Genesis, Creation, and Biology: A Discussion With Todd Wood

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Get Orthodox icons and merchandise and support this channel: orthodoxdepot.com/?ref=seraphimhamilton All patrons and paid Substack subscribers get all of my exclusive DAILY written content- I am posting daily scriptural reflections six days a week, half of which will be exclusive. Become a patron: www.patreon.com/kabane Or subscribe to my Substack: seraphimhamilton.substack.com/ Get "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus": seraphimhamilton.com/ Sample lecture: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6quh2eEjaaloK8&t Answering Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set: buy.stripe.com/5kA2bz6Y467K4JaaEJ Sample lecture: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaG0gKWbjJ14es0 Bundle with "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" for a discount (23 hours total): buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su

[@henry.favela]

Thank you for making this series on creationism 🙏

[@finrodfelagund8668]

These few days you've blessed us with creationism vids, so thank you 🙏 Kenneth Griffith when?

[@Timoboza]

Great series of videos Seraphim. Just two questions. Could you please ask Dr Wood why in all published lists of holobaramins almost every baramin corresponds to the family level in conventional taxonomy except for hominidae where there are multiple baramins(?) within this family including the human baramin? A related question is what Dr Wood thinks about his paper which placed Australopithecus sediba in the human holobaramin showed less clustering when the dataset with more taxa was used, which would be predicted under evolutionary theory ie the more fossil evidence you have the harder it becomes to draw distinctions between where one species ends and another begins

[@kainech]

I've enjoyed the videos thanks. I have three questions and one from my wife. We're both pretty skeptical. Neither of us have science as our specialty, but these are some of the types of things that come to the fore of our minds (the "baramonology" and fossil layers in this episode are other examples). 1). How do you select what portions of Scripture are literal, provided it isn't ad hoc? It strikes me as picking and choosing. In Scripture, stars are spiritual beings (cf. Dt. 4.19 and _Joseph and Aseneth_ 14.1). It describes a firmament, which is literally a solid thing, and the Bible describes windows in it, and so on. These were taken literally by the Jews of the Second Temple period, and people only started treating them non-literally as non-biblical philosophies required it. 2). For geology, when I travel from Lubbock, TX up into Sooner, OK I have to pass through the some rocky areas that are like short mountains. Where the highway is cut through the stone I can see layers of stone, laid one on top of the other, and I can see the layers bent almost entirely backwards. Does creationism have an explanation for stones like this that doesn't involve them getting hot enough to melt or metamorphize and explains why they didn't break from shifting over a short period? 3). For biology there are a lot of animals that would seem to fill the same niches if we cut everything off at the KT boundary. Do we have any explanations for how different animals would fill the same niches and how there was enough energy to feed that size of a population? Lastly, my wife's question: Hawaii is being continually formed by lava flow from a hot spot. These are, measured from ocean floor to top, the tallest mountains in the world. And they are not isolated. There is an entire chain 3,900 miles long, stretching all the way to Russia, of these mountains that formed over the hot spot, moved away from it with the tectonic plate, and then weathered to below sea level. How could this have formed in a young earth? As an unrelated note, if I were to look for nephilim, I wouldn't look for bones. The stuff at sites like Göbekli Tepe and related sites is offering strong evidence for the biblical and other ancient accounts about how a lot of civilization got kickstarted.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

+kainech I'll let knowledgeable people answer the other points you have given, but I'll answer your first question by writing down one of seraphim's article and I will provide some additions to it to prove that the Bible doesn't teach that kind of cosmology in the way you think. It's not going to be ad hoc explanation either, but is going to be based on biblical typology and symbolism. Here we go - article of Seraphim, "the Firmament": On the second day of creation, God makes the firmament. What is it? Our first step is to note that the firmament is not called good. This is not because it is bad, but because “good” in Genesis 1-3 refers to things which endure eschatologically. God measures the world, through the Spirit, according to their degree of correspondence with the Son, who will fill all things in the eschaton. What the lack of a declaration of goodness must mean, then, is that the firmament is not going to be there in the renewed creation. In order to see why, we need to understand what Genesis 1:1 says. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. But are we speaking of the throne-room of God or simply the sky? Contrary to liberal scholars, we are certainly speaking of the throne-room of God. The most basic reason to think this is because the creation of the heavens occurs on the second day, and it doesn’t make sense that the heavens would be created twice. But there’s more. In Genesis 1:2, we are told that the earth was formless, void, and dark. The earth is simply disorganized water at this point, which God will form, fill, and brighten over the next six days. But the heavens aren’t any of these things. According to the Fathers of the Church, the angels had a single free choice, after which their wills are fixed in goodness or evil. For humans, by contrast, our wills are only fixed at our death or at the Second Coming. The heavens are instantly mature and as glorious as possible. The development and maturation of the earth takes time. The six days model our own work-week because we are the image of God: we spent six days working at the world and then consecrate the world as Eucharist to God on the Christian Sabbath. God initiated that process in Genesis 1. Furthermore, later biblical reflections on the event interpret the heavens as the throne of God and angelic hosts. Psalm 104, the creation Psalm, recapitulates the seven days of creation, and on the first day, the angelic hosts are celebrated. St. Paul says similarly: (Colossians 1:16) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. “Heaven” corresponds to invisible and the listing of the angelic hosts.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

+kainech When we understand that the heaven is the heaven of God, we can understand why the firmament is not permanent. The firmament is a veil which is placed over the creation, separating it from God’s throne. This separation is not permanent. It is a bridal veil. God is growing up the Creation-Daughter to be a Bride for His Son (which is why in the Song of Songs, the Woman is called “my sister, my bride), and that Bride is veiled before the Marriage comes. The Spirit shone the light of heaven on the earth directly in day one, but the veiling of the world necessitates the creation of our lights on day four. Since the firmament is the boundary between heaven and earth, it holds a mediating position between the two. This is why the second day is chiastically linked with the sixth: man is the mediator between heaven and earth, being the “generations [offspring] of the Heavens and the Earth, a union of the Spirit of God and the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:4-7). We therefore find in Scripture that Christ is called the hilasterion of faith. This is the Greek word for Mercy-Seat, and in Hebrew, the Mercy Seat is simply called the “covering.” It is that which covers the world. We can see that it is not eschatologically permanent in the typology of the Flood. Look at what Noah does: (Genesis 8:13) In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. We see this also in the story of Moses and the glory. Moses descends from Sinai, having met God, with his face glowing in heavenly glory. Israel is not prepared for the vision of the glory, so Moses veils his face. But as St. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 3, in Christ, the “veil is removed.” The Marriage Supper of the Lamb has come. But what is the firmament actually? at the edges of space, there is actually a great deal of frozen water which bounds the Heavens from the Earth. We need to remember that the Heavens is a created reality. The divine light is not created, but the angels are created. Created realities occupy space- after all, Jesus ascends to Heaven. If we think of the universe as a large ball with Earth at the center (not that the sun is gravitationally dependent on the Earth, but that the Earth nevertheless remains at the absolute center, which is totally compatible with modern physics and requires no modifications to it), any way you move up will eventually lead to the firmament. The way to see that is here: (Revelation 4:5-6) From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: The sea of glass is what forms the boundary between Heaven and Earth- only this from God’s perspective, looking down. This explains details later in Revelation. The Saints come and ascend above the sea in Revelation 14, which is why the 144,000 stand on the sea in the next chapter. They are in Heaven with God, and this explains details later in Revelation. Consider this: (Revelation 20:13) And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Why specifically mention the sea, and in contrast to Hades, not the land? This is because the “sea” is the heavenly sea, with the righteous dead. Hades contains the unrighteous dead. Likewise, we find what I pointed out in Genesis 1 fulfilled in the renewal of the creation: (Revelation 21:1) Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. The bridal veil of the heavenly sea is removed, and Heaven and Earth are married.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

+kainech But- the scholar will object- ancient Israelites looked at the sky and thought that was the heavenly sea, but we now know the sky is not solid. Isn’t moving it to outer space just an ad hoc move? There is one fact, however, which refutes this notion. The tabernacle is a miniature cosmos, composed of Earth (the Courtyard), the Astral Heaven (Holy Place), and the Heaven of Heavens, the throne of God (the Holy of Holies.) Also corresponding to the mt. Eden (the holy of holies), the garden of eden (the holy place) and the land beyond it. The garden of eden consists of the fountain of life sprinkling the whole earth from the mountain (which is then mirrored in the glorified water from the rock of Exodus 17) and it is guarded by Cherub and a fiery sword, just as the Tabernacle was guarded by the levites in the book of Numbers. The same imagery concerns the Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 and Exodus 24: the bottom of the mountain where the people is (the courtyard) and the entrance to the holy place is guarded by the Levites based on Exodus 19 and 32, the center of the mountain (where the 70 elders with priestly functions have a meal with God and seal the covenant made with Israel - this corresponds to the showbread in the holy place. You have to consider also that elders are only allowed to go up here, if they purify themselves, or they will die. The same words are used for the Aaronic priests in Exodus 30 where they have to purify themselves in the washing basin before they enter the holy place, or they will die) and the top of the mountain (Holy of Holies (which corresponds to the highest heaven and the throne room of God) where God dwells in his glory and Moses goes up to receive the heavenly blueprint of the mature heaven for the earthly tabernacle that is is the miniature representation of the whole creation its blueprint being dictated in 7 speeches that recapitulate the 7 days of the creation week). From one perspective, however, the tabernacle has two rooms, the Heaven of God, made up by both the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. This is because when we come to Revelation, we find the furniture of the Holy Place set out before God, on top of the sea of crystal. When considered from this respect, the Washing Basin in the Tabernacle is the sea of crystal that is before the throne of God and divides Heaven from Earth.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

+kainech But when we consider the Holy Place and Most Holy as symbolizing the Heavens and the Heaven of Heavens, respectively, we discover something interesting. The Washing Basin no longer symbolizes that which divides Heaven from Earth. Instead, it symbolizes our visible skies. There’s only one firmament, though. And inside the astral heavens, we find seven lamps, symbolizing the sun, the moon, and the five moving planets. But there’s still something above that. Ancients knew that there was depth to the astral heavens. They did not believe stars were fixed in place. After all, they tracked their movements across the sky! The visible heaven was inherently symbolic representation of the Throne Room of God wherein God was enthroned in the midst of myriads and myriads and billions of angels in his glory-cloud. This is why the visible clouds symbolized God's glory-cloud which was also symbolized by the incense. Or that because the Holy Place had Menorah (same word for the heavenly lights in genesis 1) and it symbolized the 7 heavenly bodies visible with a naked eye. Because of this, the Israelites saw thr stars as the symbols of the billions of angels in the throne room of God, in thr heavenly council. Book of Job has this symbolism. This is why we call our Saints shining stars, or, for example, St. Athanasius who is called "the Sun of Orthodoxy, the thunder for heresies" in one of the georgian texts. The Members of the heavenly council in the invisible heaven are always associated with the objects of the visible heaven.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

+kainech When considered from this respect, one needs to pass through another veil, and one comes to the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant has a “Covering”, which, as I’ve noted above, symbolizes the firmament in the case of Noah's temple-ark. The Covering is gold, because the sea of crystal is a bright, shiny, sea of glass. We find in Revelation 15 that it becomes mixed with the fire of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost. The gold street of the City of God in Revelation 21 is identical with the river proceeding from the throne of God. And we find that above the Covering, God is enthroned upon the cherubim. But the washing basin is not the same thing as the Covering. Hence, it cannot be the case that ancient Israel thought the visible blue sky was a solid mass, but that the water in the washing basin symbolized the sea of crystal. They were aware that there was depth to the astral heavens, and that the firmament was on the outer edge of the astral heavens, bounding the throne of God from our material cosmos. The firmament, then, is: 1. At the edge of outer space. 2. Separates our material cosmos from God’s Heaven. 3. Is a bridal veil for the Creation, and will be removed at the Second Coming, so that God might fill all in all.

[@manonthestars]

I'd love if you can do a video critiquing Gavin Ortland (Truth Unites) on his view of Genesis and his critiques of the people who hold YEC. he recently did a video critiquing the Doc "Is Genesis History?" and seemingly put them in the same camp as Ken Ham and his interpretation. I don't think he's aware of interpretations like yours or James B Jordan. Gavin did have good things to say about Todd Wood though.

[@axisofbeginning]

An entertaining and easy-to-understand conversation about the Genesis creation and evolution debate is the stage play Axis of Beginning. A quote from it says, "To say that God needed millions or billions of years acknowledges a form of evolution and deception. God warns about adding to or taking away from His Word. Adding even one more hour to six days of creation leads to a form of evolution and deception. Is it written? In the beginning, God, however... To trust evolution ignores what we've gained through twenty-first-century technology. As a result, the Darwinian paradigm is technologically obsolete. A fruit fly and an elephant with the same grandparents are one big leap of the imagination and one giant step for mutation. One kind of animal transforming into a different animal, as a mouse evolving into a duck, is as reliable as running on ice.”

[@stevenwhite8937]

Noooooo. Not species….. family…. Family is Kind….

[@oo1o11o]

😂😂😂 Comedy gold

[@davegaskell7680]

Interesting doscussion ......but why try to fit a creator into the thinking at all given that there is no evidence for one. Evolution explains the diversity of life without needing to have a creator involved so adding a creator into rhe thinking is unnecesary. Occam's Razor applies.

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

You are only acknowledging one side of the balance sheet. There are many extra, extraneous, confounding things that need to be acknowledged in an evolutionist worldview compared to a traditional one. And we know a Creator exists before any discussion of biological diversity, geology, etc.

[@adenise__122]

creation implies a creator, and it is Jesus Christ

[@davegaskell7680]

@@adenise__122 And the evidence in support of your claim is what exactly?

[@libatonvhs]

@@davegaskell7680 Well you see regardless of what evidence we point out you'll just say it's a God-of-the-gaps fallacy and that simply more science is needed to find a natural explanation. You already assume you're right and we're wrong, so what's the point of discussing?

[@davegaskell7680]

@@libatonvhs The matter is settled, scientifically. It is religious groups that have different claims but they need more evidence to back up their claims.......especially as the evidence in support of evolutionary biology is completely overwhelming. Like I say, the matter is settled scientifically.