Here’s Why Old Earth Creationism Is a BIG Problem

[@CBess]

i love this video! So important. Not a salvation issue, but an important one indeed. This however, could point to other cracks in a person’s understanding of the Bible. YEC is the most consistent and faithful lens on which to view Genesis. Mark 10:6 is a clear proof for this reality. There is a plenty of empirical evidence for a YEC view of the Bible, no need for compromising the protological narrative. #amilAllDay Soli Deo gloria

[@jobrown8146]

Two things to consider (there are probably more): 1. you believe that God created everything, 2. you believe that Jesus died and rose again ... why is it so hard to believe Genesis is literal?

[@SaltAndGracePoetry]

It's hard some men to give up their academia prestige in the eyes of the secular scientific community. It's hard for some to rejoice when they are mocked.

[@clarkemcclymont2879]

@@SaltAndGracePoetry100%

[@DiscipleofJesusChrist-t2p]

​@@SaltAndGracePoetry @jobrown8146 Love both your comments ❤ Take a look at mine above 😉

[@johnwood7650]

We can all agree, either God made the planet and the actual universe a long long time ago. Or He made it recently and built it to look very very old. Including all the extinct fossils like dinosaurs and mammoths. I'm not sure why this is an issue to divide over.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Genesis is literal, but that doesn't mean that everything in Gen. 1 happened the way YECs want to believe it happened. They tend to read through Gen. 1:1-4 and assume all those events happened immediately after the other, or that God actually created this world in the degenerate state that Gen. 1:2-3 describes.

[@noah316]

Thank you for making the point that this is not a side issue. But a foundational view that affects the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[@lambo58]

Here’s my question: where is all this evidence for evolution that warrants we change our understanding of the book of Genesis?

[@conceptualclarity]

I am especially unhappy with the old earth crowd for positing a regional flood instead of the global flood.

[@JonJaeden]

The mountain currently known as Mt. Ararat (39.702311°, 44.298926°) rises to an elevation of 16,743 feet. It is here on this mountain (or in the region of this mountain or, perhaps, just in the direction of this mountain from the point of view of the author) that Noah's ark ended its voyage. The text does not require it to have been the peak, but looking at the elevations in the region, the waters would have had to rise thousands of feet to have lifted and then deposited a vessel the size of the ark described in Genesis. To raise the water level that high for the length of time described, the Flood, which even if not completely global, could not be a local event. My home here in the Sacramento Valley would certainly have been underwater. Caveat ... the text seems to require Mt. Ararat itself to have been the resting place since the ark was grounded in the sixth month, but the peaks of the surrounding mountains did not emerge until the ninth. Ararat alone provides the difference in height that explains that. I took a series of elevation readings on Google Earth, roughly in a circle around Mt. Ararat. At distances of 100 miles from the peak, elevations were consistently in the 5,200'-7,600' range. That's how much deeper the ocean would have to be for the ark to have floated and settled there. Australia would be under water, including it's highest peak at 7,310'. I did the same for elevations in a circle 200 miles around the peak. Readings ranged from 2,600' to 6,500'. While certainly not exhaustive, it shows that wherever "the mountains of Ararat" are supposed to be, sailing an ark there requires a depth of water with impacts far beyound the local region. Even if we assume the ark landed in Northern Mesopotamia where the land first begins its dramatic rise toward Ararat -- say, in the regions of Ninevah, Gozan, Haran or Palmyra -- the waters would have risen well over 1,000' feet above sea level to deposit the ark there. If we take the geographic details seriously, I don't see how we have a "regional" flood.

[@clarkemcclymont2879]

Brilliant. Pity most ‘pastors’ don’t want to be seen as fools in the eyes of their academic colleagues thus compromising The word of God, rather than upholding The word of God.

[@meredithsdg]

In Acts 3, Peter preaches that Christ will return to “restore all things as promised through the holy prophets long ago.” If He had created through billions of years of death, disease and evolution, then what is He restoring us too? Obviously, God created a perfect world without disease and death. Adam’s sin corrupted it, Jesus will restore it. To God be the Glory!

[@scottsipe4927]

Scott, this is one of the best explanations of the conflict between old earth and young earth creationism I have encountered. Very well done.

[@JonJaeden]

If you've ever taken a class in designing and building digital databases, one of the first things you're taught is you first create the form (i.e. structure, relationships, etc) of the database, then you populate it with objects or data. That is very much what I see in Genesis 1. It begins by telling us the earth had no form and it was empty; it had not been populated with objects because there was no structure to hold them or intelligence to define relationships among them. So, on Days 1 -- 3, God creates forms: Light, Waters Above and Below with an Atmosphere, and Dry Land with Vegetation. On Days 4 -- 6, God populates those forms with objects of his creation: Sun, Moon, Stars; Creatures of the Sea & Air; and, Land Animals and Man, respectively. Days 1 & 4 are paired, as are Days 2 & 5 and Days 3 & 6. Gen 1:2 - Earth formless and empty Day 1 - Light Day 4 - Sun, Moon, Stars Day 2 - Waters, Atmosphere Day 5 - Creatures of the Sea & Air Day 3 - Vegetated Land Day 6 - Land Animals, Man This form/object understanding of Genesis 1 is similar to Plato's focus on form and idea vs Aristotle's focus on objects and empiricism. It echoes the philosophical concept of the One and the Many. And this does not require a commitment one way or the other to whether the days are figurative or literal or to Young Earth or Old Earth Creation. Speaking for myself, once I see the pattern, I can't unsee it.

[@gstevennash]

What does require a commitment to the concept of a literal day is the universally accepted interpretation of it by Christians throughout history before the introduction of godless philosophies observable science has disproven. If you say it isn’t a literal day you are saying that the Hebrew and later Christian understanding of the passage is inadequate for greater than 3,000 years of history.

[@JonJaeden]

​@@gstevennash I'm not saying anything about literal days or otherwise. Noting the form/object pattern says nothing one way or the other about the length of those six days. What I'm saying is the first three days describe God creating forms and the second three days the populating of those forms with objects of his creation. And, FWIW, this is how you can have Light created on Day 1 before the Sun, Moon and Stars on Day 4.

[@Eric-jt8yx]

Great video! Thanks 🙏

[@stuartjohnson5686]

Genesis is history not poetry. Hebrew poetry is the Psalms, (literally songs) Proverbs, Ecclesiastics and Song of Solomon. The Apostle Peter does not allow for reducing the flood of Noah's day to a local flood. 2 Peter 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. "No one gets passed the first verse of of the Bible without facing the test of submission to Scripture. It isn't unclear, it isn't foggy, it isn't oblique. It is crystal clear. So you never get past the first verse without declaring your submission to Scripture, or your lack of it." -- John MacArthur

[@-RM-]

Thank you, Dr. Aniol! I appreciate your teaching.

[@cat_puncher8539]

Would love to see you and Gavin Ortlund discuss this in a podcast.

[@Kadosh77]

The Bible starts broad. As you go through it to the end it is detailing/layering and detailing/layering and detailing/layering all the same thoughts, stories, ideas, prophecy and history until you get to the very specific end. It’s information dissected then dissected then dissected. It is brilliant and there will never be a time where we won’t learn something new from it.

[@markmarsden9459]

It’s always about authority and derived assumptions

[@mouriermarie-helene3510]

Amen !

[@CowboyFantastic007]

Ammunition for the soldiers fighting the good fight of faith! Thank you

[@TheVaporater]

Makes sense to me!!

[@SaltAndGracePoetry]

Amen! Great truths!!!

[@jmp6943]

Literal 24 hr consecutive days? When the moon and sun were not created until the 4th day. Um….SURE. OK!

[@clarkemcclymont2879]

A man rising from the dead….um….SURE.OK !

[@dontaylor1701]

When God said "Let there be light", this light came from the stars in the heavens, including the Sun. It boiled the deep, separated the waters, exposed the ground, creating the perfect habitat for plant life. Which then thinned the firmament exposing what we now see as the Sun, Moon and Stars. Before this time the light was either overwhelming bright or obscured by the firmament. Day 4 was when these lights were revealed to be the cosmic timekeepers we all rely upon today; for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

[@Onkuty]

When was the light created?

[@j.w.neidhardt3787]

Great video.

[@watchmanofthenight2700]

It's always a problem if it comes from the father of lies.

[@Ooochild]

Full disclosure, I’m a Calvinist and an OEC. A rare breed. I find the work of Hugh Ross, John Lennox, Fazale Rana, et al., to be more than compelling. They take the Bible both literally and consistently, and it seems to work out just fine

[@gstevennash]

So you believe that God is totally sovereign and yet allowed the Bible to give a literal six day creation story knowing it was false?

[@Ooochild]

@ Yes I believe God is sovereign and that a literal 6 days does not always have to mean 6 twenty four hour days- literally.

[@gstevennash]

Also, not sure if you ever put this much thought into it, but there is no rejection of observable science in accepting a young earth creation model. Yet, there is a rejection of it in accepting Darwinian Evolution as the means of Gods creation as the following has never been observed: 1. Life spontaneously forming from non living material. 2. Life giving rise to new life of an unlike kind. For example an animal giving birth to a new species biologically incapable of reproducing with its parent. 3. Natural selection that adds to the diversity of a genome versus taking away from it. 4. Extremely complex protein systems all evolving at once. (For more information read the Book Darwin’s Black Box) All of these things would have to be true for Darwinian evolution to be the means in which God created life, yet according to science, having been never observed, cannot be true. Darwinian Evolution is therefore a scientifically refuted theory based on what we now know concerning DNA using the Empirical method. And without needing all of this time for the means, there is no need to hold the view. Of course you will argue about star light triangulation etc, as to how can we observe light from billions of years ago. My answer would be, how do we even know we are? James Webb telescope recent observations have called much of this science into question. It needs to be thrown out as it is inconsistent with observation. Finally, the 2022 Nobel prize for science was awarded to John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger. They discovered that at a quantum level the universe presents based on observation by an intelligence, thus proving the universe isn’t locally real. Locally, because we cannot run this same experiment to prove the universe isn’t real across the galaxy or in another galaxy because we can’t go there. All of that to say, all of this science actually indicates the existence of a sovereign God who is holding everything together at the present. Or what the Bible literally says.

[@gstevennash]

@@OoochildAnd as far as the Hebrew word for day, you are right in that contextually it can mean a period of time, not necessarily a day so it is good that God added context by saying morning and evening.

[@jeremyhewitt2637]

Sorry friend. We all need reforming. Reconsider. As I would say to one before the emphasis on the grace of God in the reformation or the maligned view of relics or Mary dogma-once something is set against the bible and set straight one should align in the bible. So I don’t fault those who were caught in the midst of controversy or before but once understood should realign

[@lawofimplication]

"All reasoning is circular." Um, ouch. Mine isn't, but I'm glad that you realize that yours is. Maybe question yours, then? You don't do Christ or nonbelievers any favors by reasoning in such a foolish and arrogant manner.

[@gstevennash]

Unless you are claiming the infinite understanding of God, which I assure you, you don’t have, you may not realize it, but your reasoning is circular. That only means that there is a base source you use to prove your source. Such as why is the Bible true? You can’t reason that without using the Bible and have it stand up. You must accept the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true.

[@bayesianhulk]

The Bible says absolutely nothing about the age of the Earth.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

While the Bible does not specify the planet's age, it DEFINITELY reveals that this world is a lot older than 6000 yrs. The very fact that it teaches that Lucifer and the angels that he was in charge were here and launched their coup against God from here long before Adam was created dispels the notion about it being 6000 yrs old.

[@prosperotempest8606]

Berean fact check... What are you talking about here? Timestamp 2:03 "...such as in Matthew 1:18 where the term is used to describe a great, great grandson."" Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

[@JDsVarietyChannel]

Did he misspeak? I agree that needs clarification.

[@matteblak6158]

This is actually speaking of 1:5 where we skip some time between Rahab, Boaz/Ruth, and Jesse Davids dad. Likely just a typo because Scott is reading from his article which contains the same error

[@prosperotempest8606]

@@matteblak6158 OK, now we have the right scripture to look at. Still, I am having trouble understanding his point. What scripture am i supposed to compare this to in order to understand that generations are being skipped here?

[@Idhart]

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am When God says I AM, He means it. For us being born of Adam, having the knowledge of good and evil and debating hermeneutics I believe ultimately misses the entire point, which is finite man trying to understand an infinite God. As we are made in His image and thus ourselves being finite creatures who are bound by the vessel we understand as time, having us debate these differences I believe is of no benefit. What should matter most is this. He is, He was, He always will be, and that He sent His son Jesus Christ in the form of living flesh to be the propitiation for our sins, and that our faith in Him and only Him is what finally reconciles us to God as was always intended for His good Will on this earth. Put the debates down, pick up the Gospel of Truth, share it with the lost and serve one another. We do not know the day nor the hour our master is returning and we need to be found tending the fields as a good servant when He finally does return. That’s it! lol. Have a great day everyone. :)

[@thingamujigger1585]

If God said a day but meant a kajillion years....He would have called it a kajillion years and not a day. We finite creatures seem to take every possible opportunity we can to demote God's amazing attributes. 😔

[@SKARLEO]

So weird how so many of these christians youtube channels discuss these topics and completely leave out any discussion of the firmament and it being Gods' HUGEST discount against old earths creationism's HUGEST boast... space

[@SKARLEO]

Do the preachers on here believe in Gods' creation of the firmament or do you guys believe in part of old earth creationisms' boast of "outer space," which completely discounts the firmament mentioned in relation to earth all thruout the old testament.

[@NMcRae]

This conflates your interpretation with the Bible. You start with an interpretation and fit all understanding of the Bible and "facts" with your interpretation. I agree that the Scriptures reveal God's plan, but do also accept that all established truth reveals God's work, too. If science can establish facts about the universe, then I may need to re-look at my "interpretation" of the Bible. It tells us what God sees in us, our fallen nature, and our need of redemption. It does not tell us about the science. Just with the Flood, we can show that it did not/ could not have been world-wide - or have happened. It apparently was a story that was used to tell of God's anger against wayward man. Some well-established facts (even admitted by yec scientist John Baumgartner) the incredible HEAT problem caused by the rapid movement of tectonic plates, 40 days of rain, ALL the volcanoes and meteorites, mountains rising, etc. would have produced such incredible heat that it would equal many H-bombs per square kilometer on earth, melting everything; the incredible slurry produced by 1+ mile high tsunamis sweeping the earth would have thoroughly mixed everything so completely there could not have been finely sorted out fossils in layers, let alone often by microscopic organisms and colors. God does not lie nor deceive. If the earth was created to appear old, then the laws of nature are deceptive and we cannot really believe that what we find out in research - God's creation lies to us. This is but a sampling of what makes many of us realize the Bible is not a book of science, but of redemptive truth. The church went through some difficulties even accepting that the earth was not the center of the our solar system, but revolved around the sun. If the Bible is a science book, why does it say we praise God from our livers (check it out).Prov 23.16

[@Staton2033-it3jr]

If a day in the life of Christ is as 2000 years to man, then 6 days is 12,000 years?

[@insomnolant6043]

It's 1,000 years. You changed it to 2,000 years. Not wise.

[@Staton2033-it3jr]

@@insomnolant6043 I didn't change it , it was a mater of hitting the 2 instead 1 simply a mistake !! Not UNWISE!!!!

[@555pontifex]

Do you use a teleprompter?

[@TravisSahly]

Is this the wolves in sheep’s clothing the bible talks about?

[@n_l_o]

Bro, it’s not a salvation issue. Both ideologies can coexist and Jesus is still on the throne. Your modern-day privilege allows you to argue on these nonessential topics.

[@gstevennash]

Just because something isn’t a salvation issue doesn’t mean it is open for Christian liberty. The view on this the author of the video points out can have a profound impact on how you view Scripture and therefore how you live your life. It is a slippery slope issue that can quickly delve into Christian deconstruction if not sufficiently addressed as one who believes wrongly has marred their own view of Scripture.

[@MarkMay-cr6bv]

@n_l_o But it IS a salvation issue. No, not in the context of whether believing one way or the other saves or condemns, but literally whether there is ANY salvation or even the NEED for salvation for anyone at all. If the old-Earth theory is true then it greatly conflicts with Genesis and other parts of the bible, therefore by definition the bible contains lies and untruths. If any single, minute part of the bible is a lie then the whole thing is a house of cards. Either you believe the bible is God's inspired and perfectly inerrant word or you don't. If it isn't, then none of it means anything. If God's Holy Word introduces us to who He is by opening with a long, incredibly-detailed account that is partly truth and partly parable or metaphor then everything that follows is open to interpretation. Which parts are which? We could argue those points forever, but that god would be a wishy-washy, insouciant deity who leaves it up to the individual to determine what is real and what isn't, or which parts we'll believe or take literally and which ones we won't. No thanks. The rest of the bible is pretty clear when any passage is a parable, or descriptive, prescriptive or both. I'll take Him at His word that Genesis is an authentic account of His creation, no interpretation by a lowly sinner like me required.

[@MarkMay-cr6bv]

But it IS a salvation issue. No, not in the context of whether believing one way or the other saves or condemns, but literally a question of whether there is ANY salvation or even the NEED for salvation for anyone. If the old-Earth theory is true then it greatly conflicts with Genesis and other parts of the bible, therefore by definition the bible contains lies and untruths. If any single, minute part of the bible is a lie then the whole thing is a house of cards. Either you believe the bible is God's inspired and perfectly inerrant word or you don't. If it isn't, then none of it means anything. The bible for the most part is usuallly pretty clear whether a given passage is a parable, or descriptive, prescriptive or both. If God's Holy Word introduces us to who He is by opening with a long, incredibly-detailed account that is partly truth and partly parable or metaphor then everything that follows is open to interpretation. Which parts are which? We could argue each those points forever, but that god would be a wishy-washy, insouciant deity who leaves it up to the individual to determine what is real and what isn't, or which parts we'll believe or take literally and which ones we won't. No thanks. I'll take God at His word that Genesis is an authentic account of His creation, no interpretation by me required.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

I disagree, because the age of the earth ties in with the gospel Christ preached about the restoration of God's government to this world. Satan took it away with the rebellion he launched before Adam was created, which is why God proceeded with HIs plans to replace him as the ruler of this world.

[@johnwood7650]

This video is a gross misrepresentation of Christian old earth believers

[@frosted1030]

Who cares? Basically you trade one fictional timeline for another, so what?

[@gstevennash]

I have a message for you. All of us have violated God’s moral law. God’s nature requires Him to judge us righteously for this violation. He cannot simply look past it as it would cause Him to violate the infinite justice that He is. Therefore, God became a man to take this punishment upon Himself as Jesus Christ on the cross at the right time and place in human history for a substitution of those who have faith and believe in Him. I ask you to repent of what God has clearly revealed as sin in His word, the Holy Bible. This means to agree that these things are sins, make restitution for the effects of them if possible, and commit to the turning away from them with the help of God that He provided through His word, the Church body, and the Holy Spirit. Then believe in Jesus Christ, doing so will save you from the wrath to come described here. Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sits upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 Then I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them, and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15 Legacy Standard Bible. 2022. Three Sixteen Publishing.

[@MarkMay-cr6bv]

If you din't care one way or the other then you never would have clicked on this video, let alone taken the time to respond. Laugh now, but you're going to care one day, and a lot sooner than you think.

[@frosted1030]

@@MarkMay-cr6bv "Laugh now, but you're going to care one day, and a lot sooner than you think." This is exactly why nobody takes you folks seriously. You fell for an ad baculum fallacy. It's like you don't even bother to process the information given to you.