The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[@johnblackstar4390]

I have a question for any young earth creationists willing to respond. Hypothetically, If macro evolution is proven to be undeniably true, would this make you an atheist?

[@PJRayment]

Yes, I expect it would, as that would show that the Bible is wrong. However, I do question how an unobserved event from the past could possibly be proven to be undeniably true.

[@johnblackstar4390]

@@PJRayment Interesting. If you don't mind me asking another question. Why would evolution disprove the bible rather than just your interpretation of the bible? I mean plenty of theistic evolutionists exist why wouldn't it just lead to joining that group instead of atheism?

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

No

[@PJRayment]

It's not just my interpretation. It's what the Bible plainly says. 1) It explicitly says that creation took six days (Exodus 20:11), basing our week on creation week. 2) What occurred on each of those days is listed in Genesis 1 which repeatedly points out that they were normal days (comprising an evening and a morning). 3) The top scholars on the language agree that it means ordinary days, and that the flood was a real, global, flood, and that you can add up the ages in the chronogenealogies. 4) Jesus affirmed the timescale by mentioning that man was created at the beginning of creation (i.e. not billions of years later). 5) The order of creation is very different to that proposed by evolution. 6) Man was not the offspring of an ape-like creature. Genesis clearly says that man was created from the dust of the ground, and Eve from Adam, and Luke traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, then God, not Adam, then a pre-adamic creature. 7) Death is the result of sin, which of course was committed by Adam, so there was no death before Adam. Evolution not only has death before man, but relies on death to produce the variety of life, which contradicts both that death is an enemy and that God cares even for the sparrows. 8) Following 7), if death is how we came to be here, then what is the point of death being the consequence of sin and therefore Jesus' death taking our punishment? They're just the things I can think of off the top of my head. Yes, there are plenty of theistic evolutionists, but some have admitted that 6-day creation is what the Bible appears to teach, but don't believe it because of the (supposed) scientific evidence. That is, they don't get that from the Bible. "why wouldn't it just lead to joining that group instead of atheism?" Because I don't like to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Evolution is an explanation based on explaining the variety of life without God. It makes no sense to say that God used a method that doesn't need Him.

[@johnblackstar4390]

@@PJRayment interesting. That's all I wanted to ask. Thank you for your time.

[@AmandaBlackGTM]

I wish more Christians and critics would learn church history. Today’s church has some fringe ideas taken as standard.

[@captainobvious2435]

I know this is old, but... from what I remember churches wouldn't teach church history or talk about the science problems. Churches were more concerned about getting people to behave how they liked or emotional moments or prosperity. At least during the 1990s; I imagine it's still that way.

[@1969cmp]

6 day creation in Genesis is standard orthoxy. This feature is being economical with the truth, a right hash.

[@RodMartinJr]

With 30,000+ denominations, someone has some wrong ideas -- perhaps even ALL of them. Truth doesn't care about our evidence or interpretations. None of us is omniscient, so we will *_always_* have more to learn. Most Christians I've met don't have enough humility to be perpetual students. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@grantchampaign]

They won’t. It’s not profitable. You make more money if you tell the masses (especially evangelical christians) they’re being lied to by some big scary conspiracy by Satan. Which gives Satan quote a lot more credit than he deserves hahaha. Anyways, yea that’s just my understanding. You make more money playing fantasy than you do keeping it real and in this reality

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

​@@1969cmp Not really. Numerous church father had wildly different thoughts on the matter. 6000 year old earth makes little sense to those with an IQ above 80

[@adammarktaylor]

The Ireneaus quote around 4:20 isn't saying that the Creation Week was six thousand years, it is teaching the ancient doctrine of Chiliasm, where the seven days of Creation were prophetic and signifies that the entire history of the world would be seven thousand years, with Christ returning after six thousand years for the Sabbath Millennial Reign.

[@thewolfes146]

Amen! Exactly! Irenaeus, and the other early chiliasts, also interpreted the creation days as literal, 24-hr days, as is evident in the quote that Michael himself provides. I'm really glad to see other people pointing that out, and I really wish he would address it.

[@renaudfabre4791]

I'm not so sure. Ireneaus uses figurative meaning when needed. We can see it in this chapter of Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 23) ; (...) Thus, then, in the day that they ate, in the same did they die, and became death's debtors, since it was one day of the creation. For it is said, There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day. Now in this same day that they ate, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he ate. For God said, In that day on which you shall eat of it, you shall die by death. The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death. And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, 2 Peter 3:8 he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation); whether [we regard this point], that, with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day of the preparation, which is termed the pure supper, that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit - it follows that, in regard to all these significations, God is indeed true (...)

[@CapybaraTut]

Similar comment could be made about most what was said in the video.

[@sanukatharul1497]

​@@renaudfabre4791 Yep :)

[@debras3806]

Yes I was VERY surprised…usually IP seems both highly intelligent and supremely honest.

[@ReasonedAnswers]

Fascinating work. That "the age of the Earth was not a big issue in the early church" is the most important take away. This was never a point of theological division in the past and should be one today either.

[@misterauctor7353]

Salve!

[@billycraig121]

I think there may be two reasons t why "the age of the Earth was not a big issue in the early church.” First, as you said, this is not a topic that should fight over. Second, YEC was the universal standard until recently, the past 500 years or so. Therefore. There was nothing to argue about.

[@Brandon-yb8py]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioXOqKannquKb6M IP gets set straight

[@misterauctor7353]

@@Brandon-yb8py Nope.

[@Brandon-yb8py]

@@misterauctor7353 did you even watch it?

[@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790]

I was very against old earth theory, and I really didn't understand how people could say Genesis is allegorical, until I read the words of St Paul about Agar and Sarah and he says that the story is an allegory, and then I started figuring out that some parts of bible can totally be allegorical and that's not a bad thing

[@ThomasKundera]

One step more and you'll see that all that is mythology.

[@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790]

@@ThomasKundera all that what?

[@ThomasKundera]

@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 : The Bible.

[@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790]

@@ThomasKundera lol, are u kidding me? Some parts are allegoric, but that's not equal to mythology, and of course not all Bible is allegorical.

[@ThomasKundera]

@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 : How you call stories about the Egyptians gods? Mythology. How you call stories about the Greek gods? Mythology. How you call stories about the Roman gods? Mythology. How should we call stories about the Jewish gods? Same. See any reason for anything else, but something like "for no reason, the religion I was indoctrinated to at childhood is the only real one while all other gods are mythology"? Me neither.

[@freddavis976]

When I became a Christian, the first question skeptics always asked was, "How old is the earth". After the third time I came up with a routine. I would excitedly reply that I knew exactly how old the earth was. I would would flip through my daytimer. I would then read, "The earth is exactly as old as it should be". I realize this is not evangelism. However, they seemed really out of line by picking on a baby Christian.(and it shut them up)

[@moma8518]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say

[@wjckc79]

@@moma8518 I supposed it's kind of like me saying - in regards to Revelation and the pre\post millennialism debate - I am a pan-millennialist. It will pan out however it is supposed to.

[@Bob-wr1md]

That attitude reminds me a bit of Gandalfs sassiness tbh haha

[@Brandon-yb8py]

Mmmmmm IP lied quite a bit. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioXOqKannquKb6M

[@pentelegomenon1175]

That's not really an answer though, if you don't care (or don't care to argue, at least) then you can just say that.

[@jacobblurton3904]

Thank you so much for making this video. I have been a fan since I stumbled upon your videos but just found this one today. I actually was an atheist most of my adult life. I was raised in a Christian home as a child. I had a love of figuring out how things worked and this lead me to studying science. I ended up rejecting Christianity because of young earth creationism and all of the evidence supporting evolution and geology. But about 4ish years ago I read the bible cover to cover for the first time because of a girl I was trying to date. That ended, I didn't get the girl but it sparked a search for the truth that hasn't ended. Your video makes a ton of sense and explains a lot. Keep up the good work we need more people like you in Christianity.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

I thought reading the Bible from cover to cover will make you an atheist

[@wowitsfrostygames155]

Lost thirdsuo dragon Lloyl lordlyddd

[@joshuamueller3206]

YEC seems to be anti-evangelization. I know of no examples of it drawing more people to the faith, only driving current ones away or being accepted by those that already believe.

[@austinmolitor7283]

@@celestialsatheist1535 Not in the slightest, I was an atheist until I read the Bible. It wasn't really until I read the prophets that I really understood and began to truly believe.

[@hackkitts9254]

@@celestialsatheist1535 If you read the bible with the intention to remain an atheist then you will remain an atheist, If you are actually open to other ideas and try to understand the Bible and Christianity you would accept christianity

[@MajorTomFisher]

19:08 An important lesson to be learned in this story is that Bernard Ramm's attempts to exaggerate facts in order to make a true point led to people discrediting him and going the other way towards a falsehood. You cannot use lies and exaggeration in the name of the truth, this is inherently self-defeating.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

It was just ineffective satire.

[@Luboogiemane]

That’s what a lot of atheists believe and have faith in science

[@Ten80pete]

I only recently heard the declaration that Christianity, by and large, has not held a young Earth/Universe model, and upon looking for a history of the YEC movement, found this video. Thank you for putting this together!

[@jordanadams8752]

Old earth is nonsense developed to marry evolution with the bible, to try and make it more palatable for the masses. Riddle me this!? Can you believe Jesus rose from the dead, if you can't believe that same God can't create the world in 6 days? If your honest and consistent in your thinking, you can't. The video is a pile horse manure.

[@1969cmp]

...only that the presenter is incoherent in his argument. Irenaeus and most of the early church fathers were young earth creationist as well as pre-millenialist (the presenter is a preterist). It's doubtful that the SDA started the 'modern creationist movement', it has been acknowledged that the fathers of the modern scientific movement were creations in the Biblical historical sense - Kepler, Newton, Joule, Pasteu, Mendel etc. As far as a movement goes, in the 60s a book was published looking at flood geology as being the better explanation for our geology challenging the uniformitarian model for everything. Uniformitarianism were developed by Hutton and Charles Lyell with that later indicating that he wanted to rid Moses out of science because if one can discredit Genesis then The Gospel can be eroded and all we are left with is allegorist and pretty much gnosticism. You have much better answers on creation.com Cheers, ex-atheist. (I'm not SDA...)

[@gusolsthoorn1002]

Unfortunately IP has done a bunch of cherry picking. The Encyclopedia Britannica, the oldest English language encyclopedia, explicitly stated that the creation of the world was 4007 BC. The fist edition was in 1771. This position was maintained until the 8th edition, 1852 to 1860, when the influence of Hutton and Lyell began to put pressure on the young earth view. Moreover, Ernst Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, stated, "The [Darwinian} revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6,000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.” Ernst Mayr, “The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution,” Science, vol. 176 (2 June 1972), 988. If the church did not hold to a young earth view at the time of Hutton and Lyell what then was the "avalanche" that Mayr was referring to, if not the revolution that attacked a young age? digital.nls.uk/encyclopaedia-britannica/archive/188090419#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=592&xywh=-1074%2C0%2C4569%2C3387

[@digitalclown2008]

​@@gusolsthoorn1002​@gusolsthoorn1002 the britanica most likely maintained the original date believed to have been true, as a satisfying definitive & alternate answer was simply not available. The avalanche, is most likely what was described at the end of this video. The rapid adoption of alternative creation explanations after scientific evidence was made available.

[@gusolsthoorn1002]

@@digitalclown2008 Actually the avalanche came when the doctrine of uniformatarianism was imposed on geological processes (thanks to James Hutton). This denied supernatural agency, a global flood and stated that all geological processes must be explained in terms of current processes. This doctrine was rapidly embraced by those who wanted God removed as the author of creation. It was a masterful strategy but it is also wrong.

[@lostinvictory8526]

There is also an element of "in your face"ism and a pride that comes from being mocked or persecuted for believing something that is so outlandish to the average educated person. I came across this growing up in a cult. Members were so fixated on being different to "the world" that they welcomed these crazy theologies or theories if they made them stand out from the crowd. Jesus said they will know us by our love, not by our beliefs.

[@jefflinahan5853]

What group did you grow up in?

[@lostinvictory8526]

@@jefflinahan5853 JW

[@scwienert]

@@lostinvictory8526 I’m assuming you’re a Christian by you saying they will know us by our love. If so, you (and I) worship Someone who conquered death… physically and literally… rose from the dead to live forevermore. Wake up, you still believe in things that are “outlandish” to the “average educated person” (whatever that means). Don’t be so quick to mock your brothers and sisters that also believe in a literal creation and flood account (as well as many others accounts) or write them off as being proud.

[@lostinvictory8526]

@@scwienert Educated person is not an exact definition, but in this case I would apply it to someone who has finished high school and followed the state schools science curriculum from start to finish and thinks they know enough about science to judge whether the latest science stories are fact of wishful thinking.

[@scwienert]

@@lostinvictory8526 what do these state school curriculums state about the ability to come back to life from the dead and then live forever in a glorified body that will never see corruption again?

[@DirtyDan77]

I'm so glad videos like this exist. When I was younger, there were so many videos, from Christians, talking about how everything in Genesis must be 100% literal, but that just wasn't logical, and I believed we had a logical God who gave us a logical world, so it was really hard to maintain my faith. Thanks for going into the history of all this stuff as well.

[@Petrosis]

Well, the history of this video is not correct. It tried to downplay the view that the author doesn't like. It's simple. No real facts, just some badly compiled revisionism.

[@DirtyDan77]

@@Petrosis Ah okay. so where can I find the true history?

[@elibonham4388]

​@Petrosis the earth is not 6000 years the sun did not stand still for 1 day jonah was not swallowed by a fish. They are stories with lessons to gain from them. So you gotta read in context where as the gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John have a different literary style that is more historical

[@Petrosis]

@@elibonham4388 everyone has his own beliefs. I believe what God said, you believe what humans are saying. In the end it will be very obvious who believed the truth.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Regarding Genesis 2:17 and death as a punishment for disobedience, the Hebrew clause typically translated along the lines of "You shall surely die" is מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת (mō·wṯ tā·mūṯ). This clause consists of both the infinitive absolute and imperfect forms of the verb מוּת (muth), meaning 'to die'. We don't have an equivalent construct in English. In Hebrew, the infinitive absolute speaks to the certainty of what is said. Immediacy is not in view. It is an idiomatic expression that literally says "surely to die you will die" (not simply "dying you will die" as some render it). The sense is "you doom yourself to death". Hence, one might express the warning as "on the day you eat of it you doom yourself to death". From Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar on the infinitive absolute: _it speaks of an action (or state) without any regard to the agent or to the circumstances of time and mood under which it takes place._ Note the bit about having no regard to time. We see the same expression - and its outworking - in 1 Kings 2:36-46, where King Solomon warned the treacherous Shimei that on the day he leaves Jerusalem and crosses the Kidron Valley he would incur the death penalty. Neither Genesis 2:17 nor 1 Kings 2:37 implies the immediacy of that very same day; instead they point to the certainty of the outcome that would result the specified act. See also Genesis 5:1; 20:7; Exodus 6:28; 10:28; 32:34; 1 Samuel 14:44; 22:16, etc.

[@ThomasCooper-g3f]

Hugh Ross has noted that the first 6 'yom' of Genesis ch. 1 are each bounded by an evening and morning, while the seventh is not; suggesting that the seventh 'yom' is still ongoing, not as a creation event but as a redemptive one.

[@JabberW00kie]

As a geologist, AND someone who was raised in The worldwide Church of God (a Seventh-day Adventist offshoot), I can relate to this from more than one side. Before learning the science, I use to entertain the “science” of young earth creationists because I was brought up believing in a strict literal interpretation of the creation account. Like many others, in college I was forced to reconcile my beliefs with the rock solid evidence for a very old earth and even evolution. And like many others, it led to doubts about my faith. Thank God I came across Christian intellectuals like John Walton, Tim Mackie, Inspiring Philosophy, and others who made me understand the creation account in a different, more accurate way. Now, as a geologist who understands the science and has seen it for myself in the field, I can say that the evidence is overwhelming for an earth that is billions of years old, and I can clearly see the ways that young earth creationists distort and cherry pick the science to fit their worldview. Not that secular scientists don’t sometimes do the same thing - there are extremists on both sides. However, it saddens me to see so many young people lose their faith because they are told they have to choose between the science and a strict, contradictory interpretation of the Bible. It saddens and even angers me that this is a monster of our own creation. We in the body of Christ are responsible for creating it, and so we must also be responsible for subduing it. Thank you for what you are doing, IP.

[@daftwulli6145]

Yea somwehow the creationist leaders convinced their followers it is either young earth creationism or atheism, and that could not be further from the truth. Pretty ironic that such supposedly devout christians cannot even respect the 10 commandments. THat tells you a lot about their cult.

[@user-kv1po2dm5j]

I had almost the exact situation as you. I almost left Christianity because I failed to realize that this was more than just a black-or-white issue. I’m so glad I took the time to read books and learn from creators like IP in order to learn about the syntax and culture of the Bible. Ironically, believing in an old earth ended up strengthening my faith.

[@shure46]

when God created a tree , it did not appear "one day old" , when God created a rock , it did not appear "one day old" .... When God created the Earth , it did not appear "one day old" .... Therein lies the problem ..... I think of the planets as "art" , God did not create "blank spheres in the heavens" , the moon had craters upon creation , that was His "painting of a Moon" for us , or maybe I should say "sculpture" ..... All of you people think everything was a "blank" and then "it took billions of years to do this or that" , that's not even logical to begin with ..... Even your models , surely you guys don't think all planets and moons were just some "perfectly flat smooth sphere" with NO Geological variances like hills , valleys , erosions , NOTHING just one perfectly smooth sphere of what ???? When you see anything you think "well this took millions of years to create" , any mountain , any trenches , canyons , beaches , cliffs , everything took millions of years , so you basically say "The Earth was a perfect sphere like a plastic ball , totally smooth all over" and then all the changes happened over millions billions of years .... The Earth was created as a paradise perfect world , Noah's flood was a mega tectonic catastrophe and flood , that reshaped the entire Earth in a year , it was catastrophe beyond imagination , Mt St Helens times a million

[@daftwulli6145]

@@shure46 yea Noahs flood never happened we know that for a fact. There is not even enough water on earth for that to happen

[@shure46]

@@daftwulli6145 ocean floors sank after the flood and drained the water , Earth was not as extreme as it is now , mountains not as high , ocean floors not as deep , the flood catastrophe changed the entire planet , it was a massive event of plate tectonic changes ..... You do not understand what happened , you think it just "rained" , it was not like that , it was more like THIS - kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3Summt6rJmqd7c

[@-adc]

I will say, growing up in the general 80s/90s Christian sub-culture...though it wasn't hammered by our church - I had no clue there were even other conceptually valid theories on creation - other than YEC. And, it was always presented like the only view that had ever been thought of. So yeah, finding out much later where it came from, and how differently many historic church figures thought - not to mention that there are legions of believers who do not hold to the young earth view...I mean, Steve Jobs Mind-Blown Gif. - basically. I still maintain that it isn't really the YEC view that I have much problem with - but the idea that it is the ONLY valid one for Christians to hold and anything else is basically siding with El Diablo. If we want to get into the Devil's work here, I believe that teaching specifically (that any other view is heretical, or anti-God), is actually a long-game faith-nuking time-bomb. It needs to be exposed. though gently and carefully.

[@johannakunze3300]

Very important points. Also, too me it seems to be an influenced by intellectual materialism, which lead to thinking exclusively of the possibility of literal (vs. symbolic interpretation), which was easy prey for the new atheist types.

[@johannakunze3300]

Now that I think more about it, I don't know how anyone who read the Bible can think that (YEC). Almost(?) all direct teachings given are undoubtedly symbolical! Why would Genesis not be?

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Every lie and confusion and false belief is by itself wrong and comes from the Devil himself. There arent multiple right ways to interpret this issue, they are all mutually exclusive. But I agree with you that starting to hate and question somebodies salvation and honesty based on this issue is also wrong and comes from the Devil. Engaging in a friendly discussion or debate about the topic is okay and it should be done in brotherly love, respect and all piousness from both sides fully aware that they should not question somebodies salvation based on this issue, but only on someones true repentance and faith in the Lord.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@johannakunze3300 because its written in prose and because the border between the symbolical and literal is blurred (where to draw the line? Should we interpret 7 days symbolically but Adam and Eve and the rest literally? Or should we draw the line after Adam and Eve but before the flood? Or is the flood also symbolical but everything that transpires after including tower of Babel literal? If not should we draw the line before Abraham Isaac and Jacob or are they symbolical too like all the stories before them? Or if not there, maybe the line should be drawn before Moses? Or is the entire "Israelites in the Egypt" symbolical as well? Is the conquest literal too? And so on and so on and then you finally come to some historically proven and reliable stories about the kings of Judah and Israel where you cant read them symbolically because even the extra-biblical historical sources talk about those events and persons. Now you just have to look back and think again if there is any place where the text indicates you should draw that line between historical and mythological.)

[@johannakunze3300]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 Yes. You stopped before the really interesting questions though. In any case, maybe check out Jonathan Pageau if are interested in symbolism.

[@rationalityrules]

Great video Michael, thanks for taking the time to make this.

[@jaredtweed7826]

Bro, I love your videos!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you, I appreciate that!

[@Mikes-Code]

Old earth, young earth... we will know for sure only in heaven. The important thing is.. Jesus. God became a human being and sacrificed Himself to save us. Love from Israel.

[@benjaminjohnson6118]

You are why Gen z is the least Christian in history. They know your black heart

[@Clif87]

@@benjaminjohnson6118 Pre Christ, most of the worlds population did not know the God of the Bible. After Christ, there was a massive and rapid growth in belief but still the majority do not know. Gen Z is possibly the least Christian generation in western power history, I’ll give you that. But that’s a few hundred years, nothing new. Why do you say black heart? Are you talking specifically to this KZbinr or Christians in general? It’s not offensive to me, I realise you may have good reason to say it.

[@uriahsvision7877]

As being a Christian since a young age. I must say you have opened my understanding to bible tremendously . Keep it up my friend

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Glad to help

[@seal9390]

@@InspiringPhilosophy For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:11

[@caryfrancis8030]

@@seal9390 And was also dead for 3 days.

[@jacobtesta2765]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Hey Mike, just quickly how would you respond to the creationist claim that Exodus 20:11 implies that the creation was six literal 24 hour days?

[@ethanhocking8229]

@@jacobtesta2765 Yeah, I used to think about that one a lot, until I realised that Deuteronomy’s version of the Decalogue uses the Exodus from Egyptian slavery as the reason for the Sabbath. Therefore, it’s just an analogy. Not a literal parallel. So just as the Israelites took much longer than one day to reach the Promised Land, and were in Egypt for many more than six, so God didn’t need to have created the entire cosmos as we see it today in only one Earth week so that He could rest on the seventh day. The point is that God rested, and therefore the Israelites were told to rest too.

[@thewolfes146]

Hi, I’m a YEC. I’ve been watching IP’s videos pretty much since he started his channel. I like a lot of his videos, and my comment is in no way motivated by malice towards him or his ministry. I just want people to understand that he has greatly misrepresented what the ante-Nicene Christians (Christians before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325) believed about creation. IP emphasizes that if Genesis is to be understood properly then it has to be understood in its historical context, yet he doesn’t understand the context and beliefs of the ante-Nicene Christians. Most of them were young earth creationists who interpreted Genesis literally just like modern creationists, but they had peculiar views on prophecy that were based in their understanding of creation. They called themselves chiliasts (we would call them premillennialists) and they believed God created everything in six literal 24-hour days and then rested on the seventh literal 24-hour day (just like modern creationists), but in addition to seeing the creation days as literal they also saw them as being prophetic symbols telling us that all of earth history would last 6,000 years, and then Christ would come back and establish his kingdom on the earth for a thousand years represented by the seventh day of rest. This idea is clearly spelled out by Irenaeus in the quote that IP himself provides in this video! Just pause the video and read it carefully and you’ll see that IP doesn’t understand this doctrine and as a result is reading Irenaeus incorrectly. “For in as many DAYS [not millennia] as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded.” He’s clearly saying that just as everything was created in six days, so shall creation last for six millennia. Just because he referenced “the day of the Lord is as a thousand years” doesn’t mean he’s interpreting Genesis 1 like Hugh Ross! His point isn’t that the days of Genesis represent thousand-year ages, his point is that in addition to being literal they’re also prophetically telling us the length of creation until Christ’s kingdom gets established. The assertion that Irenaeus was reading Genesis allegorically is false. The allegorical interpretation was the product of the Alexandrian school of thought, and promoted by Origen (184-253), but the chiliasts (like Irenaeus) were AGAINST that interpretation! These early Christians also thought they were living in the last days and that Christ would soon come back and establish his kingdom because they used the genealogies of Genesis to conclude that the earth (in their day) was almost six thousand years old (NOT twelve thousand, like IP wrongly says in his video). So you see that they used OT genealogies to calculate the age of God’s creation just like modern creationists do! The reason they were so off in their calculations is because they used the Greek OT (the Septuagint) where the genealogies are messed up. But don’t’ take my word for it! Old Earth Creationist, Davis Young wrote, “But the interesting feature of this patristic view is that the equation of days and millennia was not applied to the creation week but rather to subsequent history. They did not believe that the creation had taken place over six millennia but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation.” That’s from his book, ‘Christianity and the Age of the Earth’, pg. 20. I’m not sure where IP got his wrong view of Irenaeus, but I think you can all see that he’s clearly misunderstood and misrepresented his theology. He also asserts that Just Martyr interpreted Genesis 1 in a day-age fashion. Wrong! Justin interpreted Gen 1 just like Irenaeus. You can also find examples of this interpretation in the Epistle of Barnabas (which many early Christians believed was written by Paul's companion), Papias (quoted by later writers), Hippolytus, Methodius, Lactantius, Victorinus, etc. So there are actually many quotes that could be given from the writings of very early Christians who clearly articulated a literal young earth creationist interpretation of Genesis. So if IP wanted to really give us an unbiased history of the origins of YEC (as he repeatedly claimed on twitter) then why didn’t he include any of those quotes from the Christians I just listed with an explanation of their historical context so that people could understand their doctrine? In fact, I’m probably going to take my own advice and make my own video doing just that. I think IP has the responsibility to at least fix his misrepresentation of Irenaeus, and properly learn what the early Christians actually believed if he’s going to reference them in his videos.

[@damodevo]

you're right that some of this is wrong. E.g. Irenaeus taking the days of creation to be 6 1000 yr periods. BUT you are also wrong in interpreting the church fathers as advocates of a historical-literalist approach to Genesis. That is absolutely false. They saw double meanings in the texts (e.g. Genesis 24 hr creation days AND 1000 year eschatological days) and it was the spiritual meaning - derived from their neo-platonism - that was most important NOT the historical-literal. YEC invert such a priority.

[@thewolfes146]

@@damodevo Forgive me, but I don't think you really disagree with anything I said. I think I made it pretty clear that they read the creation days both as literal days and as prophetic symbols. Yes, Ken Ham, for example, doesn't read the creation days prophetically, but to me that difference in eschatology isn't relevant. I don't know, maybe that's just me. Are you saying you don't see a hermeneutical difference between Origen and other members of the Alexandrian school and Irenaeus and other non-Alexandrians? Do you agree that Irenaeus believed the creation to be less than 6,000 years old in his day, or not?

[@damodevo]

@@thewolfes146 no the differences btw the Alexandrians (I thought Irenaeus was one 🤔) and the antioch school etc has been greatly exaggerated. Virtually none of them adhered to the historical-grammatical method. Hence its farcical for the YECs to claim them as support.

[@thewolfes146]

@@damodevo I'm far from an expert on this topic, and if I'm wrong I want to know it. So if you could please show me HOW I'm wrong, rather than just asserting THAT I'm wrong, I'd love for you to do so that way I can correct my errors and embrace the truth. You already agreed with me that Irenaeus interpreted the creation days literally and believed in a young earth, “you're right that some of this is wrong. E.g. Irenaeus taking the days of creation to be 6,000 yr periods.” I appreciate that, because that's the main thing I wanted to prove, and would like Michael to fix about his video. I don't see how anything else you brought up would undermine that, but I'll still address the issues you've raised. You said that “the church fathers” held to “neo-platonism”, that it's “absolutely false” that “the church fathers” were “advocates of a historical-literalist approach to Genesis”, and that “the differences btw the Alexandrians...and the antioch school etc has been greatly exaggerated.” I don't know what evidence you have to support those claims, but I'll contrast the theologies of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria to show just how different these two schools of thought were from each other. I chose those two because Michael gives the impression in his video that they have very similar theologies and methods of interpreting the Bible. I think that's a false impression (and is something else he should fix.) One major difference is that Justin was a chiliast (premillennialist) and Clement was an amillennialist, as such, Justin believed that Christians will inherit the restored land of Israel in our resurrection bodies, while Clement believed we live forever as disembodied souls in heaven. Quite different, wouldn't you say? In his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” (which Michael gives as a reference for his video) Justin writes, “But I and others, who are right-minded on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.” See how he's taking the OT prophecies of the restoration of the land of Israel literally? In “Stromata” book 4, chapter 6, Clement writes, “'Those, then,' says Plato, 'who seem called to a holy life, are those who, freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons, have reached the pure dwelling-place on high.' In clearer terms again he [Plato] expresses the same thing: 'Those who by philosophy have been sufficiently purged from those things, live without bodies entirely for all time. Although they are enveloped in certain shapes; in the case of some, of air, and others, of fire.'” Another huge difference is that Justin argued against the Greek philosophies of Plato and Pythagoras, while Clement argued that one has to embrace Greek philosophy to correctly understand the Bible! In the fragments that we still have from Justin Martyr's book on the resurrection (which some think are inauthentic), in chapter 10, he argues against the immortality of the soul and then says, “For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us?” Justin is saying that Plato taught the immortality of the soul, but Jesus taught something DIFFERENT: the resurrection of the body! In Justin's “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” Justin writes, “For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.” So here Justin goes so far as to condemn the Platonist Christians, who deny the bodily resurrection and believe our souls will live forever in heaven, as blasphemous and not real Christians! Now compare what Justin says about the Greek philosophical influence on Christians to what Clement said about Greek philosophy. “Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring 'the Hellenistic mind,' as the law, the Hebrews, 'to Christ.' Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” Quoted from “Stromata”, book 1, chapter 5. “...so that philosophy does not ruin life by being the originator of false practices and base deeds, although some have calumniated it, though it be the clear image of truth, a divine gift to the Greeks; nor does it drag us away form the faith, as if we were bewitched by some delusive art, but rather, so to speak, by the use of an ampler circuit, obtains a common exercise demonstrative of the faith.” Book 1, chapter 2, of “Stromata”. I think you can see that Justin and Clement could not be more polar opposite! One interprets prophecy literally and argued against Greek philosophy, while the other interpreted prophecy allegorically and embraced Greek philosophy! Are you really going to continue to insist that their differences have been greatly exaggerated? If so you're going to you'll need to back that up with some evidence. And that's just comparing two people! We could go over the works of Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Papias, Methodius, Victorinus, etc. and compare them with Origen, Augustine, etc. and continue to see the same kind of extreme differences. But I think I made my point.

[@damodevo]

@@thewolfes146 hi you've written a lot there. The key point to remember is that we are products of the enlightenment and therefore care about historical and scientific accuracy. The church fathers and biblical authors not so much. The CF were not concordists. They did not see Genesis as teaching us science. This doesn't mean it's false of course.

[@AdrielnerEPinto]

Dude, the quality of your video presentation is amazing. The transitions, pictures, imagery, and overall graphic design is just phenomenal. It feels so premium. Excellent content, by the way. God bless.

[@Shaddaijire]

Coul you tell me What software would that be?

[@benjaminjohnson6118]

You are why Christianity is dying everywhere people can read.

[@alist755]

@@benjaminjohnson6118 Hades itself will not and is not to triumph over His Church. Arguing for a proper interpretation of scripture is not attacking the Church.

[@benjaminjohnson6118]

@@alist755 Say whatever lies make you feel more comfortable Christ burden. Generation Z knows your black heart and refuses you whole cloth.

[@Shaddaijire]

@@benjaminjohnson6118 what stupidities is talking this man? Gen z just want sex and porn, that's why they reject christianity

[@jamiehudson3661]

Could God have created the earth in six seconds - yes. Exodus 20: 9-11 provides interesting commentary on what seven days literally meant.

[@GershomDeol]

Why would he create the earth over thousands of years ?

[@jamiehudson3661]

@GershomDeol He could have done it in no time, I believe.

[@GershomDeol]

@@jamiehudson3661 cool 😎 me too. I just feel like if it was a long period of time he would have just told us ? But he said he did it in 6 days and the 7th day he rested. I don't divide the body of Christ over these issues cuz they are not crucial to the faith . I don't think people who believe in mikes view are not saved , I love all my real bros and sis'

[@austinapologetics2023]

I've been waiting for this for a long time.

[@MrFrogmon]

Wow. Your progress in video editing in 6 years is stunning

[@MadebyKourmoulis]

I'm glad you put your sources in the description.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Always do

[@MortenBendiksen]

The silmarillion is a helpful read, in which there is an eteranal song that sparks the universe. Imagine starting to argue that, well, since the description of the song isn't infinitely long, then it was just occurring for a little while, and then the story in middle earth is much longer, so that means the song is just a little thing long in the past. No, the point is they are both two sides of the same thing. Eternity cannot be illustrated in story form without allusion. The song is eternal, not necessarily linear, even though a story must be, the story in middle earth is part of the song, as seen from one point in the song, let's say. And a very important thing is that it is though the souls of creatures the song is sung and takes shape into corporeal reality. And this is the point of genesis, that the human is in the middle, mediating between the waters above and the waters below, between heaven and earth. It first sets up the light and darkness, then the above and below, then the land and vegetation appears in the middle, then the stars and birds, and then fishes in the sea. The birds and fishes are not our modern scientific birds, they are representatives of above and below. Then animals appear again in the middle, and then humans are places in the middle of the whole picture, and by living into the imagery of the text, we see that humans are central to the whole, fulfill the central role. This is the point. We were there the whole time, in God, partaking in the song, the creation, into which we live, through the breath of life that God put in us. To argue about the scientific merits of the text is to just miss the whole thing. It is a retelling of the creation myths that were circulating at the time, and it's telling an important thing using that language. We are so used to living with the main point of it, that we don't even react to it, and start arguing over other details. What we are actually then doing is reimporting from the ancient context something the text isn't trying to convey to us, but a context it has to start off from in order to say anything at all to the people of the time.

[@KyrieEleisonMaranatha]

The Bible does not teach us how old the earth is at all. No one knows how long the earth sat void for.

[@djsarg7451]

That is not 100% true. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@djsarg7451]

Not 100% correct Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. From the Bible: Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@KyrieEleisonMaranatha]

@@djsarg7451 do you struggle with reading comprehension?

[@KyrieEleisonMaranatha]

@@djsarg7451 who are you talking to?

[@dannyqin7118]

Looking forward to this, IP is the one who prompted me to actually examine my views on creation. Before, I would not budge on my stance that the earth is only 5 thousand years old, but now, I am willing to acknowledge the limits of my knowledge and hear different views, thanks IP!

[@NICEFINENEWROBOT]

But make allowance for the limits of the knowledge of the other parties, too. You had it so well, don't throw it away. God is no liar.

[@ZandarKoad]

Remember, essentially everything was created with apparent age. Though if you think hard enough and look close enough, there are some indications that time cannot stretch infinitely into the past: - Polonium halos in granite - Human population levels - Erosion rates - Rotation rate of the earth - And countless other systems not yet in equilibrium

[@keenanmiller6231]

@@NICEFINENEWROBOT God isn’t a liar because He uses Divine allegory. That’s you imposing your own wisdom into things higher than you

[@shawnmoshos1865]

@@keenanmiller6231 that is you imposing your "divine allegory" on the plain statements of God and attempting to pervert His Wisdom.

[@shawnmoshos1865]

In other words, you began to doubt the Word of God because of IP... sad.

[@davidwatkins9840]

It is a fearsome responsibility to teach others and those who do will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). While you are debunking young earth creationism (rightly or wrongly, who is really to know?), you seem to make a strong statement of your own alignment with the current aging of the earth/heavens. However, where does scripture support such a claim? While young earth creationism may come from a position of conjecture (given the multiple different interpretations of Genesis throughout the ages), the rebuttal of it by accepting the current scientific position is also just conjecture. Should then this be taught in such a way as it is a presumed fact? Last time I looked, God's word was the only thing that should be trusted. When I went to school, scientists were warning of an ice age to come. Now they warn of global warming. No doubt, the next theory is just on the horizon. I agree with your comments on the SDA movement and its teachings. But I can't get around the fact that it was only in day 4 that the sun, moon and stars were created. Day being a day or 1,000 years doesn't matter. God's word has set an order which debunks the current scientific position. What then are you going to believe?

[@jasonspencer8558]

Are you serious? The Scriptures don't *need* to support any estimate of the age of the earth whatsoever. That wasn't their purpose. The Bible isn't a science textbook.

[@PJRayment]

@@jasonspencer8558 No, the Bible isn't a science textbook. However, it does have a lot of _history._ That _history_ is at odds with modern 'scientific' claims. I put 'scientific' in quotes, because it's actually based on a position of naturalism: i.e. that when trying to explain things, such as the origin of the earth, only natural explanations are acceptable, even if the evidence says otherwise. Science typically involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability, none of which can be done on unique past events. So claims about the age of the earth are not only based on a presumption of naturalism, they barely qualify as science. And the fact is that the Bible _does_ provide a lot of information about the age of the earth, those being mainly the repeated, explicit statements about creation happening in six ordinary days, and the chronogenealogies that allow one to add them up to determine a time from creation through to Abraham and beyond.

[@ClubbHouseAirsoft]

With evolution you have death before sin. Death did not enter the world until Adam sinned against God. Therefore evolution is not biblical and I will trust the scriptures before I trust any theologian, Scholar or scientist. Death is a curse, God created a perfect world without death. It was never intended for man or even the animals to die. Why would God create death and suffering and call it good? Death and suffering are not good. They are a curse because of sin. The soul that sins shall die. The day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die. The ground is cursed, now we sweat and work the fields, there is pain in child birth. It's beyond me that there are those that put so much over thought into the Simplicity of Genesis. God created in 6 24hr days and gave a day of rest on the 7th. How could each day be 1000 years? Does man work 6000 years then rests 1000 on the sabbath? Scripture will interpret scripture if you let it. By all means, if you want to cram humanistic godless evolution into the bible you can try but, it will fail. Good day. 🤷

[@christopherhamilton3621]

God’s alleged word is not a debunking & you misunderstand what a refutation is too. 😂

[@djsarg7451]

Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. He made it clear creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@jefflinahan5853]

2:12 I just read the Mook article you mentioned. If Mook had written that the early church unanimously held to a young earth in its first 16 centuries, I would agree with you that he contradicts himself. But he didn't claim that - he didn't use the word "unanimous." In fact, later in the same article he starts a paragraph saying "Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history." That to me proves that Mook does not believe the church was unanimously young earth. If he believed the church was unanimously young earth, I think he would have have started with "All" instead of "Most."

[@hglundahl]

0:40 You may be shocked to find that that particular modern Young Earth movement has a parallel in Catholic theologians. From Lyell to the 1890's there were Catholic theologians publishing three possibilities. Not just gap theory, not just day-age theory, whichever of them you might have accepted, but precisely young earth creationism and Flood Geology. The reason that Flood Geology and with it YEC was by and large abandoned as a mediatic concern of new publications, i e as a movement, is, _"Pyrenees are older than Himalayas and even Pyrenees are too high to have been covered by Flood waters considering today's water volumes"_ ... sth which the modern (and mostly Protestant) YEC movement have found technical answers too, like "no Pyrenees didn't rise the same way much longer ago, then get worn, they rose a different way, also after the Flood" ..

[@mbgrafix]

My biggest issue with a 5 billion years old Earth, and more precisely, the belief in Darwinian evolution is the issue having to do with the fact that once you adopt a Darwinian evolution view of the Earth, you... *A)* Destroy the authority and truth of scripture as both the Old and New Testaments refer to things which contradict evolution. *B)* Nullify the need for the gospel according to scripture as the Bible very clearly and quite literally trace sins origin back to Adam in the garden. If we embrace evolution, where/when does sin originate? Where/when does death originate? Genesis gives a very precise and specific description of sin's origin in man. However, projecting the modern idea of evolution into the Biblical account of creation removes the very reason that Jesus came and died for us. What is the evolutionary explanation for sin? The Bible (and not just the account in Genesis) makes it clear that there was a very distinct line of demarcation wherein death does _not_ exist on Earth, then very suddenly death *_does_* exist on Earth! And Romans *8:20**-22* makes it clear that this death was not just something that affected Adam and Eve, but *_all of creation!_* What do we do with this knowledge revealed to us in scripture? The entire building collapses when we remove this foundational truth. For if as scripture testifies, death itself was introduced through the fall, then what became of all of the living beings that existed throughout the supposed millions of years between the origin of evolutionary life and the fall of man and the introduction of sin? Did they all die? If so, then why? For if death is _the wages of sin_ as we are told in Romans 6:23, and yet sin did not appear until millions of years _after_ the origin of life ( with the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden ), then that means that they died without cause. And the obvious question which arises is...in the evolutionary chain, were Adam and Eve the first of the _human kind_ to evolve from whatever kind they supposedly evolved from? Or were there hundreds or even thousands upon thousand of years of the _human kind_ in existence before Adam and Eve became the ones to first sin? Or do we instead simply dismiss the entire notion of there ever being an _Adam and Eve,_ and think of them as simply some sort of Biblical metaphor? If so, then how do we account for sin's origin, and thus the need for Christ to come and die for sin? As I said before...when we remove the foundational Biblical revelation of sin's origin given to us in Genesis, _the entire building built upon that foundational truth collapses, and _*_none of it makes any sense!_*

[@Triniforchrist]

I would listen to Hugh Ross, he belive the OEC and Adam was a real person who live like 50 to 150 thousand years ago

[@mbgrafix]

@Peter Watson Thank you. Yes, (though not recently) I have watched many of Hugh Ross' videos. However, I must say that I do not recall hearing his proposition for sins origin in man. Do you have any specific links or references to his comments on this?

[@Triniforchrist]

@@mbgrafix no sorry, but I heard him teach that sin and dead came through Adam, but dead of animal was billion of years long before Adam sin

[@mbgrafix]

@Peter Watson The trouble with this is that it is not Biblical. One example is that there were no carnivores before the fall. ___________________ _"And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."_ *- Genesis 1:29-31* Also, consider that scripture teaches us that carnivores will be done away with in Kingdom of God... _"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._ _The cow and the bear shall graze;_ _their young shall lie down together;_ _and the lion shall eat straw like the ox._ _The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,_ _and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den._ _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._ *- Isaiah 11:6-9*

[@mbgrafix]

@Peter Watson Dr Denis Lamoureux discussed evolution with Dr James Tour on Dr Tour's KZbin channel. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYa9mJJ4g9mpa6M I, and many others got into discussions in the comments of that page as well.

[@m.parcelius5187]

Very informative, I've learned alot from this channel, thank you so much for all the work you do, keep it up!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You are welcome

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@James Henry Smith yeah, you've been saying that for quite some time now. Apparently 'now' doesn't mean 'now', now does it?

[@PJRayment]

"But still i am sad that earth's age have become the doctrine that divides real christians from "not true" christians." Well, some people think that, but knowledgeable creationists don't think that. That is, creationists point out that not believing in a 6,000-year-old earth does not mean that one is not a (true) Christian. Indeed, many biblical creationists were once theistic evolutionists themselves, and believe that they were Christians before they became creationists. However, not being a salvation issue doesn't mean that it's not an important issue.

[@jfitz6517]

Thank you for your work. I was raised in a church that held to YEC, promoted Answers in Genesis, and were quick to condemn any Christians who thought otherwise as at best misguided and at worst as dangerous heretics. I too held to that view, until I started to study both Astronomy & Paleontology as hobbies. I gradually began to wrestle with my faith as I had been taught that only YEC was orthodox Christian theology. Thankfully through much prayer, contemplation, and studying both the scriptures & Christian history I discovered much of what you presented here (& in your other videos). Thankfully I'm still a devout Christian, even though I don't hold to YEC anymore. I'm not angry against the church for its view. I'm only saddened that they taught that view exclusively along with vilifying of all other Christian perspectives.

[@fabulousfabio8228]

Study evolution and let’s see if you’re still a Christian

[@Telamonian]

Your opinion on earth creation date doesn’t matter, that’s not how you attain salvation.

[@jasongoodwin1269]

So true

[@fabulousfabio8228]

@@Telamonian The view that human nature changed because of the sin of the first humans, is incompatible with evolution.

[@PJRayment]

"I was raised in a church that held to YEC, promoted Answers in Genesis, and were quick to condemn any Christians who thought otherwise as at best misguided..." Which they are, given that the Bible is absolutely clear that God created in six days. In fact God Himself wrote that in stone. "I too held to that view, until I started to study both Astronomy & Paleontology as hobbies." So the secular view convinced you that the Bible was wrong? "I had been taught that only YEC was orthodox Christian theology." Again, given that God clearly and unambiguously said that He created in six days, it seems that you were taught correctly. "Thankfully through much prayer, contemplation, and studying both the scriptures & Christian history I discovered much of what you presented here (& in your other videos)." What is presented here is wrong, as has been pointed out both in numerous comments and a rebuttal video. You can even see one example yourself with the quote from Irenaeus which he shows on the screen but which doesn't match how he presents it! "I'm only saddened that they taught that view exclusively..." You're saddened that they taught the biblically-correct view. God said that He created birds before land animals, fruit trees before fish, the earth before the sun, and many other things that contradict the secular view. So why don't you believe what God said?

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

I was reading St Athanasius' "On The Incarnation" recently and found it interesting how he took it for granted that natural death predated the Fall.

[@ThePerfectchris]

can you quote please?

[@DominikKoppensteiner]

I find it hard to believe, that the Bible teaches physical death before sin. "And God saw a bunch of dead things. And God saw, that it was good." With that said, I'm not 100% sure that the earth is around 6000 years old, because the genealogy in Genesis is different from the genealogy in Luke. I don't know, how many generations they skipped. But Ellen White, who I consider a true prophetess, wrote that the earth is around 6000 years old, which is possible, but not proveable as far as I know. As far as I know, she didn't put much weight on it like "the earth is exactly 6012 years, 4 months, 11 days, 6 hours, 47 minutes and 2 seconds old", but wrote it rather as a side note like "Jesus came to the earth after mankind had been weakened by sin for 4000 years".

[@StatedClearly]

This is a great tool for students struggling with evolution. Thanks for making it and thanks for including sources in the video description!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you! And I am glad you enjoyed it.

[@xintimidate]

You cant be a Christian and believe in evolution. Please stop denying Gods creation account

[@troygff9456]

@@xintimidate that’s not what their trying to do bro 😭😭

[@xintimidate]

@@troygff9456 Doesnt matter what they are trying to do. Thats what they are doing even fi they dont realize it

[@Frostx-t7m]

@@xintimidate that is a strawman dude 😭😭😭

[@coanwilliams]

Great video dude. Dr. John Whitcomb was one of my weekly guest professors at Word of Life Bible Institute a decade ago. Even at the time, as a YE Creationist myself, his book came off as a BIIIGG stretch

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I am glad i was not the only one thinking that.

[@lai_strength_training]

Your videos are helping me with my seminary paper. Thanks so much for the sources!

[@hglundahl]

5:15 Indeed, the time for creation is, in a minority of fathers, one moment. Clement, Origen, Augustine. However, this doesn't mean they throw out literality of interpretation, it's just that a literally true text can include figurative expressions, and in St Augustine's version, which I read a few years ago, books V and VI of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, the literality lies in the fact that Moses got the vision from angels, and the angels saw the single creation event as six consecutive visions of it or views of it, and the six "days" refer to those views and "evening and morning" refer to angels first seeing the created things in themself (evening) and then looking up and seeing them in God (morning). Obviously this does not extend the time before Adam beyond 168 hours, but reduces it to zero seconds.

[@hglundahl]

OK, didn't know St. Athanasius also was one moment, but OK. Now, these guys weren't six-literal-days creationists, but they were still Young Earth Creationists. In St. Augustine you will find he finds the six-literal days view acceptable.

[@noahsolomon1550]

Love the animation used in the video keep up the good work man

[@charlesrankin1190]

Love the infographics, Michael! You should use these more often!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

They take a while to make. We’ll try to make more videos like this, time permitting.

[@imlafonz8047]

@@InspiringPhilosophy I think they’re too much and kinda distracting lol. If it makes videos take longer to make, you don’t have to use them

[@thequandlecultiston3157]

@@imlafonz8047 it's professional looking, so its cool

[@imlafonz8047]

@@thequandlecultiston3157 it’s making me think of prageru lol

[@jennifernihongi9696]

Super helpful and informative. Thank you for this. Like some have said, your presentation was super well done and was easy to understand. :) Looking forward to the next video. :)

[@BigFunnyGiant]

I stumbled on your channel because of your shorts, and I am glad I did.

[@kennethstarke7827]

I was raised in the Seventh day Adventist church and your explanations are on point. Adventists not only hold to young earth creationism to uphold Ellen White's visions, but also to hold to their interpretation of Sabbath being created literally on the seventh day of creation for humanity (while White also said that the angels and universe celebrate sabbath before earth's creation, an apparent contradiction). They also teaches that the world was formed in seven days, not six days, as sabbath was created on the seventh. Ironically, they tied up Christians that worship on Sunday to Evolutionist that they believe refuses to worship God as creator on saturday Sabbath. If you don't believe in Sabbath and keep it, you rejected God as creator. If you reject the literal interpretation of Genesis, you rejected Gos as creator. Both are tied up together for them. Literalistic interpretation of Genesis also played a part on their eschatology. So if you believe in six/seven day creation but refuses to keep the seventh day sabbath, you still have the mark of the beast. You should believe both of them to be 'safe' from having that mark. It is even one part of the Adventist Gospel (Three Angels Messages) which they proclaim and spread everywhere. The literal interpretation of Genesis is paramount to their existence as a sect due to their prophetess Ellen White and their interpretation of Sabbath.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

prove it. she never said that.

[@P.H.888]

There are around 20 million sda with several hospitals How do they all keep The Sabbath?🧐 Impossible ‼️ SDA is heretical from the false prophet miller and white Teaching and preaching that the old covenant MUST be kept‼️ (Even though this is impossible) Jesus is The Spirit of prophecy HE said The end of the old covenant age was coming in that generation And HE did come in judgement on the clouds in 70 ad Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning for eternity in and from Heaven

[@Toto-um8sp]

Hi, I 'm a membre of French adventist church, and what you're described is a caricature of an american adventist. We are not the same. Debating is okay in my church. It's not a sect.

[@Toto-um8sp]

@@P.H.888 All the adventist are not robots who follows an simply vision. A lot of them work the Sabbath in hospital for saving lives, like Jesus did when he kept the Sabbath.

[@kennethstarke7827]

@@Toto-um8sp Hi. Good for you brother. Unfortunately not all experienced the same intellectual freedom to question and doubt Ellen White and church teachings as your church did. From where I come from (Asia), that is something "punishable by death". It is true freedom to disagree with fellow believers while maintaining faith and trust in Christ. God bless!

[@KTChamberlain]

Your content offers so much clarity and hope to those with faith in a seemingly hopeless time.

[@Brandon-yb8py]

For actual* clarity you should watch him get utterly exposed for lying in this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioXOqKannquKb6M

[@KTChamberlain]

@@Brandon-yb8py Lying about what. pray tell? The divinity of Christ? I highly doubt it.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Young earth creationism began with people making up stories to explain what they didn't know.

[@us3rG]

Even IF it was humans who wrote it, they still know the real world better than you who lives in the man made world

[@HangrySaturn]

@@us3rG Speaking of man-made, have you ever heard about the Bible? :)

[@RemingtonTripp]

@@HangrySaturn Man written, yes, but God inspired.

[@mickme8914]

Adam died spiritually when he ate from the fruit. Not physically.

[@lancediduck6278]

How is "becoming like gods, knowing good and evil" a spiritual death?

[@mickme8914]

@@lancediduck6278 Becoming like gods?. Was lucifer actually telling the truth?

[@ricktoledo8424]

@@lancediduck6278if you actually read the Bible, you'd realize it was half truth, half lie...(which is even more deceptive) The truth was that their eyes WE'RE open and that they knew the knowledge of right/wrong like God right after they ate from the fruit... They realised instantly and knew they were naked and unsophisticated from the feelings of "Shame" and "Guilt" that started manifesting within their being after eating... And God asked them why they were hiding in the bushes and covering their private areas, and their response was that they knew they were naked... And God scratched his head like... "Whaaa?? Who told you that you were naked??“ and they both said that no one told them they were naked, they just automatically knew after they both ate from the fruit in which the serpent told the woman to eat from, and then told her husband to eat as well... And also the other true part was that they did NOT die on that very day... But instead they went on to live many many years afterwards and had many children as the decades went by... The Bible said Adam went onto live 930 years... That was the true part.... The LIE from a naive and innocent mind's understanding... was that a piece of fruit from the tree of knowledge was going to give them "god-like powers" to become powerful independent deities themselves, having a form of God-ship over all creation and being equal with God himself (because that was Satan's own personal inner desires projected onto the unsuspecting Women for being created in a form that was subservient to her Man/Husband counterpart, this was the reason for the serpent secretly communcating with the Woman first and NOT with the Man first... Adam wouldn't have seen a talking serpent as natural, for God gave Adam Headship over all the animals of the earth and knew each one of them by name, for he named them)

[@ricktoledo8424]

​@@lancediduck6278and yes, it was also a spiritual death as well... Because they were forbid to continue eating from the OTHER tree in the garden called The Tree of Life in which produced fruit that allowed them access to eternal life if continued eating under God's Blessings... And since they were no longer in God's Favor, they were driven out of the Garden and there was a Cherub Angel with a Sword made of Fire, guarding the east entrance of the Garden to prevent them from re-entry (The West Side of the Garden was probably over a Rocky Cliff, probably over an ocean)

[@IanRomErv]

@@mickme8914Lucifer is a liar.

[@stevecochran9078]

I accept Creation along with what we have discovered through science. God still created it regardless if it's 4.6 Billion years old or Young Earth. I just don't see a conflict between the two.

[@PJRayment]

"I just don't see a conflict between the two." God not only created it, He explicitly and repeatedly said that He created it in six days. That is just one of the numerous conflicts.

[@stevecochran9078]

@@PJRayment Paleontology and pre-history conflict with a literal interpretation of six 24hr periods..

[@PJRayment]

@@stevecochran9078 Yes, they conflict with what Genesis actually says. That's my point-there is a conflict. A "literal interpretation" is how the text reads. It's narrative, and explicit (even defining a "day"). You cannot read it any other way without doing violence to the text. Further (think about this), Genesis conflicts with a literal interpretation of palaeontology and pre-history. That is, why do you assume that's it's God's word that has to be "interpreted" rather than the words of fallible men?

[@zachjones6944]

@@PJRayment The Bible is not the literal word of God.

[@PJRayment]

@@zachjones6944 "The Bible is not the literal word of God." What's your evidence? Because Jesus treated it as authoritative, and it claims to be God's word, and millions of people have accepted that claim. So you need more than bald assertion to show otherwise.

[@gabrielgs2003]

You made the animations? Are amazing. Excellent video as usual. Regards from Mexico

[@borderlinebrian3940]

The universe is not 6000 yrs old, it is so absurd; this belief is almost cult-like, in the same vein as KJVonlyism. It's like when folks think, you must pick between science or God, it's ludicrous!!

[@elibonham4388]

Absolutley. It's a book the lord of the rings for example many people can come away from the book with a wildly varying book let alone the bible. You must allow great fluidity in the text

[@djsarg7451]

Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not about 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. I work the day shift. (Both are not 24 hours) Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@borderlinebrian3940]

@@djsarg7451 Right on👍

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@djsarg7451 tell me, if there were no apologists how many people would quit religion, cos i'm constantly seeing people say that without the help of apologists they would have "doubts" and "struggles". kinda implies to me that being lied to is keeping people from leaving a religion that does indeed promote slavery and genocide, it's there on the page and people worry over it.

[@djsarg7451]

@@HarryNicNicholas Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error. Your God hating talk is just that. God hating talking points with no truth. Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[@khayonxumalo5993]

Thank you for the visuals IP, they are a huge help. God Bless.

[@burger3856]

I’m no longer on the fence, YECs are most certainly wrong. Great video and God bless you brother

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I’m glad I could help.

[@stephengray1344]

Whilst I agree that YECs are almost certainly wrong, this video - at best - provides very minor supporting evidence against YEC. If you mean that this video has pushed you off the fence about whether it's true or not, then you're very easily convinced. Its main use is as evidence against the claim that Christians *have* to hold to YEC.

[@burger3856]

@@stephengray1344 I suppose I could more accurately say that this video finished pushing me off the fence. I was already leaning towards old earth, but wasn’t quite ready to make an ultimate decision on my position

[@PJRayment]

"Great video" The video makes numerous errors, as several people have pointed out.

[@nanakojo]

None of these arguments you made matters. Its just how various people have interpreted creation in the past. In the end what the bible says is what holds. And that is all that matters. Anyway what does the bible says about the period of time of creation? 1. What many Christians don't realize is that the bible does not give room for anyone to define what a day is or how long it is. The Genesis 1 defines a day clearly and that is what we must go with. Gen 1 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God *called the light Day*, and the *darkness he called Night*. And the evening and the morning were the *first day.* The scripture above makes it all clear. God associated the day with the light. The word day in hebrew is *yôwm* Strong's definition *יוֹם yôwm*, yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term) So we can simply say a day is define as the warm hours. Now the darkness is called Night. The word night in hebrew is *layil* Strong's definition *לַיִל layil*, lah'-yil; or (Isaiah 21:11) לֵיל lêyl; also לַיְלָה laylâh; from the same as H3883; properly, a twist (away of the light), i.e. night; figuratively, adversity:-(mid-)night (season). So we can say night simply means *opposing the day* or not day. basically something like that. Now, what about the word evening, The word evening in hebrew is *ereb* Strong's definition *עֶרֶב ʻereb*, eh'-reb; from H6150; dusk:- day, even(-ing, tide), night. we can say evening simply means dusk. which is the opposite of morning (hebrew word means dawn) So from the verse above, we see clearly that A day (i.e. first day) is made up of warm hours and opposite of that. Morning beginning the warm hours and evening beginnng the Night. So there you have it. God didn't leave the definition open. By associating light with day and darkness with Night and making the statement "And there was evening and morning, the first day", He is telling us that A complete day of creation, is made up of A period of light (day, when God did the work of creation) and a period opposite that (Night, When God did nothing probably rested or planned) with the entire day ending the following morning. Which also begins a new day. So there is no room for anyone to come and insert a 1000 years for that one day period of creation. There no room at all for that. Thank you.

[@michaeldaniel2022]

kzbin.info/aero/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi

[@nanakojo]

@@michaeldaniel2022 I have watched the first and second video. What exactly do you want me to see.

[@Sehon13Ultd]

How could there be warm hours and cold hours on the first 3 days if the sun wasn’t made until the 4th day?

[@nanakojo]

@@Sehon13Ultd Did you read the verses at all? God created light and called it day (warm hours). Light existed on the first day. So right from the first day Light was in existence

[@Sehon13Ultd]

nana kojo if light caused those warm hours, what caused the cold hours? Do you think the light magically disappeared for 12 hours at a time?

[@FortifiedApologetics]

I can see my future conversations on YEC ending with me sharing this video. Been needing it for a long time... Finally received it in a stunning, visual presentation. Great work IP! It was better you than I doing a video on the topic because it brings back foul memories.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Share it out!

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

It left so much out of thr history hat as a young earth creationist it wasnt very convincing

[@PJRayment]

"I can see my future conversations on YEC ending with me sharing this video." I can see it ending with the biblical creationist pointing out the errors in this video.

[@banmancan1894]

Really great stuff! I got my MA in Science and Religion and this video personally blesses my soul. It's right on!

[@lesliewilliam3777]

I have 10 PhDs in genetics, biology, geology, philosophy...and it did NOT bless my soul. But the Creator said "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ” And he also said: "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12)

[@PJRayment]

And yet the Bible has lots of chronological information. It seems that God thought that it was important.

[@banmancan1894]

@@lesliewilliam3777 I would definitely advise getting one more Ph.D (or even an M.A.) in Biblical exegesis and it might change 🤷‍♂

[@banmancan1894]

@@PJRayment Scripture does lay out key elements that can be traced via archeology and things of that nature which is amazing. Those who have denied the historicity of Israel, its kings, people, and events have been put to shame with these wonderful (yet PTL unsurprising) discoveries. However, genealogies, in particular, carry specific points related to a theological and/or cultural point by the author. As one notices throughout the various genealogies in the OT and NT, they are different based on the authors' points.

[@lesliewilliam3777]

@@banmancan1894 Note the ellipsis in my degree list. I have 2 PhDs in biblical theology and this disingenuous and intellectually dishonest piece of excrement you term a blessing still did not bless my soul. But only an obdurate heretic, like yourself, would think you require a PhD to understand Exodus 31.

[@luciastevarova2866]

For me, as a believer, it is not a proof of truth nor important what people believed largely before the 1960s but that which is the most in line with the Bible. I know it might be hard to believe literal six-day creation when everyone and supposedly all the evidence screams otherwise but this is the reality of our Christian life where we cannot base our beliefs on worldly recognition. We live in the sin-laden world, where satan has its rule and the only reliable source of truth is God's word. As it says in 1 Corinthians 1:27 (NKJV): But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong 1 Corinthians 3:18-19(NKJV): Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness” Or in 1 Colossians 2:8 (NKJV): Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. So especially in subjects like this, we cannot rely on the wisdom of people/this world but humbly and sincerely search for the truth and ask God to reveal it to us. I think that a fair investigation of the arguments of the creationist can show that they are not crazy and the arguments are supported by the science but many times not recognised because the evidence is interpreted within the evolutionary paradigm.

[@truthbebold4009]

I agree. Scientists have made an absolute mess of this world and I could care less what they say about creation.

[@roysammons2445]

Well said Lucia.

[@snorristurluson5849]

@@truthbebold4009 even tho it's the truth. The earth is absolutely billions of yrs old

[@truthbebold4009]

@@snorristurluson5849 Could be but I know that the 6 days of creation took place some 6000 years ago

[@snorristurluson5849]

@@truthbebold4009 except they didn't. That's scientifically inaccurate & human cultures & societies were already in existence 6000 yrs ago

[@Christian_Maoist.]

IP, sorry for the off topic comment, but will you ever talk about the dating and authorship of books like Daniel and Isaiah?

[@WhomGodGiveth]

I would consider myself a YEC and while I appreciate the history you gave I do have some issues with this. To me, when people have problem with Adam not dying Literally, why is it not assume god Grace was shown and that a lamb did die in place of Adam and Eve, as a foreshadowed to the sacrifice to come? I didn’t know there were so many different takes beyond the two or four I was familiar with but for me I think the issue isn’t so much geology but how to interpret this information and can we be sure of it. Sure to some degree maybe there more that I don’t know but I still hold that believing in evolution to me changes how we understand grace and history that God entail in the Bible. But so long as Jesus is preached that’s all I will stand for. Thank you for this video.

[@AS-fh6mu]

Thanks for sharing. To me it makes sense that the death God is meaning when he said "You will surely die" is the second death after judgement. Jesus came to save us from the second death. Through one man, death came to all, sin leads to the second death. Jesus saves us from that 🙌

[@WhomGodGiveth]

@@AS-fh6mu yeah exactly. And we don’t know how far that time was that Adam ate from the tree so another hypothesis is that the fruit that used to sustain his life was slowly losing its affect as Adam and his line of people were cut off from that tree. Not that death wasn’t issued but he was dying slowly but surely.

[@PJRayment]

Man was supposed to live forever. On the very day he sinned, he began to die, even though that took another 960 years to complete.

[@WhomGodGiveth]

@@PJRayment right and that’s why when you look at the genealogy of Adam to Abraham the mortality rate went from 900+ to 120+. A clear descent to the time for the fruit to lose its usefulness.

[@AS-fh6mu]

@@PJRayment man was supposed to live forever as long as they could eat from the tree of life. Adam was made from the dust of the ground and was mortal and needed the tree of life to live forever. Hence why the angel was gaurding the way 👉to the tree of life👈. He was guarding it so they could not eat from it to live forever. We 👉will be👈 made like the angels with immortal bodies in the Kingdom of Heaven.

[@michaelj1454]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful, considered and wise reply. God bless you.

[@telosbound]

Super excited about this one

[@Jim-Mc]

I agree with you but at least some Jewish authorities believed in a young earth. Josephus mentions it. So I don't think modern Christians are totally culpable .

[@dimitartodorov4826]

@BuddyTheRookie True.

[@thyikmnnnn]

@BuddyTheRookieDo you just read your Bible without being influenced at all by your culture?

[@jefferson38dias]

This video is a piece of art for Christian Apologetics against Heretic visions of the Bible. Thanks a lot for the effort you put on it. God bless you brother.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌎 *The Misconception of Universal Young Earth Belief* - Common misconception that young earth belief is an essential Christian doctrine. - Historical evidence contradicts the idea that all Christians historically adhered to a young earth. - Introduction to the modern definition of young earth creationism by the National Center for Science Education. 01:04 📜 *Definitions and Organizations of Young Earth Creationism* - Definition of young earth creationism: Earth less than ten thousand years old, six 24-hour creation days. - Mention of organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research. - Variations among young earth creationists on the exact age of the earth. 02:26 📚 *Early Christian Views on Genesis 1 Interpretation* - Saint Irenaeus' interpretation: Days of creation as 1,000-year periods, not literal 24-hour days. - Saint Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria's non-literal readings of Genesis. - Early church fathers' diverse views on the interpretation of the creation account. 05:12 ⏰ *Figurative Interpretations of Genesis 1 in Early Christianity* - Clement of Alexandria's belief in an instantaneous creation and figurative days. - Influence of Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria on non-literal readings. - Saint Augustine's concept of God-divided days rather than sun-divided days. 06:47 🌐 *Non-Literal Readings Persist through the Middle Ages* - William of Conches's non-literal interpretation in the Middle Ages. - The chaos restitution interpretation: Unspecified time of chaos before creation. - Various theologians supporting interpretations allowing for an older earth. 09:21 🌍 *Diversity of Interpretations Before Modern Geology* - Limited evidence and diverse views on the age of the earth before modern geology. - Bishop Ussher's date of creation not universally accepted among Christians. - The gap theory gaining popularity, suggesting an unspecified time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. 11:44 🌋 *Christian Response to Geological Discoveries* - Geologists embracing geological evidence and countering deistic eternalism. - Irony in using Charles Lyell's arguments against geology in the 20th century. - Resistance to Bishop Ussher's strict timeline, and the emergence of diverse Christian views. 13:54 🔄 *Evolution and Christianity in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries* - Early Christian acceptance and accommodation of evolutionary theory. - Theistic evolutionists like B.B. Warfield coexisting with Christian fundamentalism. - Evolutionary views in the American South and church-related colleges. 15:38 🔄 *Rise of Young Earth Creationism in the 20th Century* - The seven-day Adventist movement's charismatic beliefs and vision of Ellen G. White. - George McCready Price's flood geology and ideas influencing modern young earth creationism. - Bernard Ram's unintended encouragement of young earth creationism in his book. 18:43 📖 *Genesis Flood Book and Creationist Organizations* - John Whitcomb Jr. and Henry Morris co-authoring "The Genesis Flood" in 1961. - Formation of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. - Adoption and popularization of young earth creationism despite scientific criticism. 22:29 📢 *Young Earth Creationism: From Niche to Mainstream* - By the 1990s, "creationist" became synonymous with young earth creationists. - The impact of "The Genesis Flood" on the creationist movement. - Transformation of a minority view in the 1920s to a major group by the 1970s. 24:53 🔄 *Young Earth Creationism: A Recent Interpretation* - Young earth creationism not pivotal to Christianity before the 20th century. - The shift towards young earth creationism driven by specific historical events. - The modern dogmatic adherence to a young earth traces back to the visions of an alleged prophetess.

[@discipledesigned]

You continuously outdo yourself with the quality and composition of your videos. Kudos man. Glad to have been inspired by you and your work, to really think about my faith and for reviving the deep meaning in the text that my ancestors enjoyed.

[@GutsickGibbon]

"No relation to Kent Hovind" Beautiful!

[@enoch3874]

When I was growing up I didn't even know what Young Earth creationism was let alone the other theories of Genesis 1 and 2

[@richardredmond1463]

Briefly, my story is that I became a Christian in 1977 and was involved in a U.S. based Christian church-planting organisation from 1985-1989, which strongly endorsed young earth creationism. I bought every book I could get my hands on by Morris, Whitcomb, Ham and others, devouring the contents. I even debated for YEC arguments on college campus and even helped win an open debate, partly because I was so passionate about the subject and partly because the naturalistic evolutionists I was debating against had not prepared properly for the debate. I held to young earth creationism for 30 years until 2015, when I finally began to realise that there were committed, Bible-believing Christians who were not young earthers. That gave me the liberty of mind to begin to consider alternative views that were not YEC based. The final nail in the coffin for my long held views was reading a book called "Evolution 2.0" by Perry Marshall around that time. I'm still a passionate Christian apologist on a local level but like many of the leading apologists of our day, including William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Frank Turek and others, I am delighted that I am no longer shackled by the anti-science limitations of modern young earth creationism, rooted in Ellen Whites misguided revelations. Phew! What a relief.

[@otisarmyalso]

Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10 This act which Jesus referred was: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & Replenish the EARTH, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the EARTH & God said, Behold, I have given you EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive ) herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, & EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive) In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” Gen1:27-29 But when God made Adam & placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ; And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. & the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. & out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, & every fowl of the air; & brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: & whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen2:16-19 Adam was specifically told v2:17 not eat of Tree knowledge of good & evil. Gen1 & Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt these 2events remains unspecified.. A GREAT error comes when one equates Gen1&Gen2 for they are very different events Jesus was clear, For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam & Eve. But rather Jesus said: from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the "beginning" made them male & female Not Adam & Eve, not from dust, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said & said what he meant, Adam, Eve,& garden were not in the creation... scripture means what is said and says what it means Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground & Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam & Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio, from nothing, as were the man & woman in the beginning. Man & Woman of Gen1 were given dominion over all earth that was watered by a mist neither did Gen1 have dietary restriction as given Adam & Eve in a garden watered by 4 rivers. Gen1 & Gen2 are completely different events, scripture does not err. Jesus drew a line into the sands of time at Luke 16:16 The law & the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, & every man presseth into it. There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John. "Behold the Lamb slain from foundation of this world." When was this present sinful world founded? but in the day of ADAM'S sin. For then Adam&Eve were clothed in skin of slain lamb & a redeemer promised. there remain 3k years from Jesus death.. John 2:19 Jesus answered & said unto them, Destroy this temple, & in three days I will raise it up. The final event is specified. Rev21:22-23 & I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty & the Lamb are the temple of it. & the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, & the Lamb is the light thereof. Time between Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified but finite. To equate Gen1&Gen2 as same events leads to great confusion There are many many facts to prove earth age is in excess of 6000Y BP, wiki article earth age completly refutes young earth psudoscience... and wiki cites just the most blatant proofs, available

[@richardredmond1463]

@@otisarmyalso No idea what you are trying to say.

[@austinapologetics2023]

This was a great video. Virtually everyone I know, family, friend and church associates are YECs, so I use all the material I can get.

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

I'm feeling your pain. YEC are factories of many KZbin Atheists.

[@Brandon-yb8py]

Here’s some more material for you bud! kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioXOqKannquKb6M

[@djsarg7451]

Thank you ! Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@thomasglass9491]

That’s the biblical view! IP stop pushing a unbiblical idea. If you don’t hold to a literal Genesis account it also affects the gospel because why Jesus need to come to saved the elect of Genesis is not literal?

[@misterauctor7353]

???

[@misterauctor7353]

That has been answered.

[@thomasglass9491]

@Mister Auctor and what is the answer then? Don’t say it has been answered and you don't give me the answer.

[@kylebarrington5269]

Really liking this new animation style. Also really surprised to see you not cite Aubrey Lackington Moore, a contemporary of Darwin who affirmed evolution. His work is incredible.

[@hglundahl]

20:52 Vapour canopy is largely abandoned today. Long lifespans is because pre-Flood man was genetically more perfect, and the short ones we have now are due to a post-Flood gradual degradation in lifespans and genes. I find this a nice coincidence with my theory carbon 14 was created quicker back then.

[@AChristianGuy]

Well done Michael. (You beat me to this topic, lol.) I hope your work helps restore balance & grace among those communities who have made creation theology a hill to die on.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You can always do it as well

[@qaz-fi1id]

Shut up

[@Wil-vd2mc]

@@qaz-fi1id How sad, how hateful and spiteful you are

[@lukesalazar9283]

@@qaz-fi1id loltroll is troll lol

[@ojaiallen8004]

If there was no Creation and a fallen Creation. How does Jesus fit into the picture? Even the atheists recognize this point while Christians miss it completely

[@__.Sara.__]

This video was amazing. I learned so much I've never heard before!

[@Brandon-yb8py]

Learn how much he lied about here lol kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioXOqKannquKb6M

[@coopahtroopah1175]

I grew up in a Young Earth Creationist household and church environment that held to it as indispensable dogma. I’ve slowly been moving away from it. It began as I was learning Hebrew and saw poetic elements in Genesis 1, so for me my transition away was more so related to hermeneutics than geology

[@BossHossStudios]

You can’t have death before sin. It is not biblical as an old earth

[@vedinthorn]

@@BossHossStudios Why not? Romans says that this death reigned from Adam to Moses....so obviously he wasn't talking about physical death outright since I'm pretty sure my grandmother died a bit after Moses.

[@djsarg7451]

Thank you for the good news. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@hglundahl]

3:45 "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years it shall be concluded" Very far from stating that the days of Genesis 1 as applying to creation could be thousands of years, he said the opposite. He establishes a proportionality between creation days and history-millennia, the latter being between creation and doomsday. Proportionality is not identity. Again, no bearing on how long it took for God to create the world, _other than_ that being a series of normal length days.

[@hglundahl]

The heading of (Book V, Chapter 28) is "The distinction to be made between the righteous and the wicked. The future apostasy in the time of Antichrist, and the end of the world."

[@djsarg7451]

But that is not what is 100% in the Bible: Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@SimplyChrist]

Once people realize the OT was written in Hebrew and not King James English, words take on a whole new meaning.

[@BrandonGallemore]

Dude, I've been saying this forever. I'm so glad to see you make a video that went more in depth on the subject. Keep making videos, they are making a difference!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you!

[@JesusisLOVEJohn-]

Problem 1: The Bible does not mean literal days. Answer: The Bible says the morning and evening were the first day and so on for the other days. Problem 2: The video almost solely mentions what Christians say. Answer: Stick to the Word of God, not man's word. Problem 3: Misquoting 2 Peter 3:8 Answer: If read in context the passage is talking about how God dosen't experience time like we do. Read the next verse, nine. Problem 4: Macro Evolution Answer: Genesis 1:11 + 21 + 24 + 25 all state the plants and animals reproduce after their own kind Problem 5: Dont forget the Sabbath day which was created because God rested on the seventh day. Exodus 20:9-11 KJV Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: [10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: [11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Problem 6: The video is almost completely void of any scripture. Problem 7: Answers in Genesis actually uses scripture and are just that, they get there answers from Genesis. They also show how flawed dating of the earth actually is. Answers in Genesis shows you there perspective based on science and the Bible. God bless.😁

[@misterauctor7353]

@@JesusisLOVEJohn- "Answers in Genesis shows you there perspective based on science and the Bible." AIG based their ideas on cherrypicking.

[@Brandon-yb8py]

Oh boy there’s so many blind comments like this. Here guys….. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioXOqKannquKb6M

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@JesusisLOVEJohn- AIG does *not* use science to support their positions. Read their statement of faith. Anyone who knows anything about science and who reads that statement of faith knows that AIG is anti-science.

[@killianmiller6107]

Here’s a thought: could it be that the biblical genealogies going back actually coincide with the beginning of _civilization?_ Sumer in Mesopotamia, probably the oldest civilization, began around 3500 BC, and one account of biblical genealogy seems to say the Fall occurred around 4000 BC. To go back even further, the Neolithic marked the beginnings of agriculture around 10,000 BC, similar to another counting of the genealogy. Could it be that the “arrival” of Adam and Eve, humans with rational souls, marked the beginnings of rational life as opposed to proto-humans with merely sensitive souls like animals?

[@namarie325]

Where would that leave the tribes who by all appearances have never practiced agriculture?

[@killianmiller6107]

A good question. Perhaps an answer lies in the fact that a rational human can live like a hunter-gatherer despite the advent of agriculture or major civilizations, based simply off of biological roots. Many places people live in today and throughout history are not arable, that doesn’t make them not rational humans. It’s simply the human ability to use land rationally for food (as opposed to animalistic), or to set up civilizations, that seems to mark a significant change in the nature of humans. Perhaps these tribes would have developed some form of agriculture or civilization if it was feasible.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

I thought about it and it kinda matches with the fact that Cain was terrified when God curses him that he would be killed by some other human being. Then God made a statement that the one who kills him would be more cursed. Who would kill Cain if he, Adam and Eve were the only humans at the time? He also married another human, a woman, while he was the only Adam and Eve's offspring alive to the time. The other siblings came after Seth. Taking into account these facts, we can conclude that Genesis is messed up chronologically or that's the way it was and there were other humans apart from Cain, Adam and Eve at that time.

[@grimfada]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 Adam and Eve had other kids though, and lived, according to that same Genesis, several hundred years. They would, thus, have had many children, who in turn would have as well. Marriage of siblings was also prohibited by God only during Moses' time. Seth comes after Cain incident, but its not hard to conceive Cain thinking a bit ahead and figuring that there would be other humans inhabiting the earth during his lifetime. And of course the acceptance of this viewpoint boils down to whether one believes that Adam and creation were creation good from the start or not.

[@haroldbailey9011]

@@grimfada can you give me one scientist, just one scientist that comes to the conclusion of a 6,000 year old earth without influence from the Bible. I’m simply talking about someone who is objectively studying God’s natural revelation. The ground, hominids found, the cosmos etc

[@gianpopo2007]

The illustrations are phenomenal and the content is even better!

[@bradleyungles8605]

I will also add a word of caution that the beginning of the end for mainline churches was to forgo the authority of scripture specifically with this issue. They wanted scripture to be compatible with modern scholarship and eventually they compromised so much, their beliefs wound up being contrary to scripture and historical Christianity rather than in line with it. I could write more, but I'll leave it at that.

[@benjaminwalker9369]

Yes

[@djsarg7451]

But the Bible agrees with them, so authority of scripture is not an issue. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@qetoun]

Outstanding work. Love this new animation format.

[@isaiahreno]

Thanks to you Jones, I'm no longer anti-evolution or a Young Earth Creationist 👏

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is great to hear

[@Michael_the_Servant]

Isaiah, Genesis 1:1-2:4 is both Literal and Allegorical. The are two witness accounts to creation in the Bible. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the second account is from 2:4b onward starting from, “in the day...” One is an account of creation of the Heavens and the Earth, and the other is a creation of the Earth and the Heavens. The first describes 6 days of 24 hours each for creation, and the second seems to be a single day. In these first two accounts God is laying out time structure that will be used for the entire Bible and all of Creation afterwards. The first account establishes the “in our image” language which is probably to much to go into, but that image is John 1:1-2 & 1:14. It is God and the Logos as one. The Logos experiences interactions in the world on behalf of God who is a Spirit, and thus the Logos experienced six 24 hour days. The second account is from God’s perspective not the Logos, and as such comes across as a single day. In this account God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats of the fruit. The second story is told in the manner that one day equals a thousand years. (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8) If creation is six 24 hour days, that is less than 1,000 years, it would be a single day. If Adam died within 999 years of eating the fruit, he would die in that day, he lived 930 years, and thus it was a literal God Day. Your entire understanding of the Bible is opened up when you realize these two different time scales are used over and over. When you realize that you can then back feed a 1,000 year understanding unto many actual 24 hour day events in the Bible and learn something from it prophetically it reinforces that Creation absolutely was 6 days no matter how illogical it may sound. For instance, many people are aware of End Times Prophecy taught of a 7 year period because of the 7 days, and after 3.5 days the stopping of the sacrifices and then the anti-christ. Looking at ~4,000 BC as creation so year 1, the Temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant was never again used in the Temple because of being cut off by the Babylonians which started the statue which will be destroyed by the rock. It happened after ~ 3.5 God days (3,500 years). In the Story of Jesus raising Lazarus who is in Abraham’s bosom, there is a very unique expression of Jesus hearing about Lazarus 2 days, Delaying 2 days, then raising him up after those two days. It all seems like unneeded information. Abraham was about ~2,000 BC, Jesus has Delayed in coming now for ~2,000 years while he prepares a place. This matches God going away for two days after being rejected, and returning after 2 days to resurrect them on the 3rd day (Millennial Reign) that is prophesied in Hosea 5:14-6:2, when you understand the thousand year to day understanding. This is why in the Bible OT the Jews who had blemishes (representation of sin) were cast out of the Camp for 7 days, and on the 7th day they presented themselves unto the Priest (representation of Jesus) and he would inspect them and if they were good, on the 8th day the would rejoin the Camp (New Heaven & Earth). I could run through example after example of how everything can be scaled from 1 day to 1,000 years, or smaller conversions in between. The foolishness of God is Wiser than all these people trying to convince you that the world is millions of years old. The majority of christian scholars prior to 1,500 AD believed in a young earth, but many miscalculated it’s start. It is only in this last day or even more precisely last half-day (500 years) that we have seen a turn from this understanding. I teach young earth science, both a young earth and old earth require scientific assumptions in their models to make things work in the theory. If you believe the Bible, I’d personally place the money on the Bible being correct on this matter, not some wannabe scholar who hopes they’ll be accepted for disagreeing with a portion of the Bible. If Genesis 1 is wrong, the foundation is wrong, thus the entire Bible is wrong. This is the slippery slope argument. I don’t argue that scripture is without errors, but I can sit down and point out the errors with anyone, and Genesis 1 is not one of them.

[@isaiahreno]

@@Michael_the_Servant Rather, I should have said I no longer strictly hold to the Young Earth view. I'm open to all views, but my Christian beliefs are not grounded on them. Whether the Earth is only a few thousand years old or billions, I still know that Christianity is true. Thanks for sharing through 😁

[@Michael_the_Servant]

Isaiah, no worries, I just wanted to provide you with a different view. The guy that produces content for this channel reminds me of a younger me when I cared about being so smart, having so much knowledge, and proving people wrong. People used to love to hate me, because I was really arrogant and smug, always right, but never actually acting like a christian with grace and meekness. Even when I was wrong, I couldn’t be proven wrong, now we all know someone like that right? He’s got some really good content for evangelism when it comes to other religions, like islam so I follow, but it is difficult seeing many confused by his actual teachings of science. I used to basically believe that Jesus was real, but that science disputed parts of the Bible and there had to be a long term God controlled evolution. Well, about 12 years ago I was hitting rock bottom personally while hitting a high professionally. I started actually seeking God and having a personal relationship with Him, not just religion. It was through this long slow walk that I came across Creationist Science. Being a guy who loved science, I had to understand it if it was true or false. Truth is, both systems make scientific assumptions as I’ve stated, but the billions of years can’t resolve Life See, Evolution is the biggest lie, but it has been around for thousands of years, it actually wasn’t new with Darwin. With the exception of viruses, there is never gain of genetic code, only mutation (degradation/change) or loss of code that exists prior to an evolutionary change. Evolution teaches we evolved from a rock. Now they don’t teach that, they teach we evolved from primates, and then they just kind of stop. But if you pull the thread to the end, you get to realize they are teaching you to be an evolved rock. Bees alone disprove evolution. I mean Queen Bees had to do manual labor for millions of years until drones were evolved? Have you ever known someone that thought of themselves as a queen do any work? In a species where you have multiple forms in a colony, the argument is it happened over hundreds of millions of years, but they need each to survive, so it had to happen at the same time. Science doesn’t allow it. It isn’t easy to say you believe in a young earth. I have the ability to break it down scientifically to anyone that questions me, at least to a respectable scholarly level in most areas, but most people can’t do that then are looked down upon by everyone. You are right that either way Christianity is true, but I started witnessing miracles when I just gave in and said, okay God sounds crazy but I’m going to believe it by having faith that it is true, not because I could prove it all the way. It was kind of my first big faith step, and it shocks everyone that knows me when they find out because they know how logical and analytical I am. Anyhow, I am glad I could help, and don’t go head over heals for that billions of years idea, young is better, at least until you get down to 21 years. ;)

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@Michael_the_Servant unfortunately, KZbin comment sections are not the place to falsify any aspect of any scientific theory. Evolution is the core principle in all of biology, including genetics of course. You have not falsified it, and you certainly have no data or evidence demonstrating biological evolution is not real. Evolutionary theory is applied science. We use our knowledge of how evolution works in nature and we apply it in the real world,, such as in the development of new medicines, and in agriculture, and many other ways. No, bees do not falsify biological evolution. I'm curious, why do you think you know more about biology than biologists? In order for what you are saying to be true, the world's biologists must all be lying. In other words, global hoax.. We know that isn't true, of course, because as I've already said, evolutionary theory is applied science. If you think biological evolution isn't fact, then gather your data and evidence and publish in relevant science journals. Nothing less will suffice. Opinions and beliefs do not count.

[@thehomiedan6378]

Editing is fantastic!!! Great work Mike👍🏾

[@mikewiththebluecar]

How can you say that YEC traces back to Ellen White when it actually predates her birth by over 3,000 years? YEC predates Christianity itself as the majority of Jews actually believed in a literal translation of Genesis as well as Exodus 20:11 going all the way back to Moses who wrote both of them.

[@djsarg7451]

That is not true. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@paradisecityX0]

Let's see the history behind the lore

[@djsarg7451]

Biblical Hebrew a small vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error.

[@NOWABOmusic]

If the earth is millions of years old God actually used evolution to create the diversity of life, then disease, disaster, famine, and death all happened before the fall of man. That means God's "very good" world included all that evil and chaos. It also means death is NOT the wages of sin, but simply a part of God's intended creation, so Jesus' death was in no way a propitiation for us but merely a thing that happened.

[@NOWABOmusic]

@Joe Smith were sin and death part of God's original plan for creation? Did he create the world by saying "let there be," or did He do it via the suffering of billions of creatures for millions of years?

[@PJRayment]

@Jordan Lane "Sin obviously existed before the fall. Hence why a lying a deceiving serpent was in the garden." That depends on what you define 'sin' to be. The Fall is the relevant matter, man, not the angels, have dominion on God's creation, and _man,_ not the angels, are said to be made on God's image. It was _man's_ sin that was the problem. "fact: sin existed before the fall." No, that's your opinion, not a fact. "Genesis is a cosmic temple text that includes ancient near east cosmology, ..." No, the early chapters of Genesis are God's account of the beginning. The "cosmic temple" idea is built on the false assumption that God's Word is, for some reason, going to conform to contemporary pagan views. "...it's not a science textbook. " True, but it it is an (accurate) _history_ book.

[@PJRayment]

@Jordan Lane "mans sin is a problem for man. The Bible doesn't describe it as a problem for natural death in the animal kingdom." What was "natural" about animal death in a "very good" world? God cares what happens to the animals too.

[@PJRayment]

@Jordan Lane "the Bible doesn't say that "very good" is used in terms of animal death or no animal death." It says that the completed creation was "very good". If that creation involved animal death (even if no animals had yet died), then it would be including animal death as being part of a "very good" creation. "In fact, when Adam is created alone, it is "not good"." Because creation was not then complete. "But this had nothing to do with whether or not Adam was mortal." No, it's about Eve not yet being created. "It's about function." No, it's about completeness. "Meaning that just because you think natural animal death is bad, doesn't mean that God thinks it's bad." "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care." You haven't shown that animal death is "natural" in the first place, a question I asked in my last comment and which you've not answered.

[@PJRayment]

@Jordan Lane "Physical death is natural..." It is now, but that doesn't mean that it was designed to be that way. "...its not logically possible to have a physical object that cannot be destroyed." What's illogical about it? I think you mean that it's not _practically_ possible. "Imagine if for example, an elephant stepped on a mouse or an ant or snake by accident." Why not imagine a world where that couldn't happen? But another point... is an ant "alive" according to a biblical definition of life? "Non-existence of physical death would lead to many absurdities in daily life. Overpopulation and limited food supply for ever-multiplying animals,..." Actually, many animals self-regulate their population based on the available food supply and/or overcrowding. See for example "The self-regulation of growth problem for natural selection " by Jerry Bergman. "...scorpions would have stingers and claws for no apparent reason." Assuming that they were designed with them. Thorns on some plants were a response to the Fall, not part of the original creation. Other organs could have been "repurposed". "The tree of life would become seemingly of meaningless purpose in a pre fall world." Seemingly, perhaps, but not necessarily. For a discussion on this (and some of the other points you raised), see the article "The problem of evil: pre-Fall animal death?"

[@LivingWellist]

Absolutely fascinating. Gotta drop a sub for this one. Just discovered your channel

[@robertsansone1680]

Very excellent. Thank You. It's about time someone on KZbin even mentions that there is such a person as an Old Earth Creationist who has no problem with Evolution being taught in schools.

[@btm96]

Love the animation, but the content and information even more-so. Great job!!

[@Jaunyus]

Who would like to see inspiring philosophy debate Ken Ham? We need to make this a reality.

[@thewolfes146]

I want him to debate who he wants to debate: Jason Lisle. But I think we all know that's never going to happen.

[@butterbroftw684]

No, Ken ham follows the “Village Idiot” God sculpted with mud pies philosophy. Although I love InspiringPhilosophy, he takes the Atheist Science approach when it comes to time. Pure unadulterated science says it’s all a digital simulation. Ah, so gods a programmer, at least as far as we can comprehend. Times & space are relative. How long did it take the simulation to load? A second? A minute? 6 days? I want to see him debate a Christian Simulation Theorist, lol

[@sjappiyah4071]

16:30 “George McGredy Price “ *No relation to Kent Hovind* LOOOOOL that caught me off guard. Great video as always IP, I personally don’t have a strong position on this but I always appreciate how informative and well put together your videos are. I would especially love to see more “history of Christianity in America” and how doctrines evolved. Even for non Christian groups like JW, and Mormons

[@ronmercer9052]

Great video! Did not know that William Jennings Bryan was only opposed to only humans having evolved at the Scopes Trial, him having no objection to anything else evolving or an old earth seems to get left out of that discussion.

[@EmmonsTV]

This is such an amazing channel

[@Emper0rH0rde]

I grew up a *staunch* young earth creationist. It has been *tremendously* freeing to know that the age of creation is not relevant to my still very strained relationship with my creator.

[@dancingnature]

That feels so odd to me as I never knew creationists even existed until about 1985 . I’ve known that evolution was a fact since 1963 when I was 8 because I’d seen land vertebrate armbones all formed from the same bones. Flash forward 50 years later and those same bones ( and arthropod mouthparts and legs) use the same genes . So evolution has never been in dispute for me ( in fact I’ve got a biology degree) . And I was told that the earth was old in junior high( middle school) which I later confirmed with geological studies . I’ve watched YEC science denial videos with horrified fascination as to how wrong they are and it’s mainly because they leave out important or pertinent details or they change science terminology. Creationists have their own weird versions of biological evolution which just seem bizarre to anyone who actually studies biological evolution!

[@Emper0rH0rde]

@@dancingnature The problem with YECs is their faith seems to hinge on being able to fit all the cosmos, and the infinite God Almighty, into a Bible-sized box.

[@michhanesh5466]

Worthwhiile to ask why is it so strained? Maybe since you believe genesis is not what the bible says, then it becomes easy to disregard any other part of the Word that confronts you. Yes, many people thought different things about creation, but it seems to me Jesus himself believed the writings of moses, although maybe you think this is allegorical too. You see, there is no limit on what you can explain away with that mindset

[@PJRayment]

"What does it matter what the age of the earth is?" First, it matters to the question of, who are you going to believe? The infallible God or fallible men? Second, it matters in having a proper understanding of what we observe in nature. "The real question is if darwinian evolution is true." That is certainly a very important question. But Darwin came up with his idea after (I'm not saying 'solely based on') Lyell's Principles of Geology that promoted a very old earth, based on a motive of wanting to write God out of the picture.

[@PJRayment]

@@dancingnature "That feels so odd to me as I never knew creationists even existed until about 1985 ." That says more about your knowledge than anything else. "I’ve known that evolution was a fact since 1963 ..." How do you "know" something to be a fact when it isn't? "...I’d seen land vertebrate armbones all formed from the same bones." I'm not sure what your observation was, but it wasn't of goo-to-you evolution. "Flash forward 50 years later and those same bones ( and arthropod mouthparts and legs) use the same genes ." And why could that not be due to a common designer? Were you aware that the pentadactyl limb in frogs and humans actually forms in two completely different ways? And yet, according to evolution, they are similar because of common ancestry, but that should mean that they have the same genes and therefore form in the same way. "So evolution has never been in dispute for me ( in fact I’ve got a biology degree) ." I suggest that you actually look at the arguments of the biblical creationary scientists. You might learn that the evidence points more to that view. "And I was told that the earth was old in junior high( middle school) which I later confirmed with geological studies ." You _observed_ them being that old? And yet you're only about 67 years old! No, you were _taught_ that they were that old, and therefore _interpreted_ the evidence in that way. "I’ve watched YEC science denial videos ... Biblical creationists don't deny science. In fact they founded science. "...with horrified fascination as to how wrong they are and it’s mainly because they leave out important or pertinent details or they change science terminology." Evidence/examples please. Because I believe that you are wrong. "Creationists have their own weird versions of biological evolution which just seem bizarre to anyone who actually studies biological evolution!" Many of those creationists were taught evolution. Some taught it themselves, and a few wrote evolutionary textbooks. The accusation that they don't understand evolution is arrant nonsense.

[@hglundahl]

2:34 St. Augustine didn't read the creation days literally. But his non-literal interpretation (on his view actually a literal one, with a very specific view on what day means in the context) certainly did not allow for Earth to be even a year, let alone millions of years older, than Adam's creation. Wonder what you'll take up for "more than 10 000 years" - if it's Origen, he specified "less than" ...

[@bryanboone7363]

Hi IP. I recently heard from an atheist who said that Jesus is a recycling of the Canaanite God "El Shaddai". Perhaps it's time for another debunking video.

[@ZandarKoad]

You mean he'll debunk Jesus and lift up El Shaddai as the one true God? Should be interesting.

[@bryanboone7363]

@@ZandarKoad Durrrrr Hurrrrrr.... So edgy.

[@PJRayment]

This video has numerous problems, some of which others have pointed out. * *Jeff Linahan* correctly points out that Mook does not contradict himself. * *The Wolfes* correctly points out that the video misrepresents the ante-Nicene Christians. * *Codey Sorenson* makes the same point with regard to Irenaeus and Origen. * *Hawking Hutson,* *Adam Taylor,* *Jan Bas De Groot,* *Simple Simon* (supported by *creationist creationist* ), and others make the same or similar point regarding Irenaeus. Michael responds to Jan and Simple Simon inadequately. * *fireriderdragon* points out that explaining the origin of something to show it as true or false is to commit the genetic fallacy. That's the tactic of the main argument of this video. * *TruthisBeautiful* points out that a lot is left out, which would support that the creationist view is biblical. Michael's response was to "elephant hurl" his entire video series, which is not a valid response. * *ISAAC GRAHAM* challenges Numbers' claims regarding Whitcomb and Morris. Michael relies on the apostate* Numbers in his response, but GRAHAM rebuts him well. (* If IP can impugn creationists with Price, surely I can impugn IP by correctly pointing out that Numbers is an apostate.) * *Jonathan Marin* points out that, contrary to the claim that "A strict six-day creation was never the dominant view and was the official position of no church in Europe or America (until the late twentieth century)", the Westminster Confession of Faith (which dates from 1646) holds to a six-day creation. The video bizarrely goes to the anti-creationist organisation NCSE for a definition of young-earth creationism, revealing the bias of the author of the video. But that organisation is not the only anti-creationist cited. They also use Michael Roberts, innocuously introduced merely as a "historian". It claims that "Bishop Ussher's [he was an archbishop] date[?] of creation had little influence on the church and was mostly ignored." Craig and Jones in _A Geological Miscellany_ Princeton University Press in 1982, said that "…it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself." I expect that it actually had quite a big influence. The video claims that Morris and Whitcomb put forward the idea of a vapour canopy (true) "which creationists still use today". This is largely false; none of ICR (founded by Morris), CMI, nor AiG use the idea today. The video says that "I'm not saying that there were no young-earth creationists before the Seventh Day Adventists. As we learned earlier, in centuries past, many believed the earth was relatively young". This is illustrated with pictures of Newton, Ussher, and Kepler, who date from around the 17th century. However, this selective reporting ignores the 19th century scriptural geologists.

[@PJRayment]

I forgot to add that William Lane Craig, not a biblical creationist by any stretch of the imagination, has recently investigated the history of it and (citing a review of his book) "he found something he did not like, and he was shaken to his core. ... He admits right out of the gate that young earth creationism is the “traditional” view and all “revisionist”, that is old-earth, interpretations of Genesis are quite recent in history".

[@misterauctor7353]

Cope, darling.

[@TacosnZorro]

Yeah as a Catholic I had never even heard of this until some atheist was like "HA HA YOU BELIEVE THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD". I was like 🤨😬

[@robk2167]

So as a Roman Catholic you believe an ape is your ancestor?

[@europason2293]

It’s not an “ape” is our ancestor; human beings are apes, and we share common ancestry with modern primates. Saying we descended from apes is analogous to saying you descended from your cousin. It’s a total misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory states.

[@robk2167]

@@europason2293 what? Did you just say "humans are apes"? Well so clearly we have nothing to talk here about and clearly you aren't a Christian bur "evolutionist". We are no cousins to apes either. Humans are not animals although very often they behave as animals or ever worse. Evolution never happened as a "macro evolution" as Darwin promoted and "micro evolution" isn't really an evolution but group or processes within one kind of species.

[@thstroyur]

That was too pretty much my own position as a cradle Catholic; then, I left the Faith - and as I made steps to come back, I started to take YEC more seriously. All the mockery and 'denialism' and so on aside, it is far more reasonable to consider the Earth being a few thousand years than the mainstream culture makes it to be...

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

Same these protestants really had to embarrass the Christian name smh

[@p.polisciuc]

Great work! Can I dub this video in russian? If you give me your permission.

[@JonathanGrandt]

It’s pretty absurd to think that “day” means something other than “day” as expressed in Genesis. To suppose that day means something else is to completely and intentionally miss the point being made by using the six day story. Just because a particular “movement” is new doesn’t mean that the understanding of what the scriptures clearly say is new. A particular movement takes off because of heresy which started to take hold.

[@MutsPub]

When you were an infant you drank milk. You should be eating solid food! You are espousing YEC agenda biased eisegesis. Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. is a world renowned Biblical Hebrew expert that disagrees with you based solely on the Biblical text of Genesis 1. For a better and more detailed expert explanation, See KZbin Video - "Genesis and Creation days Hugh - Ross and Walter Kaiser" Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr. PhD: - President of the Evangelical Theological Society. - Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament. - Contributor to Exodus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary). - Author of some 30+ Biblical Commentaries. - Marquis who’s who top educators.

[@djsarg7451]

The Bible does not agee with you. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@djsarg7451]

Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@janbasdegroot2186]

I'm not a young earth creationist, but I don't think you're representing the point of view of Irenaeus fairly. He seems to think the end time is after 6 thousands years, which necessarily implies he believes the earth is younger than 6000 years old. He says the earth WILL come to an end after 6000 years, so it has not happened yet. Clement of Alexandria and especially Origin have pretty heterodox believes.

[@michaeldaniel2022]

4:36 "however the important point to take away from this is saint irenaeus didn't think one had to interpret the days of genesis 1 as literal 24-hours days"

[@retrictumrectus1010]

I think you did not get the point. The point IP is making is that Irenaeus believes that 1 day is 1000 years. The modern YEC believes that 1 day is literal 24 hours. He is debunking the claim of Answers in Genesis that all guys prior to 1600 believes that 1 day in the Genesis narrative means 24 hours.

[@janbasdegroot2186]

@@michaeldaniel2022 there is simply nothing in his texts suggesting he thought such a thing. And IP plainly said Irenaeus believed the earth to be 12000 years old.

[@janbasdegroot2186]

@@retrictumrectus1010 And bringing this text Irenaeus into this discussion is therefore pointless, since he doesn't give his interpretation of Genesis here. He is giving his interpretation of the 'a day is a thousand years' texts. If anything, the text of Irenaeus would imply he holds the YEC reading, because he seems to know for sure when creation happened.

[@joshg1420]

Clement of Alexandria is by no means heterodox... and as far as Origin goes: something called originism (not actually origin's views) was anathematized by a later, fraudulent alteration of the proceedings of the 5th council (most like by the murderous thug, emperor Justinian). Origin's views continued to be well represented by the Alexandrian school of catechesis and most certainly by the Cappadocian fathers.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

It's very simple, Genesis is a relaying of the deeper moral truths of traditional Jewish oral mythological handed down through poetical language to convey a reverential ethic toward our Creator's intents and untrustments for our good stewardship to cultivate and sustain our selves, families, lands and communities - rather than concerned in factoids to dissect the miopic minutia of historical (pre)science.

[@mannytps9986]

Verbose

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

@@mannytps9986 I get these sort of replies often. And although I don't know what the specific intention behind your pithy retort is vying to imply, I will use precedent to infer your comment is meant as a criticism. Assuming that is the case, then all I can say is that language is supposed to exist so we can commincate ideas through utilizing what each term breaks down as by definition rather than spend arbitrary time on tangeants just to explain what each concept represented in those individual words means to people who didn't even bother to have their vocabulary mature in sophistication along with their age. If civilzation weren't corroding, I shouldn't have to perpetually hold an adults' hand through proper grammar just to efficiently express an idea. But perhaps you were merely admiring that some people still honor the English language as serving a deeper sentient purpose nobler than to just affirm the primal grunt.

[@djsarg7451]

Not 100% true as this does not agree with the Bible. Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Job 12:7-10 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

@@djsarg7451 Sounds like you just agreed with me. And the Bible didn't demand otherwise. The cadenced composition of creation's corraled command is poetic prose to position path and purpose - not a literally linear ledger to logically litigate labor logistics as lectured in locked line of latch or lose liability layout, leaving no let latitude for literary language license to light by lyricism. I'm into styled writing devices in case you hadn't noticed.

[@djsarg7451]

No. Not what the Bible teaches. Romans 1:20" For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Psalm 19 1-4: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Job 12:7-10 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is: Sunrise to sunset Sunset to next sunset Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ). We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast. Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains". Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” The events of day 6 can not have happened in 24 hours.

[@hglundahl]

0:31 _"interpreted Genesis figuratively or allegorically"_ Were you asleep in the Theology class explaining Quadriga of Cassian? As about Genesis events, they interpreted the text literally. They did however _also_ interpret it figuratively or allegorically about Jesus Christ, like Isaac carrying the firewood is _ultimately_ about Jesus carrying the cross.