with modern science.

[@ea-tr1jh]

This is a strawman, as IP explicetely states that God did create the universe ex nihilo at 24:15

[@spacemanspiff9773]

William Lane Craig does a fair representation and theological critique of this functional view of creation in his Defenders class. In summary, its evidence is lacking as well as the assumptions made about ancient thoughts regarding creation.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I thought his attack was horrible. He relied on circular reasoning and brushed over important points brought up.

[@The-End-is-coming]

Honest question: is this how Jesus interpreted Gen 1:1? He did allude to the Septuagint when He talked about God creating male and female at the beginning. The Septuagint translates Gen 1:1 as "in the beginning". Did Jesus view ancient scripture the way the ancients did or the way Jews did at His time?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That wouldn't work since by that logic male and female were not created on day one.

[@The-End-is-coming]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Hey! He replied. 😊 Maybe I didn't phrase that right. What I was trying to ask is was Jesus quoting Gen 1:1 in the Septuagint by saying "at the beginning", using similar phraseology with the LXX. The LXX translates Gen 1:1,2 as "In the beginning" and not "when" after all. I'm not saying the Septuagint is perfect, but if Jesus was quoting this, doesn't it mean that the LXX got it right there?

[@truethinker221]

Here is an example of what the Jews thought at the time of Messiah {**Yonge's title, The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation.} Phio Jewish 30 BC 40 AD Many early Church fathers adopted this belief Young earth creationism is the new thing. II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.

[@TheophilusMostExcellent]

@@The-End-is-coming Not to mention John's inspired allusion/quotation of the LXX Genesis 1:1 in John 1:1. If John quoted it that way and saw no need to alter it, he obviously agrees with that particular translation and not the far fetched one presented in this video.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The Greek phrase is actually missing the definite article. It literally means "in begins." Michael Heiser says this more or less means "initially." Not "In the beginning."

[@Pokémaniac94]

What kind of church would most align with this understanding of Genesis? I don’t want my family believing in the literal 7 day young earth creation story.

[@us3rG]

Our human nature doesn't change Our human nature didn't evolve from something else and it will naver evolve to something else We were and we will always be humans In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God We didn't evolve to speak, we've always had word

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Christopher, Catholicism has no doctrine on evolution that’s official, so you can be young earth or theistic evolutionist in it. You just have to believe humans are fundamentally different from animals, and that an Adam and Eve did exist that caused the fall from the garden of Eden.

[@sydneyscott7105]

If genesis 1:1 is interpreted traditionally (in the beginning meaning in the beginning) you can still reason from Gen 1:2 that he created it formless and void and dark (chaotic). And then the days of creation are God both assigning, ordering, AND creating things. Like vegetation, animals, and humans are created but the moon and the sun are assigned as light. That’s just a thought

[@jeremybenson5782]

No, this video is false, and clever. Subtle, but the devil, NOT God. John 1 says nothing was created that was not created by him. This video is suggesting that all powerful God came across something that he did not create and worked with it. This is blasphemy. ALL things were created by him. John 1 Colossians 1:15-20 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[@BankoleTomiVisuals]

No brother. This video isn't negating God's position as the creator of everything. It's saying that the author of genesis was concerned about when God began to give the chaotic world He had created functions, beginning to shape it into being. I guess you didn't even watch the video.

[@ModernNostalgicGaming]

Yeah creation is done when function is created. Even if their was a rock in space God gave that meaningless rock function by making it earth and creating the heavens. Heaven of course having it's own function in direct relation to earth. Mutually arising in functions. Like two poles of a magnet.

[@toddfordr8218]

Does that include evil? You argue God creates everything but give credit to the devil for creating evil. An obvious contradiction within a single statement. I agree. I think the devil is mans invention. God created perfect balance by giving purpose to all things. Our need to define and control our reality is why humans invented heaven and hell. That which is good is from God, everything else is from Satan. In this ideology where everything is a test you lose sight of the perfect balance of creation and make it more a about man than God. Its Gods creation and believing we are the reason the gardens were created and not just one of its animals is where the imbalance exist. The problem that religion produces is that it's the laws of cultures and societies told by man as though he were God. This while being culturally neccessary to provide structure goes against natures balance where its survival of the fittest. We turn on ourselves when we upset the balance. Overpopulation has upset the balance of nature. Bringing humanity to a breaking point where the garden will no longer support the imbalance.

[@jeremybenson5782]

@@toddfordr8218 Your God is the Devil. There is no perfect balance. Evil is everywhere and everyone on TV is a witch or Satanist or both. What kind of balance is that? Good people ruled by corrupt people. What is evil? Of course the Devil and demons exist. Things worshipped are not invented, but believing them all is a mistake.

[@toddfordr8218]

@@jeremybenson5782 lol. You just made my day. I think you have a fearful outlook on life. But to you the devil is anything that challenges your beleifs. Apparently that's everything. Clearly I fit that mold in your narrow veiw. I beleive we have the same God, we just have different teachings. I think you were created as perfect as I was. capable of both good and bad. My value system and yours could be identical but if I dont beleive the bible was written by God. You would send me to hell. If it was your choice anyway. Interesting when you consider Jesus would have offered the blessing of Salvation. The sad part is that it means, to you, heaven is for members only. That kind of ideology makes me wonder if your flock has race restrictions or is for men only, as well. Should I dress a certain way? Am I from the wrong side of a border?

[@michele-33]

Found your channel today. It has been years since reading the Bible thru. Have been praying for discernment, understanding God's Word as He wants. Another synchronicity - don't know if you're familiar with Dr. E.Michael Jones, a professor fired from a Catholic University for being 'pro-life' !! ( Thank U for clear, precise explanations) Maranatha!

[@LuizHenrique-od4ko]

If this is really the case, at the moment that something lost it's function or purpose, this also means that that thing ceased to exist? Edit: Also, it seems strange to say that something was created without a role and then, in some period in time that thing received a role. Doesn't things created that have purpose already have that purpose at the moment of its creation? See, when we create a fry pan, did we first create that thing and them give a role to that thing, or it's purpose is bounded to the fry pan since the beginning? (Obs: I'm not saying that we can't give a new purpose to the object, what I am saying is about the intended purpose of it since its conception)

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The sun and moon were not originally for human constructs known as seasons or festivals. Those were the functions later on.

[@LuizHenrique-od4ko]

@@InspiringPhilosophy thanks for the reply IP! But this is exactly what I've said, I'm not saying that a new purpose cannot be given to something, what I'm saying is, when we created something with a purpose, isn't the purpose (maybe the most basic one) already part of the thing created? It would be strange to postulate that I, just as an example, created a fry pan and THAN I gave a purpose to it. Am I missing something?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

What if I decide to the frying pan as a weapon? Did I not assign it a new function? It sounds like you are still stuck in the western and modern concept of material manufacturing.

[@LuizHenrique-od4ko]

@@InspiringPhilosophy but IP, I'm not saying that new purposes cannot be given to things, what I'm saying, in other words is, are things created with a purpose, already possessing that purpose, or are things created WITH a purpose, devoided of that purpose that THAN I give? I used the example of a frying pan because its purpose was already in its conception, not that I can't use it for another purpose

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

They can and they cannot be. Again, when the sun formed humans were billions of years away. So the purpose changed later.

[@TheSprinx2]

I don't understand, are you then saying that God did not create matter out of Nothing, but that from pre-existing chaotic matter He simply molded or formed the things that surround us (Sun, stars, humans, stones, Earth, sky, animals, etc) thus giving order and function to that initial chaos?

[@luizthemaccabee8571]

He argues that God created everything out of nothing, however, that's not what Genesis 1 is about, just as he said in 23:53, and no, he doesn't believe God was molding or forming things in Genesis 1 , he believes that God was assigning functions to things, He does not believe that Genesis 1 is about Material Creation, but about Functional Creation, that is, God was assigning functions to things

[@vranaetf]

This hypothesis how people in the ancient days thought about things in the world makes a lot of sense. The differences may seem subtle, but the implications are huge. Given how easy it is for us in the present times not to agree on what things actually mean and have all sorts of misunderstandings, it only makes sense we will have all the wrong ideas about translating a foreign language and culture from the times long ago.

[@magandangaraw5492]

2 Corinthians 4:4 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

[@ericalexcantero8249]

Dude calmn down, he didn't Deny Christ for you to quote that verse

[@danielboone8256]

Eric Alex Cantero I thought he was saying that because people don’t understand the Hebraic interpretation or whatever.

[@MrToothgrinder]

Eric Alex Cantero the path of rebellion always starts with a question.

[@ericalexcantero8249]

@@MrToothgrinder that has nothing to do with that, talk about context and the meaning behind a question, Asking question will give you more growth since you know WHY you do what YOU do.

[@Minecraft99Awesome]

I just found a young earth creationist.

[@tempomi760]

The video that started it all!

[@CoolStoryJo]

The Young's Literal Translation says Genesis 1 1 as "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- ". Preparing gives a far different potential for interpretation than created does.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

Is the word 'preparing' in the Hebrew?

[@CoolStoryJo]

@@truthtransistorradio6716 I do not know Hebrew, so I do not know if the translation is valid. I am just putting it out there as food for thought, not claiming that it is the right translation.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

@@CoolStoryJo I don't know Hebrew either, but here is a link to the Hebrew interlinear that interprets each word one at a time. Of course it is not in the order that we would say it in English, but I feel that adding 'preparing' is not true to what was written. biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

[@DerMelodist]

This is really fascinating material. I’m attending Denver Seminary and I know Dr. Hess. So I know that your quoting of his book is a good one. I don’t know what to make of it all yet but I’m glad you put the work into this. I think the worry many have in the comment section is the idea that it may open the door for Mormons to say they were right about God not making anything, but only ordering matter. Nevertheless, I urge the other Christians in the comment section to take his material seriously and to study it, and see if he’s wrong or if there’s potential error somewhere. If he’s right, then we’ll accept it. If he’s wrong, we’ll lovingly argue over it. Thank you for your work, IP.

[@ondrejvanek6119]

You were quoting from Genesis Unbound. One of the main points there is that instead of Genesis 1 talking about the universe or the planet Earth, it is talking about the promise land. This would make much more sense, because as you said the ancient Hebrews were not really concern with material creation or the universe itself. One of the main themes in Genesis, the Pentateuch and the Old Testament is the promise land and Genesis 1 gives us a backdrop to that - how God prepared a place for His people, His temple.

[@gleasonparker1684]

When God created makes much more sense than in the beginning God created it leaves it open ended as to the time which is certainly God's prerogative.

[@deludedjester]

I think that this also makes sense of Heaven and Hell as useful and useless, purposeful and purposeless.

[@Foxfire-xq5ij]

Good insight!

[@NotLost]

I get the idea you're shooting for, but 'purpose' is not the proper analogy. Hell has great purpose as it was created to eventually confine the Devil and his angels. I know you wouldn't say prisons have no purpose. But yes, their purposes are diametric.

[@deludedjester]

@@NotLost I wasn't going for changing people's minds but rather explore the extent that the meanings of words can give us fresh insight.

[@gleasonparker1684]

In one Church I went to they had a band called Tohu Bohu and the Chaotics.

[@kevinseanzebua6342]

Lmao

[@jamescohn4268]

Whoa...mind blown....this actually makes more sense. Thank you for taking the time do do this and thank GOD for wisdom to reveal this.....bravo

[@MrWholphin]

‘Create in me a clean heart’ assigning function? Epic verse with the most prosaic interpretation imaginable.

[@garretthuckabay3110]

Another thing I was taught was; genesis 1 wasn't trying to explain HOW things were created entirely, but WHO created them in direct opposition to the gods of ancient Egypt.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

I am not sure this video's claims are correct. I have yet to find historical Hebrew writers back this up. Josephus believed Genesis 1 was 'in the beginning'.

[@NOTTHASAME]

There is no place such as "ancient Egypt" , it was never Egypt until the arrival of European evil. It was Alkebulan first , the name was changed by a evil man Afrikanus . Afrikanus changed it from Alkebulan to Afrikus and later Africa and then Egypt. You want to talk ancient , you can call it Africa is Alkebulan is too hard for you. Egypt is not ancient , learn the truth and you learn how evil man were ! The entire land ( middle east) was entirely black and this will include Iraq , Iran , Syria , Egypt , Israel and so on.... 18 dynastic rule of black kings and Queens.

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

@@NOTTHASAME I haven't heard that. I know that in the bible it says Mizraim which is called Egypt. I don't know what the Hebrew word is for Egypt or Mizraim or who called them what or when the name was changed.

[@samuelguzman5348]

What a load of dung! As if church scholars who translated the text were completely ignorant of Hebrew semantics and we're just supposed to take the words of the more "educated" modernists.. who DENY the inerrancy of Scripture! Keep your philosophy. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, *and all that in them is,* and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[@theapistevist8128]

"Made" doesn't even suggest creatio ex nihilo.

[@SugoiEnglish1]

If you spent enough time reading the older commentaries, you wouldn't make such a simplistic statement.

[@TheophilusMostExcellent]

Amen Samuel. Pretty sick of this channel's slide into liberalism. He's always trying to squeeze his "Christianity" into his philosophical/scientific presuppositions.

[@LogosTheos]

@@TheophilusMostExcellent Funny because the YEC view of Genesis is an off shot of Enlightenement protestant liberalism. That is why it doesn't exist very much among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

[@sohayameen2452]

@@TheophilusMostExcellent well said I agree with u

[@nicholaswheeler507]

If I could go back in time I would speak with the author of genesis and ask him for more. The past compels me.

[@petersalucci5444]

Nicholas Wheeler Same man

[@theflashdcuniverse]

why not just talk to Jesus lmao

[@benzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzs]

​@@theflashdcuniverse touche

[@olivermatison9772]

Thanks for your commentary on Genesis, Michael. Your videos are fantastically done. Would you have a OT Bible commentary you’d endorse or recommend since it appears my Bible is not giving me the necessary context to interpret it correctly? It seems my ESV and NASB may be taking a more literal interpretation. Thanks! -Oliver

[@etheriondesigns]

This is all cool and dandy, but I still reckon way too many Christians get too stuck up on stuff like this instead of actually pursuing a relationship with God which is what he ultimately prefers.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Yeah I agree. I dont believe God cares if you are a YEC, OEC, or whatever IP is (Christian Evolutionist?), as long as you seek Him earnestly and forthrightly.

[@danpaulisbitski]

How do the Hebrew scholars interpret Exodus chapter 31 “for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? Clearly this is reaffirming Genesis so should it be translated as “for in six days the Lord ordered and assigned function to the heavens and the earth”? Considering Moses is the author of Genesis, wouldn’t this verse provide the context of how it should be interpreted?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I don't see that as a problem. God worked for 6 days, that doesn't mean material creation has to be what was being done.

[@PrototypeScope]

​@@InspiringPhilosophy It says for six days He CREATED Heaven and Earth. Clearly this is a material creation account. It is a huge problem with your teaching. How about Colossians 1:16 ? "For in him all things were created...all things have been created through him and for him. "

[@sjappiyah4071]

Dakota Roy Again, Had you watched the video you’d understand that the world “ create” or “ bara” in hebrew needs not a material manufacturing definition. But instead refers to the process of giving FUNCTION

[@danielnosuke]

Aren't we just moving goal posts? If create doesn't mean material creation, what would it have to say to convince one that material creation is in view?

[@ea-tr1jh]

@@PrototypeScope All youre doing is assuming your conclusion, that the Hebrew word for "created" means material creation, therefore it means material creation. Also Col 1:16 is irrelevant because that is Greek and written in a totally different culture.

[@MZONE991]

Creationists already disliking the video

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yeah, I was expecting that.

[@philroe2363]

No . . . but clearly there are things that need to be addressed.

[@Alec_Cox]

@@InspiringPhilosophy So God didn't *CREATE The BEGINNING* Good to know. I can see your *NIV* is showing: along with the other 200 passages that *THE NIV has either omitted or reconstructed.* Making God, not God. Nice to kkiw that you think that God is an *Evolved being,* and not God. What a shame that your logic is in the acceptance of evolution. You have a contradiction with Exodus 3, Colossians 1:12-20, and John 1:1 etc. Either God is the creator from the beginning or he is a joke.

[@drooskie9525]

@@Alec_Cox God did create the beginning. IP believes God did create the existence ex nihilo. The New Testament says that pretty explicitly, you can't argue it. It's just this reading of Genesis means different than that.

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

@@Alec_Cox Ironic that you accuse others of copying and pasting... and then do it yourself in a different thread.

[@prof2yousmithe444]

Good video to block. Your revisionism and attempt to compare the creation event to a scientific Big Bang. Utter nonsense. You’ve over complicated the meaning and beauty of the scriptures.

[@ericalexcantero8249]

He interpreted in the way the old Israelites interpreted and in historically/cultural accurate, that's where the true Beauty of the Scriptures comes, so what is your base?

[@プレイフルクラウド]

Given that your statement charges Inspiring Philosophy with "revisionism" and "complication" alongside stating, "Your... attempt to compare the creation event to a scientific Big Bang [is] utter nonsense]", this truly is indicative of an ignorance of what both the Creation Doctrine of the Bible proposes and modern day cosmology. "The Standard Big Bang model... describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover - and this deserves underscoring - the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity." - Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, by William Lane Craig Please, don't make Christians look bad with ignorance.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Esteban Bonilla Are you arguing for the Big Bang and the Scientific Cosmology model or for biblical creation where god spoke it all and it was?

[@marvalice3455]

In what way does this harm the message of the scripture?

[@marvalice3455]

@@TomAnderson_81 the 2 are not contradictory. Your statement is like asking to make a decision on whether a ball is round or made of rubber as if the 2 can't both be true

[@isaacstrinavic4384]

Doesn’t formless and void literally mean no shape (formless) and complete nothingness (void). So wouldn’t the “when” just be implying god was there before the universe.

[@Itsdasummer32]

Tbh yes

[@habteflowstate]

Thanks so much for this insightful video! I have a question/objection regarding this theory. It seems like John 1:1, which clearly expresses "in the beginning" is an allusion to Genesis 1:1, meaning that the cultural context of 1st century Jews likely interpreted Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning" As you've demonstrated in many videos, a lot of the time, our modern interpretations of old testament passages can often be misleading, but it seems like this is less so for 1st century Jews, especially considering that oral tradition was incredibly strong back then, even if this interpretation is over 1000 years after Genesis was written. Is this a problem at all for the "When" interpretation of Genesis? How could we understand John 1:1 given the "When" interpretation? How strong would you weigh in this evidence?

[@ogilvie748]

Could Creation not still be a literal 7 days in light of this? I think this all makes sense but I’m not convinced that this wouldn’t fit within a 7 day time period anyways. Very good video nonetheless!

[@johnwade7842]

That might be the case, But according to what he said the passage of genesis is not necessarily explaining how God physically created the universe, but assigned a prepose to the creation. This doesn't intrinsically require the Earth itself to have been physically made then. Also of note the word used in the old testament that is translated as day, could also be used to refer to a period of time or stage. And we know that the seventh day is still on going, so while it could refer to an Earth day, the word used for day isn't require to be a literal 24 hour period.

[@ogilvie748]

@@johnwade7842 Interesting thought. I don’t know Hebrew and am only just barely starting to learn Greek so I’m curious what the original Hebrew for “it was evening and morning, the first day” would actually mean

[@Chegui123-k8m]

“ Bara doesn’t necessarily mean to create but to assign a function. “ It just dawned on me on how Origen created his theology of pre existing souls through this fact. Assuming he started here.

[@Alefbet777]

bara basically means to cut, to carve out, to form by cutting. ‘To create out of nothing’ is taking a lot of advanced theology and reading it back into a primitive word.

[@sirblackrose5293]

Interestingly, in Arabic, bara’a برأ does mean to create from nothing

[@BneiAnusim]

21:06, According to IP, God needed an "unknown time period" to build the creation. This is the definition of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. He is, the supreme being! He does not need "tricks" to create something.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Alex Labanino No where did he say that God “ needed” to wait an “ unknown time period “ , don’t put words in Ip’s mouth. God operates when he himself chooses is best

[@Lucky-r7y7w]

God seems like the patient sort to me. Even His plan of salvation through Christ took millennia to play out. And here we are, waiting still for Christ to come back.

[@ea-tr1jh]

What where did IP say God needed tricks,

[@virgilschmidt1599]

Even more about calling the light Day and the darkness Night... The daytime for the most part serves as the productive time (working) while night time serves for rest and rejuvenation (sleeping)... Of course we know life never ceases and there is plenty of "working" activity for creatures during the night as well, but from man's contribution (and particularly from ancient man's POV), this is precisely the way things would function.

[@danpaulisbitski]

So the argument is that God created chaos for an indefinite amount of time, then like a sculptor uses clay, God used “chaos” to create order and life? I haven’t heard many people argue that God is the author of chaos and I am not sure how this interpretation furthers our understanding of the creation account. Are you claiming God created the universe without functionality in mind or are you saying God didn’t create the universe but gave it order and function? Is this any different than the gap theory? I am not sure why this interpretation is a problem for YEC’s but it sounds like an argument against the Bible claiming God was the cause of the universe.I can see why this interpretation is not widely accepted or supported, but I am open to listen to new ideas and I thank you for sharing.