Michael Jones from

Michael Jones
-------------------------
inspiringphilo...
Eric Hovind
----------------------
creationtoday....
Bibledingers
----------------------
Website: www.bibledinge...
Patreon: / bibledingers
Instagram: / bibledingers
Twitter: / bibledingers
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Christian Creators you need to check out: @JonClash @thisissalvation @TrinityTruth05 @whyjesusnetwork @jesusinfive @PastorJeremyCollins @Kdubtru

[@Bibledingers]

Where do you guys stand after this conversation? Is evolution compatible with the Bible?

[@joshuatrott193]

I'm not quite at the end, thus far, it seemed more of a timeline debate not an evolution debate.

[@Bibledingers]

@@joshuatrott193 I guess there’s some overlap. One can’t really exist without the other

[@joshuatrott193]

@@Bibledingers old earth doesn't automatically equal evolution.

[@nickNcar]

​@joshuatrott193 I think when you look into the universe and look at it scientifically, the universe is primed to create life. The idea that God created a machine to create life and then came to a poorly working earth with these pre human creatures and decides to pick two (Adam and Eve) and make them his priests to build and spread his church and control the poorly working earth makes sense.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

​@@joshuatrott193evolution has been an established fact of biology for more than a century and a half. Cope with it already

[@andrey1186]

Watching Michael get his Christian character repeatedly attacked and holding his own without getting defensive is a level of confidence i aspire to.

[@theloveofgod1740]

Indeed.

[@unsightedmetal6857]

I guess you could say he is... INSPIRING.

[@hiastram1145]

Amen. I've seen the same thing with Hugh Ross in debates as well. If you're not familiar with him, he's an old earth creationist who takes the position that the creation days are long time periods. He doesn't believe in evolution but rather that God was actively creating throughout the fossil record until he made humans and then he rested. I've seen him in debates with several YECs and in almost every case he was attacked pretty harshly. Eric Hovind was one of the more civil debates I've seen him have with a YEC so seeing Eric's conduct in this debate was a bit jarring compared to the other debate I saw with him. Hugh Ross displays much of the same attitude Michael did when he gets personally attacked. He is incredibly patient with his debate opponents.

[@ThePreacherman9]

Michael literally in so much error

[@angelbrother1238]

I know I wouldn’t have been able to hold myself in that situation

[@brockburgi994]

Eric argues EXACTLY like his dad, basically rehashes the exact same points to avoid serious questions, not to mention interrupts constantly. Michael calmly gives evidence to support all his points as to why he interprets the text the way he does

[@paulhayes5684]

Exactly and that's what irritates about Eric.

[@J.F.331]

@@paulhayes5684For me, the ad-hominem attacks from Eric shows how immature he is in the faith. Actually accusing Michael of worshipping some other god because he doesn’t believe creation was 6,000 years ago.

[@DumbSheep88]

Yeah the hovids mean well i know they do. But they come out like a super corny aggressive slevy used car salesman. Im young earth 100% anti evolution BUT i dont need to be in an echo chamber to keep myself comfortable with my faith. I also think people struggling to figure this out is ok and outside of the essentials of the faith we can talk and even do things together for the kingdom

[@danyboon4851]

Also goes into ad hominems and many points that are completely unrelated

[@austinapologetics2023]

IP is a beast, he was the one that convinced me evolution and Christianity were compatible. Still love my YEC brothers and sisters in Christ.

[@Crimsonlupus]

Same. I used to have major anxiety as a kid over this issue but listen to mikes work followed by scholars such as Michael Heiser completely made this a non issue.

[@PizzaDisguise]

@@Crimsonlupusso you believe in human evolution? Just curious.

[@Crimsonlupus]

@PizzaDisguise Do you mind if I ask why you why you ask that question? Respectfully I don’t find,”just curious” satisfying as many will use that phrase to lull ppl into thinking that it’s innocent curiosity when in reality they have a major gripe with something. I’ve had this conversation with ppl before,and I know how ppl get with it.

[@Crimsonlupus]

@PizzaDisguise You going to answer or leave it at that?

[@bellohond]

He is completely weak in this debate! What?

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

Can someone please tell Eric to stop giving mini sermons and just answer Michael's questions directly?

[@zulu3779]

😂

[@andrewdavidson8167]

Unfortunately that’s not characteristic of the presupp crowd

[@Crimsonlupus]

I’m afraid that’s a bit difficult for him. Eric suffers from low IQ syndrome

[@GHanBax]

Yeah it's very condescending

[@C0smicNINJA]

I thought the same thing😂

[@austinapologetics2023]

IP endured the personal attacks and insults from both father and son 😂. Can't wait for his debate with Kent's grandson when Mike gets older

[@Crimsonlupus]

What would be better is if one of Eric’s kids starts to think for themselves and doesn’t buy his cultish views and annoys him basically for as long as he lives.

[@austinapologetics2023]

@@Crimsonlupus I couldn't agree more

[@Crimsonlupus]

It’s only fair. I demand justice for the brain cells that died last night while I was listening to Eric.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

@@Crimsonlupus No kidding. The number of times I blurted out "NO!?" when he was talking...

[@jimchoy6764]

@@Crimsonlupusthat would be better

[@Longshanks1690]

Comparing introductions alone. Michael: Here’s an extremely brief rundown of why the opening verses of Genesis support my case with specific references to Hebrew grammar and scholarly commentaries. I’m stammering over my words a bunch cos there’s a lot here and I want to be sure I get all these points out in my allotted time. Eric: Aight so five years ago there was a gay character in a Disney movie- Oh this is going to be a long hour. 😂

[@J.F.331]

And a long hour it was. I was not convinced at all from Hovind’s presentation, not even a little. This was not a good match up. Michael as an intellectual should be paired up with another intellectual. Hovind is clearly not one.

[@deusvult8340]

@@J.F.331But I do feel like IP needs to work on his rethoric

[@MysteryMan159]

And by his own words, not even a textual scholar of the Bible. The analogies are to appeal to his audience. Who are mostly people who don’t really think deeply about this stuff but just see someone who doesn’t buy the YEC pseudoscience and accuse them of not even being real Christians.

[@J.F.331]

The major difference between IP and Eric is scholarship vs. anecdotal philosophy. Sorry to say, and I don’t mean this to sound insulting, but if I was a student under Hovind in college, I would be very disappointed with the money I paid for that semester.

[@paulhayes5684]

Agreed

[@Crimsonlupus]

The sad thing is a lot of ppl have waisted a lot of money on the pseudo scientific nonsense of the Hovinds and other yecs like answers in genesis.

[@jkm9332]

It’s so embarrassing.

[@gambitproductions4210]

Summary of the debate: Eric: uses a slide of Batman and Robin punching BioLogos as evidence 😂 InspiringPhilosophy: Actually makes a compelling case and a serious argument

[@nateswan9527]

Just shows you the kind of audience Eric is trying to attract.

[@NathanH83]

Eric is trying to use humor to clearly communicate his point, while Michael is rattling off some nonsense about Tolodoth formulas quickly under his breath so that he can come across like he's smarter than you.

[@catotheyounger55]

@@NathanH83Nah he’s sticking to emotional appeals. He’s spinning a used car sales pitch

[@NathanH83]

@@catotheyounger55 Eric is appealing to what the Bible actually says.

[@Crimsonlupus]

@NathanH83 If you consider what an uneducated goober fundamentalist says about the Bible to be “what it actually says” than sure. Some ppl should not have the right to speak on topics I swear

[@braydenbreiden]

Love how the guy who prayed for a respectful conversation turns out to be condescending and rude. Just because someone prays for something doesn't mean they actually mean it.

[@st89]

Eric really likes his 747 analogy, it must sound much more convincing in his mind than it does to anyone listening.

[@erichovind6236]

777

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Eric still hasn't worked out two 747s can't mate and have a baby 707 that will one day grow up to be another 747.

[@steverational8615]

It’s a perfect legitimate analogy for argumentation purposes. If anything, it is deficient in expressing the likelihood that intelligent life can exist by pure chance

[@latenttweet]

@@steverational8615it’s actually a simplistic example. Look up ATP synthase motor animation. At least a 747 we can build. We can’t build life only mix dna and rna and let it run Gods course to get the outcome we desire.

[@tylercurtis764]

1:20:47 "Subdue the earth, homie!" - Genesis 1:28 (Eric Hovind translation)

[@SWill0w456]

Yeah, that was pretty jarring

[@whelperw]

"Judas is sus" - Jesus, the one that walks among us.

[@Palolskigamers]

@@whelperw that's wild man

[@rj_corvo]

Eric: "Are THEY subduing?!?" Mike: "No... They're sinning." 🤣 so good!

[@paulhayes5684]

And then Eric is silent for several seconds because of it. Eric keeps on twisting Michael's viewpoints in a way that seems a little dishonest.

[@rj_corvo]

@@paulhayes5684 😂 exactly.

[@found.ernest]

That was a great response to an extremely disgusting question. Hovind’s performance in the 2nd half of this discussion was shameful.

[@rj_corvo]

@@found.ernest couldn't agree more... He should learn to 1) debate with decorum and 2) love thy neighbor. Mike is a brother in Christ, regardless of Eric's disagreements on how he reads the creation account.

[@joekujoecuzpro8753]

​​@@paulhayes5684like father like son Kent hovind did the same thing

[@gotgunpowder]

IP slam-dunking both Kent Hovind and his son is such a power move. At least Eric wasn't as openly rude as Kent.

[@depthsofpentecost2973]

…or isn’t a convicted domestic abuser…

[@gotgunpowder]

@@depthsofpentecost2973 Seeing people in the comments of IP's video exposing Kent's abuse was disgusting. So many so-called Christians standing behind an abuser.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

I love how even Hovind (Mr. "Don't use ANE texts to read the Bible") likes Michael Heiser's view on the sons of God

[@Crimsonlupus]

Palpatine: “Ironic”

[@Panax07]

It was a rhetorical trick to weaponize heiser against IP

[@Longshanks1690]

Eric Hovind “Go two minutes without using pedantic sophistry and/or appeals to emotion in your argument” challenge. (Literally impossible)

[@paulhayes5684]

😂

[@Cataphract3]

He launches into a sermon with EVERY SINGLE statement. It's meant to make him appear spiritual and his opponent as beneath him.

[@endygonewild2899]

The reason why young earth creationism is so prevalent is because it's so much easier to impose our western context onto the biblical text like Eric here is doing(despite how much they say they are against imposing onto the bible) than to try to understand the bible as it was written in the ancient near east. Eric loves to say that Mike is limiting sin, but he hypocritically limits and decides what context and way to read the text God can have the bible be written in. The Bible wasn't specifically made for us modern Americans, it was written and meant to be understood by ancient near eastern lenses, and we as Christians should try to understand how the authors themselves would have seen the text, as that is the context that God decided to have the Bible be written in.

[@truncated7644]

Or God, knowing the VAST majority of humans who ever lived wouldn't know that context, would have thought of a better way to communicate with us about what he wanted us to know and do.

[@endygonewild2899]

@@truncated7644 well first off, the main goal of scripture is to lead people to salvation, with it can do in all contexts, and so the suffiency of scripture for salvation is obvious. second,, we have various Christian church's and instutions that have the capability to educate believers on these subjects and the Ancient near eastern context, and the reason why that doesn't happen a lot is not on God, but on the laziness of Christians who lead the church.

[@truncated7644]

@@endygonewild2899 Ok, if I granted that you are right, it seems like a terrible way to do it. Too few people hear it, truly understand it, the message is garbled by the Christians who deliver it, the evidence to support its claims is missing and insufficient, etc. If God ordained this process, I don't see how it gets him off the hook just because humans aren't perfect.

[@btroger]

You nailed it.

[@Austation4850]

@@truncated7644 But that’s the thing tho the evidence is there more so than the literal interpretation when we use biblical scholars these people are the ones who not only study the language but the historical and cultural context to it as well and another things is how on earth would god (without snapping his fingers to give them infinite knowledge or knowledge of the future) tell the biblical authors his message in a way that would be plain when their thinkin process and language structure is completely different than ours I mean look at the last 100 years u can see how our own language/slang has evolved and we can even see this with other languages take Japanese for example it’s hard to translate to English bc of context culturally and linguistically in anime some of the jokes don’t make sense to us so they change lines I’m goin to school for game design we also do this it’s called international localization so what makes u think god would do this it makes more sense to understand it in the culture it was written in

[@morganparkman9539]

Immediately hear Eric call Michael “Bud” and having Michael respond with “Sir” should give you an idea of what is about to unfold. 😊

[@alexik15502]

25:47 "The size doesn't determine value" You heard that right boys, now I know what to tell her

[@Crimsonlupus]

😂

[@axderka]

Lmaoooooo

[@Bibledingers]

U r trippin

[@christophekeating21]

Eric Hovind: "I'm right about what the Bible means because atheists agree with me that that's what the Bible means." Shouldn't that count against him for Christians?

[@Crimsonlupus]

I half wonder if the Hovinds are just completely stupid and arrogant, or if they are flat out lying to ppl so they can continue to fund the stupid yec media they have. Because that does bring in a lot of money.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Well… IP is the one who is reinterpreting scripture to make it fit reality.

[@robinpage2730]

​@@ramigilneas9274I'll take that over reinterpreting reality to make it fit scripture any day.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@robinpage2730 Sure, reinterpreting scripture is clearly a better option than denying objective reality. But maybe the best option is to admit that the authors of scripture were wrong about a lot of things and didn't know much about how the world works.

[@robinpage2730]

@@ramigilneas9274 that is my honest view as well, but people are free to think what they want for themselves.

[@GHanBax]

When Genesis was written, it was for an audience, and the audience already had a culture and language. Eric seems to assume in his hermeneutic as if Genesis was written in the beginning rather than a text written about the "beginning" such that every term and narrative is established in Genesis. A lot has happened prior to the book being written. Rather Michael is properly trying to understand the text according to how the audience at the time would've understood it. The "subdue" for example, it's not a word from void, it's a word understood according to how the people at the time would've known what it meant. So I agree with Michael that since the word is used harshly in their culture and time, then we have good reasons to think that reading the text with that background would mean the same thing in a specific context.

[@truncated7644]

Genesis 1 is one of the later pieces to be written in the torah. But Eric doesn't believe that.

[@calebadcock363]

Great point

[@TheWoodlandSeamstress]

Exactly what I was thinking. Same for the phrase "very good". This book was written way after the fall, if they wanted to use a term that explicitly implied perfection they could have.

[@Hamann9631]

@GHanBax, huh?! The context of what was happening in the time of history being told is more important than how it is used by people in a different time and place.

[@CT-316]

I lost a lot of respect for Eric Hovind after this. Condescending, interrupting, strawmanning and distorting Michael, etc. Edit: I've lost ALL respect for Eric. He outright attacks Michael's character and spirituality. He was self righteous and petulant

[@nude_cat_ellie7417]

Same 😔

[@Joelthinker]

This is making me realize just how adolescent the YEC position is. It's like a kid reading Shakespeare

[@7urak]

I never thought I'd see or hear about MrBeast in an online discussion between Christians about Creationism.

[@Bibledingers]

Well think again!

[@Milkman12345]

Bro half the time Michael couldn’t even get a word out 😭I honestly don’t understand how Michael had the patience to deal with this

[@nspargo22]

I legitimately couldn’t follow along with Eric’s logic. He tried to have these epic gotcha moments but they were all poor arguments. Michael needs to speak with someone on the same intellectual level and Eric isn’t it.

[@paulhayes5684]

Agreed

[@J.F.331]

I wholly agree. You should check out the debate between Gary DeMar and Kent Hovind. It’s not on subject of creation but eschatology. But it show how unequipped Hovind is in on serious intellectual conversations.

[@robinpage2730]

Alex O'Connor would be a great interlocutor for IP. I'd pay to watch that conversation.

[@scottgodlewski306]

@@robinpage2730It’s a thing! It was a recommended video here!

[@BelieveinChrist7]

Some of these comments are disturbing and disrespectful. Both Michael and Eric are brothers in the Lord. They’re having an open discussion about a topic many are confused on. Please pray that no matter where we might disagree, that we emphasize and continue to trust in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when it’s all said and done.

[@FuddlyDud]

Perfectly put man. Let’s pray our pursuit of Truth continues to honor God as well. :)

[@Crimsonlupus]

Your soft. All ppl are doing is pointing out how pathetic Eric is, which is not hard. If that’s disturbing to you, your weak and live in a bubble

[@nude_cat_ellie7417]

I’m not sure if there are specific comments you are referring to, but there’s nothing wrong with critiquing people in a debate. Calling someone an idiot or moron is unkind, but saying someone was behaving rudely or interrupting repeatedly and ignoring the rules of a healthy debate are not inappropriate comments.

[@saiyasho16]

Most in the comment came already with their confirmation bias already in place. They didn’t really come to be edified or learn from the opposite position.

[@FireFlanker1]

@@saiyasho16the problem is that Eric is not a good representative of the YEC view… he sounds condescending and uses faulty logic with the Bible as his screen to protect him… no matter your position it should be called out for what it is… a terrible attempt at giving a reasonable counter argument

[@immaturechildofgod]

While I don't hold to his views, Michael will win this debate every time in my opinion. The question "is it compatible with the Bible?" means all that is necessary is to present a reasonable case and he does so very well. His arguments are extremely compelling because he does so from the text

[@hiastram1145]

Agreed. I disagree with both their positions but Michael definitely won this. I'm saddened by Eric's conduct in this debate. He effectively accused Michael of worshipping a different God than Christianity and he used a lot of fallacies to support his side as Michael pointed out occasionally. We need to get along better with those we disagree with and not just start attacking their character.

[@SalvadorBtc]

actually he adds into the text to make his argument, "eisegeting" he said it himself, "we have to add to it to try to explain it" which I disagree, the binle doesn't have to give all the answers for creation or evolution, the problem with most apologists is they want an answer for every single point which is impossible, humbleness is lacking on that part

[@KevinSmile]

You could tell by how he was talking that Hovind was preaching to his choir. This was barely a debate.

[@therayn0]

I am build up in the faith after watching this.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

Eric Hovind is a mess here-ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, slippery slope arguments, sweeping generalizations, hasty conclusions, non sequiturs, arguing from analogy. And the sad thing is, he's obviously *prepared* all this with a slideshow and everything. He needs a better education, please. And stop talking down to the audience-we understand billions, you don't need to keep using Boeing 747s 🙄

[@JosiahTheSiah]

And _continually_ impugning God's moral character on any view except his own. That's poisoning the well.

[@factsonly7247]

He’s a youth pastor with a 5th grade education. What would you expect from the son of a con-man

[@nickNcar]

A lot of Erics points so far seem to be like, "Some people agree with me. Therefore, im right. " He also really likes hair.

[@garymurray6376]

Michael, thanks for putting this together! Great video and really appreciate that all the participants were respectful of one another's perspectives, rare to see in most media outlets today. I'd appreciate if some of the speakers could elaborate more on some biblical references below which general readings seem to contradict or at the very least seem to be a trouble spot for theistic evolution that weren't covered (or maybe I missed)... I'd like more clarification for my perspectives. representing the six 24 hour days of creation, when compared with "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, , and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." along with "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 ." The general reading of these verses comparatively explains God made created all things together in a certain time frame and in a certain way. Not speaking to variations but rather as Genesis refers 'kinds'. I would like the theistic evolutionists biblical references that may offset these verses for better clarification. I would also ask for the biblical reference of when death was brought in to the world and what was the cause of death? Thanks again all, be blessed!

[@kennethanderson8770]

I’ve been a theistic evolutionist for around 30 years and I still believe the truth of scripture.

[@ccnationnews5965]

I don't see how a Christian can believe in evolution. too many contradictions creation Evolution Cause of universe: God Cause of universe: Higgs Boson timescale: 6 days timescale: 9 billion years order of events order of events 1 Earth, water, light 1 light 2 oceans 2 stars 3 dryland, plants 3 water 4 solar system 4 solar system 5 fish, birds 5 earth 6 mammals, reptiles, insects, humans 6 dryland 7 oceans 8 single cell organisms 9 fish 10 trees 11 insects 12 reptiles 13 birds 14 mammals 15 man Both of these worldviews can't co-exist you must choose one or the other

[@Aurora666_yt]

​@@ccnationnews5965 That's why I'm a Christian no more, because science and scriptures are incompatible. Sorry, but the theory of evolution is an undeniable fact to those who actually study biology.

[@Aurora666_yt]

​@@ccnationnews5965 Also the higgs boson exists and we know it. We knew that since 2012. Apparently your worldview teaches that God's creation cannot be explained in scientific terms. If God exists, then I'm sure he created the higgs field to give particles mass.

[@1MDA]

​@@Aurora666_ytyou just make yourself believe so, lazy atheism. "Evolution true therefore christianity false", meanwhile most christians believe in evolution

[@obad.iah.]

@@Aurora666_ytscripture and science are most definitely compatible.

[@calebadcock363]

1:30:46 YOU GOT HIM MICHAEL!!!

[@jessejones1420]

"At least you got that right" LOL

[@irenaeusofpensacola]

Historic Christianity was not concerned with how God created everything. St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century stressed that the creation narrative in Genesis is not an exact description of how God created everything. St. Basil the Great emphasized the same thing. Origen also pointed this out. This is why the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church has never been concerned with the creation vs. evolution debate. To most of us, it's silly (and most Orthodox Christians believe in universal common descent). In fact, one Orthodox scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, has said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Dobzhansky worked hard to fight against creationism being taught in schools. Unfortunately, because right-wing evangelicalism is so prominent in the West, most people equate Christianity to this looney toon theologies such as young-earth creationism, theonomy, etc., while those of us who practice a faith that is historically grounded in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are drowned out due to our small numbers in the West. So, obviously, despite Eric Hovind being a friend of mine, I am more in agreement with Michael Jones when it comes to this discussion.

[@ChokeArtist411]

Debate starts 6:45

[@keithallerton6350]

Legend has it Mike is still waiting for Eric to answer the question of why animals suffer for human sin

[@johnroemeeks_apologetics]

Because sin affects everyone and everything. How do you not have the same problem to answer as an Old Earther?

[@unsightedmetal6857]

@@johnroemeeks_apologetics Mike has a video on it, which he mentioned in the debate. Regardless of whether you're Old Earth or Young Earth, you need to answer the question of animal suffering. And an Old Earth interpretation seems to take fewer leaps of logic to answer the question, while also considering the cultural and literary context.

[@johnroemeeks_apologetics]

@unsightedmetal6857 It's very simple, Sin affects all of creation ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:14‭-‬19‬ ‭NIV‬‬ [14] So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. [15] And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” [16] To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” [17] To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. [18] It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. [19] By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:18‭-‬22‬ ‭NIV‬‬ [18] I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. [19] For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. [20] For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope [21] that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. [22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

[@KlickSipYT]

Oh man, I found Eric very difficult to listen to. His video clips and analogies drove me nuts 😆 It honestly boggles my mind that people are convinced by his presentations.

[@paulhayes5684]

And he kept interrupting Michael

[@faithbecauseofreason8381]

The only people who are "convinced" by Eric are those who are already persuaded of his views

[@nateswan9527]

Finally someone called out creationists for assuming their opinion is the same as God's. So many times I have disagreed with a creationist and they immediately go to "so you think God is a liar??". Don't blame God for your limited understanding.

[@Crimsonlupus]

I think we are slowly bleeding out yec beliefs as ppl with a better understanding of scripture and philosophy are giving the answers we have all been hoping for as kids growing up with the intellectual slopp of yec.

[@truncated7644]

@@Crimsonlupus Keep going. The data against YEC was available 50 years ago, and yet there are so many. Data available to move you past other fundamentalists beliefs are here now, so maybe in another 50 years.....

[@Crimsonlupus]

@truncated7644 True but back then we didn’t have the internet and widespread access to said knowledge. Ever since yec has been available on the internet, it’s been getting creamed by Christians and atheists alike. Personally I’m hoping we can drive it out and usher a culture of more intellectual responsibility in the church. That’s the dream anyway.

[@truncated7644]

@@Crimsonlupus I am going way further and saying the facts and evidence provided by scholars like Bart Ehrman, Joshua Bowman, Dan Mclellan, etc. is hear now but won't be felt for another 50 years. But who knows, maybe the internet will speed things up?

[@stuffnthings6191]

Listening to Young Earth Asmongold really pushed my patience to its extremes. God really can use everything to grow us.

[@MysteryMan159]

That is a hilariously accurate comparison 😂

[@jsfish1014]

Young earth asmongold is hilarious 😂

[@jessejones1420]

Eric thinks deep time limits God. When i was a kid, it was creation that felt so limiting to me. I was taught God has to fit in this small 6000 year window. Billions of years left me awestruck.

[@btroger]

Yeah. That was a truly terrible "point."

[@NathanH83]

I don't understand half of what Michael Jones is talking about. I mean, Eric clearly and excellently communicates that Genesis 1 gives you a big picture of the creation, and then Genesis 2 hones in on day 6 and focuses on the details of God creating man and woman. And then Michael Jones goes off on a tangent on something about the Tabernacle in leviticus and talks about some kind of Tolodoth (whatever that is) and he's like "see, that proves it's day 8!" HUH??? How is anyone supposed to understand WHAT IN THE WORLD he's talking about? Firstly, SLOW DOWN. SPEAK CLEARLY. PRONUNCIATE YOUR WORDS CONCISELY. Secondly, take some time to thoroughly explain yourself, because you're not making any sense, Michael. Tabernacle? Leviticus? Tolodoth Formula? Adam is a priest? WHAT??? How is that even related to Genesis 1 and 2? HUH? Eric is making sound, reasonable arguments as he speaks clearly, and Michael is just quickly rattling off some strange, off-topic nonsense under his breath that isn't even related. What??

[@CoffeeFreelancer]

“We can have light without a source” lol enjoyed this debate and respect both points of view,as brothers in Christ

[@paulhayes5684]

Even tho I do agree with Eric on the political agenda being pushed on the youth is unwarranted but I don't see how it correlates to the debate at hand. Edit: Idk how anyone could think that Eric won this debate. Eric kept interrupting Michael and kept on saying things in an emotional to grip the audience as well as rehashing the same points over and over even tho these points were already discussed. YECs, stop coping. Edit #2: I just reached the conclusion and OMG Eric just can't let it go. Michael was very courteous and said that evolution is simply compatible and he stated that Eric wasn't wrong. But Eric chose to act like a child and get that last lick in instead returning that same courtesy.

[@Longshanks1690]

The same way a quote about how what you think about God says about you has any bearing on this argument. It’s a sophistic tool meant to persuade you through emotion, not reason.

[@paulhayes5684]

​@@Longshanks1690And he kept interrupting Michael and rehashing the same points but to no avail. Even the hosts were questioning his points.

[@Crimsonlupus]

It was so out of pocket and had nothing to do with the conversation.

[@ccnationnews5965]

michael jones won the debate but eric is on the right side of history. michael jones claims to be Christian but he is clinging on to beliefs of naturalism.

[@Crimsonlupus]

@ccnationnews5965 If you knew Mike even a little you’d know that’s untrue. Mike is openly against pure naturalism and has argued against it. Particularly when it comes to consciousness and some things involving quantum mechanics. The understanding of genesis between the average person and those educated on the near eastern context and Hebrew grammar is very different and the educated are right. I encourage you to listen to scholars such as the late Michael Heiser and John Walton even as much as Eric demonizes Walton. When the original language articulates something different than what a simplistic reading of English seems to imply, that’s a problem. Look it’s really simple dude, either be as close to the source material as you can, or get it wrong. That’s your options.

[@playdoughmaster808]

I really wanted to hear some good stuff from the young earth guy because I’m kinda on the fence, but I lost it at “you can’t have years before the earth”

[@Matthew-sl4rs]

It's odd to be that both Mike and Eric appeal to intuitions about what a good god would or would not do concerning death. It's just the problem of evil rebranded. I just think of Plantinga's free will defense or similar arguments about that demonstrate the possibility of a reason for evil. There's also the simple observation that we may not know. I am grateful that Mike pointed out that Eric was in the same boat when he charged him to explain why God would allow millions of years of death. Ultimately, if one accepts Plantinga's or similar arguments against the problem of evil, it is inconsistent to appeal to an apparent lack of reason on God's part for suffering. I wish Eric could have seen that suffering after the curse is still subject to the same problem of evil as suffering before the curse. Ultimately, I can't blame Mike for how he chose to use his time considering how it took so much time to make the simple point that everyone uses a hermeneutic. You can't make it far without that

[@samuelblackmon]

Well plantigas argument works in showing there is no logical contradiction between God and evil generally but you do still have to contend with the amount of evil and specific kinds of evil which are presumably not covered by available theodicies. Everything else you said though was correct

[@mikeprew]

Can you give a dumbed down and succinct version of Plantinga's resolution for the problem of evil?

[@samuelblackmon]

it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil including agents endowed with free will. I think Plantinga's unique contribution was laying it out in more philosophically precise terms and using modal logic to show that it is possible that there is no possible world where free agents always choose the good. @@mikeprew

[@J.F.331]

I don’t think Eric or Michael are treating Isaiah the way it is intended to be understood. If you read the first 12 verses, it’s clear that the animals mentioned are being metaphorically used. Isaiah 11:1-12 (ESV) [1] There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. [2] And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. [3] And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, [4] but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. [5] Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins. [6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. [7] The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. [9] They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. [10] In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples-of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious. [11] In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. [12] He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The language here is over the top; it is so over the top that most Christians relegate this passage to be fulfilled after history has come to a close and Christ has returned. But is that what this passage is teaching? I am afraid not. In fact, the apostle Paul quotes verse 10 as a way justifying his preaching to the Gentiles in Romans 15:12. For the last 2,000 years we have seen an increase of the Lord's government and peace. The wolf and leopard are used symbolically for a people group (Jeremiah 5:1-6). And the young lion is a person (Ezekiel 19:3). The point being made with Paul's application is that the Jews and Gentiles will be united as one when this root of Jesse (Jesus Christ) appears Romans 1:16).

[@PizzaDisguise]

Oh very interesting, compelling. I definitely see it.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

If the wolf and leopard are people groups and the lion is a person, then what about the rest of the list? 6 A wolf will reside[p] with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together,[q] as a small child leads them along. 7 A cow and a bear will graze together, their young will lie down together.[r] A lion, like an ox, will eat straw. 8 A baby[s] will play over the hole of a snake;[t] over the nest[u] of a serpent an infant[v] will put his hand.[w] Who is the lamb, ox, goat, serpent, and infant? Additionally, have you read any scholarly works arguing for what IP is arguing? If not, you’re missing a lot of the evidence for IP’s position.

[@J.F.331]

@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I haven’t studied it that in depth. The interpretation I am taking is based on the Apostle Paul use of Isaiah 11. He is using Isaiah 11 as a way of demonstrating peace and unity between Jews and Gentiles under Jesus Christ. One could say that Isaiah meant something different but utilizing the theme and understanding the Apostle gives us, it is likely that any interpretation other than unity would be speculative at best. But with that said, I have not read any scholarship on the passage supporting IP’s view. I agree with much of IP on this particular subject in the video. Do you have some scholars and authors you can recommend?

[@stevebryan2446]

While listening to Hovind I kept saying out loud "That is so freaking stupid." I then realized I could never be a moderator.

[@emmanuelmakoba6085]

😂😂😂

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

All I'm really seeing here is just Eric repeatedly insulting theistic evolutionists. This is rather disappointing.

[@joshuatrott193]

IP for the win. The way Hovind keeps throwing out, youre limiting God everytime he can't refute. Michael using Hebrew culture and hebrew language interpretation shows his study and reverence for author. Hovinds approach seems to be just a plain reading.

[@BlastBeatRequiem]

I'm not sure whether Eric Hovind is also a KJV-onlyist like his dad but it wouldn't really surprise me if he was. They seem to share the same complete unwillingness to appeal to the ancient culture by which these texts were written.

[@J.F.331]

And not only that, what was most unsettling was Hovind’s ad-hominem attacks on Michael basically saying he worships a different God because he holds to an old earth and theistic evolutionary view. This is usually the type of argumentation used when one knows that their view is not as strong as they say it is.

[@timothythornton3653]

Michael Jones' premise for his beginning argument is based on a variant reading of Genesis 1:1-2, as well as a comparison of tohu vabohu ("formless and void") with Jeremiah 4. While there are many scholars who take the variant reading, there are also many who take it as saying "In the Beginning," including the traditional view of Jewish rabbis for centuries. As far as Jeremiah 4 goes, there are definite parallels with the creation account; however, the language in Jeremiah is negative showing how the situation in Israel was the opposite of creation (no light, no birds, etc.). If the comparison from Jeremiah is negative to show a contrast with the positive account of creation, then why is "unproductive and waste" the only component of Jeremiah 4's message that is also negative in Genesis 1? The logic doesn't follow.

[@kelvinkanchebele9133]

Exactly.

[@harrylong575]

Hey, the logic follows because in Genesis human beings are to subdue and have dominion over the unproductive and waste, but in Jeremiah 4, that is what the Jerusalem has altogether returned to. That's how i see it, at the very least.

[@Mark8.34]

Genesis 1:1 is not an action, look at Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 5. Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement, and follows the narrative. The beginning is relational to when the earth was thou and bohu

[@jackpaddock3138]

Am I the only one who thinks Eric is question begging here? Like, Mike seemed to give multiple arguments for why he takes ברא and עשה a certain way in both Gen. 1 (and Ex. 20), referenced various intertexts to cement his case, and drew upon heaps of scholarship. Eric just kept asking about the same texts without actually touching Mike's reasons for interpretating those texts the way he does.

[@HebrewGreekKnowledge]

Michaels arguments are largely based on the totality transfer linguistic fallacy. The way he deals with Hebrew words is fallacious.

[@jackpaddock3138]

@@HebrewGreekKnowledge Can you elaborate?

[@HebrewGreekKnowledge]

@@jackpaddock3138 Take the word "beat" for example. In some contexts it has connotations of violence, such as "the mob beat me", but if I said "me and my son played basketball, I beat him" that is not violent. What michael is doing is the equivalent of saying that "beat" is used in contexts of the violence, therefore It must mean that I am violent toward my son. That is how Michael is treating words like subdue. Just google "illegitimate totality transfer fallacy" Keep in mind that Michael can't even translate the basic of Hebrew phrases, when he talks about Hebrew he is regurgitating certain scholars that accept his view. Nowadays you can find "scholars" for just about any view. I mean LGBTQ people love to do this homosexuality, you can find many "scholars" who claim the words and phrases relating to that subject don't mean what people have accepted that they mean for thousands of years.

[@ChristoMac]

I used to argue like Eric, I used to get mad when I couldn't persuade someone to my way of thinking, but then I learned how to properly share my thoughts and win.

[@Terrylb285]

Plants aren’t alive in the same sense as humans , but neither are animals. From what I understand the same Hebrew word for death is used for plants animals and man.

[@joelbutterfield2071]

Eric needs to chill. That said, he made some good points. Although I disagree with Michael on this point he does good work on alot of topics.

[@terryfonz4603]

Well the issue is the lost will open up to Jesus when they better understand Genesis. It’s about biblical authority if they can’t trust its authority they won’t trust any of it. So this is a valuable subject!

[@carlosmuller3565]

How is it possible that Hovid went off topic immediately 😂

[@unknownmindyourown1917]

Eric could definitely do a better job answering the questions, But it seems to me you have to completely ignore the plane reading of the text to come up with Michael’s interpretation, it definitely seems that no one until are enlightened period Would come to the conclusion that these are vast ages Although it does seem like many in earlier ages have speculated on that regardless

[@Joel-bg3cf]

IP should debate Dr. Sarfati or anyone from a more noteworthy institution, instead of doing the KZbin debate circuit.

[@x-winger9387]

God: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe” ALSO: From Genesis 3:14- The implication that other animals might have been cursed to a lesser degree cause by the translation "more than all" is a translation artifact. It does not exist in the MT, and this is the reason that I tagged this question with the "Hebrew" tag. The Hebrew expression translated as "more than all" in the NKJV is מִכָּל, micol, which uses the prepositional "all of", כל, with the prefix מ, "from". So the simple translation, as well as the plain meaning in Hebrew, is "from all of" not "more than all". This is a superlative form in OT Hebrew that indicates that the snake is severely cursed, in a way that no other animal will ever be cursed, but with no implication that any other animal is or will be cursed.

[@Rand0mPeon]

So, correct me if I understood you wrong, but if that means other animals _aren’t_ cursed because of sin… doesn’t that means they are as they were before Adam and Eve’s original sin? That eliminates the notion that death and animals eating each other’s weren’t a thing before the fall, right?

[@stefansekulic7903]

What did the animals do to be cursed?

[@benlies1362]

43:39 I love Michael's reaction 😂

[@JosiahTheSiah]

💀

[@samuelblack4792]

lol

[@jAAbRON]

I want to learn how to take so many character attacks with as much composure as Michael did in this debate.

[@TheLionFarm]

52:42 How is it that no one is also not considering that it is possible that God could have made all things and had it made new but having old features so that people today looking at it, we'll see it as millions of billions of years, but really it was just recently created

[@emmanuelmakoba6085]

Really good point

[@banmancan1894]

I just wanted to mention that Eric issued a personal apology to Michael sometime after this debate. It was mentioned in a recent livestream.

[@carlosmuller3565]

What did he apologise for?

[@Sam_Hyde_Apologist]

This is the best example I've seen how the bible has so many interpretations. Everyone likes to say their specific interpretation is the best one but everyone uses the same scripture yet comes to different conclusion.

[@n.a.odessa3939]

Notice how many times Eric had to repeat the same line over and over throughout, even when not relevant to the point? That's seeming like him trying to dodge because he doesn't know what to say. 🤣 Great work by IP.

[@paulhayes5684]

And he kept interrupting Michael over and over again.

[@dmk_yt]

It's really frustrating, because Eric mentions one of Michael's previous debates in passing, as if to imply he had seen it and was watching it to prepare himself to respond to Michael's common objections to YEC. Heck, it could've bolstered Eric's case in this debate tremendously if he had done more research on Michael's position, which wouldn't have been too hard considering how extensively Michael has covered Genesis on Inspiring Philosophy. But instead of slides that provide information that could refute Michael's common points, he just dismisses things Michael says, and proceeds to take random memes and disturbing images/videos, and then he claims that Michael's worldview couldn't possibly make sense because of those video clips and memes. Either way though, it was a fun debate to watch, and I'm glad they had it.

[@NathanH83]

Eric clearly and concisely explained scripture in a way that is sound, logical, and reasonable. Michael mumbled a bunch of technical terms that he rattled off really quickly under his breath that were completely unrelated to the topic at hand and made no sense or sound reasoning whatsoever.

[@dmk_yt]

@@NathanH83 Can you give a specific example of something Michael said that was off-topic (and a time stamp if possible)?

[@NathanH83]

@@dmk_yt At about 48 minutes Eric is talking about Genesis 1 and 2, and he explains that Genesis 2 is just honing in on be details of day 6 of Creation, and that it’s not talking about day 8. Very clear, very concise, Biblically sound. Then Michael Jones really quickly rattles off all this stuff about Leviticus, the Tabernacle, Adam being a priest, something about a Tolodoth formula (whatever that is). And it’s just completely unrelated to Genesis 1 and 2, and he rattles it off so quickly and almost under his breath, I can barely understand what point he’s even trying to make. It’s really poor communication and poor presentation. I still don’t know how what he says had any relation whatsoever to what Eric was talking about. What’s a Tolodoth formula? Huh? What’s the Tabernacle in Leviticus got to do with Genesis 1 and 2?

[@dmk_yt]

​@@NathanH83 Alright, fair enough if you didn't get Michael's point. I do believe that, at the very least, Eric spoke much more clearly than Michael did, as Michael tends to focus mostly on logos in his discussion, which can lead to an overwhelming heap of scholarly research if the audience can't follow him. It doesn't help that the concept can take a bit of explaining, which Michael has done extensively in his videos on Genesis, and is again why I wish Eric had done more research into Michael's position so that they could both discuss each other's positions and provide clarification on each other's points. Now I can't clarify the Tolodoth formula, but I can clarify what Michael meant by comparing the days of creation to the Tabernacle. Essentially, Michael's view is that, when you pair up the days of creation (if I remember correctly, it's day 1 + 4, day 2 + 5, day 3 + 6) the structure of the week is comparable to the formation of the tabernacle: The outer most area is comparable to the light and sun, moon, and stars of days 1 and 4. The courtyard is then comparable to the seas and skies and everything in them from days 2 and 5. The Holy Place is comparable to the land and everything in it, including us as days 3 and 5. That leaves the Most Holy Place as day 7, which is, respectively, where and when God rested. Essentially, what Michael is getting at was that the days of creation are meant to be symmetrical to the formation of the Tabernacle, and shows God's closeness with humanity. Just as the Tabernacle had priests who could enter into God's presence, so was Adam inaugurated as the first priest, but Adam failed and Christ would then pay the price.

[@NathanH83]

@@dmk_yt Ok. That’s pretty cool. But I don’t see how Genesis 2 is talking about day 8. Genesis 1 says God made man and woman on day 6. How could God also be making man and woman on day 8?

[@Chkrosp]

If there was no evil on earth before the Fall, how is Adam and Eve to understand what death and suffering means, when God tells them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or they would surely die?

[@hiastram1145]

That's an excellent point to bring up.

[@SalvadorBtc]

because God can give them the understanding

[@Chkrosp]

@@SalvadorBtc Elaborate more on how that works?

[@SalvadorBtc]

@@Chkrosp I understand what death is even though I'm still alive and never died, the same way God could have given them the understanding of what death means and/or is

[@Chkrosp]

@@SalvadorBtc When I sent this comment, I had done little research into the Orthodox Fathers and the understanding, or the lack thereof, for what the Garden of Eden truly was like. It was a blend of the abstract/spiritual reality and its beings with the material. After the fall, we were cut off and the knowledge of such required more internal and faith, than direct experiences.

[@ChristinaBiasca]

I'm not a theistic evolution person, but I also am not a young earth in the extreme like Eric. I thought Micheal Jones did wonderful. I'm thankful your channel being the middle ground for true discussion!

[@Bibledingers]

So glad you enjoyed it!

[@fernandodossantos6619]

An hour into this debate and my conclusion is that two people that are not on the same intellectual level cannot debate. Eric is leagues below Michael. They just can't have a conversation because every logical point Michael makes just goes over Eric's head.

[@KevC1111]

How anyone could actually believe that evolution is real is just crazy.

[@ayobithedark2772]

Eric forgot the all-important "science and knowledge" hammer and smack a SpongeBob named Michael Jones 😅

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

I really find it entertaining when two preachers argue about the same book and have opposite views.

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

Michael is not a preacher. If you miss this point, what more can one say?

[@themilkman3118]

God doesn't make mistakes. We observe change in all living things (where said change is beneficial) over long stretches of time. If it happens naturally, then it is from God.

[@caewing85]

Eric Hovind is reading the Genesis account as everything was perfect-it wasn’t perfect-it was GOOD. Which is different. Just my thoughts at 43:18 time stamp

[@jaybird1596]

The glaring problem with Hovind’s interpretation of the light is that the earth’s rotation speed as we know it and the length of a day/night cycle is determined by the gravity of the sun/earth/moon etc which are also affected by other gravitational forces. Eric has to add to the text to say that God just happened to make it to where the earth was spinning at the exact rate it would be spinning had the sun been there (which wasn’t until day 4). Obviously, God could do this but it seems very arbitrary and I’m not sure we are supposed to be getting this interpretation from the text. Eric is also surprisingly a bedfellow with atheists like Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins when he says God would be immoral for allowing the process of evolution/death for billions of years. Who is it that is limiting the power/wisdom/redemptive purpose of God, again?

[@kelvinkanchebele9133]

I don't quite see an issue with Erics interpretation of this, and I'm glad you've stated it so in your last sentence. Obviously God could have done this. The text doesnt state so, What are other interpretation best suits the narrative for the light before v 4?

[@FireFlanker1]

The thing is that Eric argument along the lines of the atheists can be thrown out back at YECs… why did God wait 6,000 years of animal suffering etc. before Jesus?

[@Phill3v7]

Maybe if Eric Hovind could get passed all the implications that he thinks Michael's view entails, so as to address and compare his actual positions, they could a have some constructive dialogue in the future.

[@catotheyounger55]

My experience with the YEC people I’ve encountered all summed into one sentence. Thank you.

[@a29s12]

Im really surprised the free will argument didnt come up. I mean why have a "perfect creation" in the beginning, with the possibility of violence and death? What utility would free will offer if you could ony choose between good and good? Same question could be asked about angels, why would free will matter to lucifer if he couldnt choose evil? When God sets up the new world without the curse, wont the curse be lifted because the only people to inherit the earth will have been selected through the process created from the beginning? This is my issue with Erics young earth argument.

[@AB2...Groyper1]

Sammeeee

[@terryfonz4603]

The other issue with billions of years is it removes us from proper understanding of humans being the apple of Gods eye and what the angels were. They were created as ministering spirits for humans. I removed Gods focus of the apple of His eye to being an afterthought! The biblical narrative is God created the whole universe with us in mind not as an afterthought like billions of years evolution teaches.

[@zzzzz77771]

Eric said that God wouldn't be wasteful by using evolution but that doesn't make sense, as the Flood killed almost everything on the entire planet? Why doesn't he think that's a waste?....

[@ryankittle3431]

Eric appears very condescending, especially when he makes accusations against Michael that he reduces God and sin.

[@michaelcarpenter7068]

I’m with my fellow Mike!

[@found.ernest]

Hovind looked good in the beginning but I’d definitely have to give this one to Michael. Hovind’s insults, straw men and non answers in the 2nd half was shameful, as well as embarrassing for me as a Christian. Condemning God for creating the food chain? Give me a break. 🤦‍♂️

[@steverational8615]

While I disagree with Michael on his interpretation of “in the beginning” all I get from Eric is a naive approach to hermeneutics and a total denial of God’s natural revelation. On top of that he he takes on a very arrogant and preachy attitude - not Christian at all.

[@hwelke8060]

The Framework Hypothesis implies “the structure of the chapter is merely poetic. Thus, according to this theory, the sequence of creation may essentially be disregarded… “The problem with the framework hypothesis is that it employs a destructive method of interpretation.” - John MacArthur

[@btroger]

Because something is a poem, it does not mean it is a "destructive method of interpretation!" For example, does considering the book of Psalms poetry destroy it?

[@hwelke8060]

The above quote by John MacArthur refers to Genesis 1, as well as all of Genesis. NOT Psalms. Hebrew scholars agree Genesis is written in the historical narrative of the Hebrew language. Psalms and Proverbs ARE written in a poetic form. Your Comment btroger has nothing at all to do with the overall discussion here.

[@HaraldHadrada87]

While I agree that all of us are in the body of Christ, serving Him and serving others. God can use anything under the sun to tests us and expose our hearts (Matthew 15:11). A debate between two brothers in Christ, one has more fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) than the other. Great job Michael. 👏🏼

[@mylittleelectron6606]

I understand the purpose of having such a discussion, but the premise being proposed would seem foolish in any other context. For example, the fact that I'm a chemist and thus believe in the valence theory of electrons has no bearing on my assessment of a Harry Potter book. I would find it strange if someone insisted that because the spells cast by Wizards violate the laws of physics, it should be impossible for me to read the novel, or that by reading Harry potter, I must also accept the reality of wizards. Why would ancient literature be looked at any different? Why is the Bible the only book one has to believe that everything written within is part of objective reality.

[@Dave_OGG]

Psalm 104 talks of God giving the lion its prey as if it's a good thing :P

[@Bibledingers]

Rawr

[@erichovind6236]

This is after the fall! Genesis talks about God giving every beast of the field herb for meat! Don't confuse the two!

[@Dave_OGG]

@@erichovind6236 If it’s post fall and an evil thing that has entered the world why is it praised by the psalmist?

[@jessejones1420]

​@erichovind6236 I haven't read the verse yet but if God calls it "good" then good doesn't always mean "perfect" like eric says

[@Aurora666_yt]

​@@erichovind6236 Not to rain on your parade, but it wouldn't make sense for God to create lions, crocodiles, venomous snakes, eagles, etc if there was no death before the supposed "fall of man". I think evolution makes much more sense than to believe lions ate grass.

[@bakhop]

Hovind appropriately has this overly emotional tone that you hear from certain types of preachers. He's used to reaching people on that level not their intellects. He accuses Jones of "limiting" God to not creating in very simple minded ways because his mind can't get around it. A being who could create the complexity of the universe as it is would not just "speak" things into being in a way we could understand. I appreciate scientists trying to learn how it was done as much as they can. I know I can't understand quantum physics so I don't presume to understand how God put that in place or anything else. Some humility is called for and most creationists don't have it. They're always smug about how they take the Bible literally because that's what God intended.

[@paulhayes5684]

Agreed

[@christlicheridealist505]

Michael Jones did a very great job. Like always.

[@Bibledingers]

Thanks so much for watching!

[@kaylorschaff2791]

This was such a hard watch. Why is Eric so condescending, repetitive, weirdly aggressive, and annoying

[@jonathanhansonmusic8898]

Did you watch Michael's face during the debate? Yeah, let's not talk about condescending.

[@kaylorschaff2791]

@jonathanhansonmusic8898 Ah yes, Michael Jones, famous for smiling and having a resting happy face. What did he say that was condescending?

[@kingarth0r]

Why are we in the year of our Lord, 2024 still debating evolution?

[@Joelthinker]

Dang, I actually felt second hand embarrassment for Eric

[@GmaJoKeepingitReal]

Although Eric's passion often crossed over to disrespect, his counter points on heaven and earth and all the rest were created in the 6 days (and all were fed by vegetation) is scripturally accurate. If you read it in the Septuagint... it is clear are hard to refute. Great conversation... just wish Eric was a bit more gracious... asking clarifying questions of Michael to better understand where he arrives at his position... but because of how Eric approached him, that caused Michael to become defensive rather than clarifying. Love the content.. Thank you. GmaJo 🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️

[@hwelke8060]

Michael (IP) seems to describe the Framework Hypothesis about Genesis 1. Its been around for 100 years and many theologians do teach that Gen. 1 presents a symbolic, rather than literal, presentation of creation, and that we need to use pagan 'Ancient Near-East' poetry to understand Genesis 1. Yet the Hebrew is clearly written in the form of a historical narrative - it is NOT Poetic. RC Sproul the famous author and theologian wrote, "For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation… … Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six 24-hr periods. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. ”

[@Mark8.34]

Genesis 1:1 is the final summarized result of the 7 days of creation, just how in Genesis 2:4 is starts with the generations and that which follows also in Genesis 5 speaks about genealogy of Adam and then goes into the genealogies. Look at Genesis 10. That’s the structure. The topic to intrusive what’s being spoken about, and then how God did it. Very simple

[@chomnansaedan4788]

Does theistic evolution mean man was once not a man?

[@harrisonscott9854]

You would think after watching his dad lose debate after debate he would have figured out a new strategy

[@exesti1]

Don’t like the fact that Eric consistently talked down to Micheal. If you can’t make an argument without trying to belittle your opponent, then you don’t know your side of the argument. Listened on the podcast btw.

[@Aurora666_yt]

I'm not a theistic evolutionist. Why not? For the same reason I'm not a theistic electromagnetist or a theistic gravitationist. I don't need to attach "theistic" behind scientific laws and theories. Wherher god exists or not, that's another issue altogether.