The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

This is the history that young earth creationists do not want you to know about. The truth of what Christianity has believed about the age of the earth and creation has long been forgotten by a recent rise of young earth creationism. In reality, there is a lot of evidence that prior to the 1960s most Christians believed the earth was much older than 6000 years.
A special thanks to historian Ronald Numbers and Philsopher philosopher Joshua Moritz for reviewing this video.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
National Science Foundation - ncse.ngo/young...
Dr. James R. Mook - The Early Church on Creation
answersingenes...
Lita Sanders - How does the Bible teach 6,000 years?
creation.com/6...
Dr. John D. Morris - How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?
www.icr.org/ar...
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, book 5
Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho
Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, book 6
Philo of Alexandria - The Creation of the World
St. Athanasius Four Discourses Against the Arians, book 2
Origen - Against Celsus, book 6; On First Principles, book 4
St. Augustine - The
Literal Meaning, book 1, 4, 5
St. Basil - Hexaemeron, Homily
St. Ambrose - Hexaemeron
St. John Damascene, - De Fide Orthodoxa
William of Conches - The Dragmaticon Philosophia
A. C. Sparavigna - "Robert Grosseteste's Thought on Light and Form of the World." International Journal of Sciences
Vol.3, April 2014 (4)
L. Piccardi & W. B. Masse - Myth and Geology
Reijer Hooykass - Religion and the Rise of Science
B. Ferngren - Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction
Ronald Numbers - Darwinism Comes to America
Ronald Numbers - The Creationists (Expanded Edition)
D. N Livingstone - Darwin's Forgotten Defenders
J. R. Moore - The Post-Darwinian Controversies
B. Zon & B. Lightman - Evolution and Victorian Culture.
Michael Ruse, ‎Robert J. Richards - The Cambridge Companion to the 'Origin of Species
B. B. Warfield, B.B - Evolution, Scripture, and Science: Selected Writings
The 1957 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine:
www.sdanet.org/...
George McCready Price - Back to the Bible, 3rd Ed.
George McCready Price - Selected Works of George McCready Price
George McCready Price - Geology and the Recapitulation Theory: A study in Circular
Reasoning
creationconcep...
George McCready Price - The Phantom of Organic Evolution
George McCready Price - "The White and the Brown," from Price Papers
Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. (June 1964), "Reply to Reviews," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 16, 59-61
Ronald Numbers - The Maritimes Birth of Creation Science. Lecture:
• Ronald Numbers - The M...
#Genesis #Darwin #Science

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@MrFrogmon]

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

[@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.

[@khayonxumalo5993]

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

[@hismajesty6272]

I believe in an old earth, which was created by God. I believe that evolution is only possible with the guidance of God, and I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[@danielmartinsson899]

"I believe that evolution is only possible with the guidance of God" Why?

[@djsarg7451]

Amen !

[@brentreid7408]

I believe the Bible tells us all creation was in 6 days. Creation any other way is not in the Bible.

[@matthilsenbeck5596]

Adam died a spiritual death. That is when God cursed the earth. It was so he could come back to God and not live in sin forever.

[@ScottTheProtBlankenship]

Coming from a secular background, I leaned OEC when I first became a Christian. It wasn't until I came across presuppositional apologetics, understood how our worldview shapes how we interpret evidence, and realized that the Bible is authoritative over all things, including my philosophical framework, that I finally became a YEC. Moreover, I found that one of the key reasons I previously held and others currently hold to the OEC position is not because of the text, but ultimately stems from the fear of man (e.g. if I was a YEC then the cool kids might mistaken me for a Fundy!)

[@scwienert]

Great point. We use the Bible to interpret our world, not our world to interpret the Bible.

[@joshg1420]

You clearly misunderstood presupositional arguments. What you describe is pretty much the opposite of the valid form of coherence based epistemological justification of presupositions. You don't "presuppose" conclusions and then filter info in light of the conclusions. You examine a set of parsimonious propositions through formal logic (usually disjunctive normal form) to determine whether the consequent is a complete and coherent system. YEC fails on this front by the way. "Presupositional arguments" != "your worldview determines what's true." This second proposition of the inequality is something more akin to solipsism or some kind of epistemological nihilism.

[@ZandarKoad]

We see others here who admit to having similar experiences: peer pressure to believe in OEC or macro-evolution.

[@PJRayment]

@@jasondubya2775 "The Bible being authoritative doesn’t necessarily equate to YEC belief." So-called YECs actually use the term _biblical creationist_ precisely because their goal is not to promote a 'young' earth, but to follow what the Bible says. And the Bible _clearly_ teaches that the world is young. So unless it's not authoritative, then yes, it does equate to 'YEC' belief.

[@PJRayment]

@@joshg1420 "You don't "presuppose" conclusions and then filter info in light of the conclusions." And yet that is precisely what mainstream scientists do when it comes to origins. _Methodological naturalism_ says that their explanations for things (e.g. the origin of the earth) _must_ be natural ones, even if the evidence points the other way.

[@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 😭😭😭

[@Petrosis]

The OEC don't take the biblical text seriously and are not looking at the obvious - Adam was created in one day, but he wasn't a one day old baby. The trees around him were also no seeds in the ground - they appeared as fully developed plants. The soil, the rivers and everything around didn't appear as plain rocks on a barren planet. Everything was historically new, but appeared biologically and geologically old. Just think about it. That is not an evidence for billions of years. It is just a belief in something which was created by men who explained everything naturalistically as any humanists will do. It is another type of religion with a deity called: homo sapiens. Wink!

[@speciesspeciate6429]

It is not hyperbolic to claim that Young Earth Creation has been disproved a thousand times over. It is a demonstrable fact that the Earth is billions of years old.

[@PJRayment]

No, it is not demonstrable. What is demonstrable is that the view is based on naturalism, i.e. an _a priori_ rejection of the biblical account. Claiming that it disproves a young earth is therefore a circular argument. Further, there is plenty of evidence that the earth is not that old.

[@shidfard]

It isn't demonstratable. You build your concept of time off of plenty of assumptions.

[@__.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

[@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.

[@Jlde2024]

I was expecting Bible verses (Got none) ... I got a bunch of man's beliefs and theories (Loads of it) ... 'Inspiring' Philosophies of this world

[@Breadnamreal]

He goes over that on another vid

[@Jlde2024]

Thanks I'll look for it.

[@Breadnamreal]

@@Jlde2024 if u have a hard time finding it search "Christianity vs Evolution"

[@XavierPutnam]

(3/4) Michael: In addition to your seeming misinterpretation of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, I am disappointed that you missed or chose to omit Christian leaders who more clearly support a young earth, like Theophilus of Antioch (~120-183 AD). Since you do not include him, I will do so here: “And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. *All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years,* and the odd months and days.” (Theophilus, Theophilus to Autolycus III, Chapter 28) Whether or not Theophilus is correct in saying that 5698 years have elapsed, it is clear that he is not an “old-earth” creationist. He would be considered a “young-earth” creationist. *Hippolytus of Rome* (~170-235 AD) is another “young earth” writer that you do not include in your video: 4. But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. *For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500;* and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." *Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.* And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet come." 5. In mentioning the "other," moreover, he specifies the seventh, in which there is rest. But some one may be ready to say, How will you prove to me that the Saviour was born in the year 5500? Learn that easily, O man; for the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled. For He says to him, "And thou shalt make the ark of imperishable wood, and shalt overlay it with pure gold within and without; and thou shalt make the length of it two cubits and a half, and the breadth thereof one cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half the height;" which measures, when summed up together, make five cubits and a half, so that the 5500 years might be signified thereby. 6. At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the "ark overlaid with pure gold," with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the "ark" made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: "Now it was the sixth hour," he says, intimating by that, one-half of the day. But a day with the Lord is 1000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of the law still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life. (Hippolytus, Fragments-Hexaemeron, On Daniel 2.4, Roberts-Donaldson Translation) *Julius Africanus* (~160-240 AD) is yet another “young-earther” you do not include: “But I am amazed that the Jews deny that the Lord has yet come, and that the followers of Marcion refuse to admit that His coming was predicted in the prophecies when the Scriptures display the matter so openly to our view. *And after something else: The period, then, to the advent of the Lord from Adam and the creation is 5531 years,* from which epoch to the 250th Olympiad there are 192 years, as has been shown above.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography 18:4, in Georgius Syncellus, Chron., p. 322 or 256) It is incredibly disappointing that you do not make your audience aware of these three writers. I think a better approach in this video would be to include them, so that people can see how fairly widespread and common YEC is in the first few centuries after Messiah’s resurrection.

[@ocboi3655]

okay, you ANIMATED a 25 minute video. that takes a WHILE

[@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?

[@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.

[@gianpopo2007]

The illustrations are phenomenal and the content is even better!

[@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

[@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.

[@btm96]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@KingdomInContext]

Bro..... when are you going to just believe the plainly written words of Scripture. While I don't agree with your interpretation of Iraneaus' quote, I find it highly hypocritical that you would try to use his words on that matter but ignore the rest of his words that describe seven literal layers of firmament enclosing the creation. No evolutionary heliocentric model. There's a FIRMAMENT, my brother. Your Creator spoke clearly on the matter. A plain reading of Genesis 1 using the definitions of the words provided informs you what was made and how it was made. That same author of Genesis gives you genealogical records from Adam that doesn't allow for your figurative interpretation. Lots of early church fathers had opinions and ideas contrary to Scripture. Why do you trust so heavily in men's interpretations instead of what is plainly written?

[@jasonspencer8558]

What if the "plainly written words of Scripture" aren't as plain as you assume?

[@djsarg7451]

Biblical Hebrew has no word for universe, in the Bible “heaven and the earth” is always used to talk about the complete universe. “Firmament” is used in the King James Version a old (1,500) translation? Modern translations do not use this: Genesis 1:7 “And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.” This is talking about what we now call the water cycle. The use of the world “firmament” in Genesis 1:8 is a carryover from the Latin firmamentum of the Vulgate. Genesis was written in Hebrew, the original Hebrew word is raqiya. This should be translated “expanse, sky, space, horizon”. Some translated this a vault. Genesis was written in Hebrew, which as limited vocabulary. 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.

[@Ozzyman200]

You never get scientists telling us evolution can't happen. Still no creationist can find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.

[@PJRayment]

"You never get scientists telling us evolution can't happen." Actually, I know of many. Including former evolutionists. "Still no creationist can find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix." Evidence for that claim please. Because I know of many.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@PJRayment "Actually, I know of many. Including former evolutionists." Oh, ok, can you tell us who they are and provide evidence they said evolution can't happen please? "Evidence for that claim please. Because I know of many." I've been posting this challenge for many years, and still no one has managed it. I'm familiar with the work of a lot of creationists, and still no one can. Please demonstrate one of them that you know. Evidence for your claim please.

[@PJRayment]

@@Ozzyman200 "Oh, ok, can you tell us who they are and provide evidence they said evolution can't happen please?" No, I can't give you a complete list, but I can mention a few: * Don Batten * David Catchpoole. * Robert Carter * Gary Parker As for evidence, they have all written many papers and/or article about the problems with evolution, which you can find on websites such as CMI's. "I've been posting this challenge for many years, and still no one has managed it." So your evidence is a lack of evidence. And given your next comment, I find that hard to believe. "I'm familiar with the work of a lot of creationists, and still no one can." So none of those creation scientists say that evolution can't happen? You've got to be joking. Seriously, that is simply outright denial. If they weren't saying evolution can't happen, why do they claim to be creationists?

[@Ozzyman200]

I can see there are 3 replies to my post, but I only see 2. Sorry if you replied to me, but I can't read it.

[@iraqiimmigrant2908]

There’s a number of us that don’t believe in Darwinian evolution. No experimental evidence of increasing complexity. Epigenetics, complexity of the cell, the chemicals involved in basic metabolism, cellular reproduction, etc. During Darwin’s time the microscope could barely make out much of what was in a cell, X-ray crystallography was not yet discovered. A philosophical view based more on rationalism.

[@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

[@DonaldPotter_ReadingZone]

I was able to read Whitcomb's thesis at the Grace Theological Seminary Library in Warsaw, Indiana many years ago. I heard Morris speak at the Cincinnati Bible Seminary when I was a student there. His ability to quote Scripture was amazing.

[@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.

[@thehomiedan6378]

Editing is fantastic!!! Great work Mike👍🏾

[@12pentaborane]

Dude this is awesome and explains so much. It's hilarious hearing quotes from 1860s Christians clowning on YECs.

[@Mario.1997]

The evolution to current humans began with primate ancestors 6 million years ago, and that's consistent with 6,000 years & 6 days.

[@Orthosaur7532]

All Is connected.

[@djsarg7451]

He made it clear creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists. Bible and Science would put Adam and Eve at from 120,000 BC to 60,000 BC. With the Flood about 50,000. Before Adam and Eve were Bi-Pedal Primate and apes both animals (not Spirit begins). 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]

Not is is not. Mankind, Adam and Eve appear and there is not missing link to apes. Bi-Pedal primates are animals. Mankind appear about 100,000 BC. Neanderthals are bi-pedal primate animals. Neanderthals are too different from Humans. Neanderthals lived at the same time as Humans. Neanderthals had no tear ducts, very large sinuses, large barrel shaped chest, short arms, heavy bones, different braincase, different ear bones, and more. Neanderthals technology did not change over there whole time span. There is no “missing link” to humans from bipedal primates. The large brain evolution hypothesis has been falsified after the discovery of early hominin with larger brains than later hominin fossils. 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.

[@tahitisecrets]

“God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭

[@jasonspencer8558]

Yes, poetic flourish.

[@tahitisecrets]

@@jasonspencer8558 is sin poetic? Is the creation then just poetic?

[@PJRayment]

@@jasonspencer8558 "Yes, poetic flourish." The text does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry, and analysis of the text shows that it's narrative.

[@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? Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.

[@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. The Genesis says "let there be light", the word create is NOT in the text. Job tells us what is "let there be light". Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness. The cloud make it dark, Genesis 1:2 tells you the frame of reference above the waters on Earth. So the two tell use the cloud went from dark to lighter. The clear sky does not come till " moon to mark the seasons" now with have blue sky 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. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@eddielopez2373]

Scripture: “God is not the author of confusion.” Theologian: zero consensus on interpreting page 1 of the Bible. Well, until science forced their hand (except those who preferred just guessing over science).

[@AmachiEligwe]

you don't need a single atomically precise interpretation of something.

[@jasonsaxon2309]

Very well done! That took some work to put all that together and I’m glad people like you are helping educate us. I didn’t even know the history of this movement. Thank you!

[@IlendlirKirei]

honestly earth was 6000 years old is the only thing that make genesis make sense

[@WyldWes]

The 6k year old Earth idea seems to be pulled out of thin air. I’ve never seen it in the Bible. However, the theory of evolution is a huge leap on what happens with genetics. Personally, I don’t know nor really care how old the Earth is yet I do find the theory of evolution to be unrealistic and even dangerous since it’s steeped with racism. My number one argument against evolution is that if it takes so long for a species to radically change and it has not been observed, then we cannot know that evolution has happened to any one species. There’s no historical documents explaining the evolution of any animal or even humans so we can’t assume that anything has evolved at all.

[@richardsaddress580]

Well done. Nice motion graphics and production value too

[@Zomfoo]

You don’t address the real difficulty in harmonizing Genesis with a very old earth.

[@michaeldaniel2022]

kzbin.info/aero/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you for posting that, Michael

[@djsarg7451]

Here is why? 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. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@leightonholley4342]

IP just shot his credibility in the face for me. Seventh day adventists do not say Ellen White’s writings are on par with scripture. Her writings are subordinate to and point to scripture. She insisted people study the Bible for themselves. If you want to challenge what I’m saying try reading Steps to Christ. It is a short and simple book that she wrote and in it, page after page, paragraph after paragraph, principle after principle, it points to scripture as the sole authority and Jesus as the only way to salvation.

[@MarkSanso]

Yep, definitely misrepresented SDA

[@djsarg7451]

You are mixing up today's Seventh day adventists with past Seventh day adventists. The video is about past Seventh day adventists. Seventh day adventists has changed for the good and is now part of the Christ Church and a blessing.

[@djsarg7451]

@@MarkSanso No. You are mixing up today's Seventh day adventists with past Seventh day adventists. The video is about past Seventh day adventists. Seventh day adventists has changed for the good and is now part of the Christ Church and a blessing.

[@leightonholley4342]

@@djsarg7451 Happy Sabbath! Changed how? Do we no longer use the Bible as Cannon? Because I can assure you that we do, at least some of us do. As with all denominations, there are people who would rather change and conform to the world, making the Bible subordinate to the popular theories of man. In the early SDA, the church leadership wished to control who EW spoke to and what she said, that is why they insisted she leave America for Australia. She was not supposed to go anymore than Israel was supposed to have a human king, but it was permitted to happen because God allows humans too have free will. Like in the older time, proponents and opponents from nowadays still wish to control what she says and who she says it too. If people actually read what Ellen White said, instead of what people say she said, they would find her constantly directing our thoughts to the Bible, and placing the Bible above everything she wrote, and she is about as early SDA as you can get. If you talk to Seventh Day Adventists about the church's relationship with Ellen White, then you will find a bitter sweet history. There are people who loved her, there are people who have hated her, and there are people have shoved her down the throat of others. Just like how some Christians shove the Bible down the throats of others. Such are the reactions of the world to anyone who teaches the world about the Law of God. I say this to help you know that I have experienced SDA history, which, like all history, is nuanced. The things I talk about, I know personally. If you want to prove me I am mixing up past SDA's with current SDA's, you will have to provide primary references from both, and not just make claims about what is going on inside my head.

[@scottpayne7575]

I wouldn’t be opposed to a micro evolution idea. The Earths rocks are ancient but the organisms on it were created relatively recently…Your views on possible macro evolution have me discussing with myself the value of your words which I have enjoyed for years…

[@michaeldaniel2022]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5eYoKmJpbhlfbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqjRlqWCbbJkpqc kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2WceGeqns2Labs kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYXRoml_aNuImLc

[@ZandarKoad]

Likely the reason you believe rocks are ancient, is because of various radiometric dating techniques. All of which have fatal assumptive flaws which remain largely unexamined by those who depend on the data generated for their livelihoods.

[@ReasonedAnswers]

_" have me discussing with myself the value of your words"_ Even if IP is wrong on this one issue, that would have no bearing on the value of his other teachings.

[@jammycakes]

@@ZandarKoad Radiometric dating is nowhere near as fatally flawed as young earth literature makes it out to be. YECs greatly exaggerate the extent and significance of flaws, portraying discrepancies of just a few percent in a minority of results as if they demonstrated that all other results were consistently out by factors of up to a million. Measurement does not work like that. As for the people who rely on radiometric dating for their livelihoods -- they do so because they are using the results to do things like finding oil. Their livelihoods depend on the results being accurate, not ideologically convenient.

[@jasonspencer8558]

Micro and macro evolution aren't real terms outside of YEC circles.

[@Toto-um8sp]

I follow you and I'm a membre of French adventist church. I find your video very interresting like all your video.

[@mommar4858]

Does it matter if the earth is billions of years old or 6000 years old? Not unless you insist on having "proof" that matches your faith, accept the mystery before us.

[@ThomasKundera]

It's a fact Earth is about 4.5Gyo, not just 6000.

[@mommar4858]

@@ThomasKundera Yep

[@elinchaverde]

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. -->And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[@jasonspencer8558]

Only if you are assuming this is a historical story in the first place.

[@cosmingcosma]

What evidence is there for evolution?

[@peterleadley]

Please re direct your question to the Smithsonian Institute

[@pranjot]

@@peterleadley The Smithsonian admits it has no proof of evolution

[@peterleadley]

@@pranjot ​ @pranjot Really? Well, I could just as easily say NASA admits the Moon is made from cheese, but it wouldn't be true, would it? What is your idea of proof? I'd be most interested to see a Smithsonian denial of evolution in any form. Where can I find it? I'd hate you to be shown as trying to mislead me, as I love my fellow man. Please give me a link to this information.

[@peterleadley]

@@pranjot I think you're telling me porky pies, me old china. You haven't got back to me with the source of your statement, so I assume it doesn't exist right? Go on, slap me down and show me you're right.

[@peterleadley]

Still no response? No, there won't be will there, because you are lying. Just spouting BS to try and refute something you don't like. Trump, Putin, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind all do it. Worst kind of humanity.

[@loreman7267]

I remember reading Carl Sagan in high school (maybe younger?) Where he said that Christians' conception of the universe was uninspiring, because it paints a picture of a universe 'only 5000 yrs old'. My first thought was, 'I don't believe that!' If was the beginning of my scepticism of atheism.

[@IIrandhandleII]

Lol.... you are skeptical of science but not man made holy books...sheeesh

[@loreman7267]

@@IIrandhandleII I think your comprehension skills are lacking. Science doesn't teach that the Bible teaches anything. I'm extremely sceptical of people whose arguments are straw men.

[@IIrandhandleII]

@@Ereh729 it is inherently religiously agnostic. It does not say anything nor care about supernatural man made concepts.

[@IIrandhandleII]

@@Ereh729 you're correct science doesn't care about what religion you follow, not sure where you disagree here...

[@IIrandhandleII]

@@Ereh729 ahhh I see where you went wrong as many religious people usually do they associate science with atheism which is a false equivocation. Science does not try to answer any queries of gods. It is agnostic to religion.

[@calebevans3690]

Can you please do a video like this about Dispensationalism and specifically Dispensational pre- millennialism

[@BasiliscBaz]

I start reading Terry pretched's discworld and i love joke on creationism, "creator hide fake fossils to make archeologist wonder and argue"

[@scottleach5373]

How do the opinions of the “church fathers” mean anything to this discussion? How would their opinions weigh any greater or lesser than the author of this video? The ONLY thing that matters is “what does the Bible say?” All other argument is specious.

[@DManCAWMaster]

1. Because they are closer to the original authors than we are. 2. Not "opinions". Conclusions. Learn the difference. 3. The Bible says nothing without an interpreter there to read it.

[@scottleach5373]

@@DManCAWMaster There were also heretics in Paul’s day, so “closer” still doesn’t apply. The presented “conclusions” are based on opinions - however pious or learned. What the Bible says is all that matters.

[@jasonspencer8558]

Most of your theology comes from their work.

[@scottleach5373]

@@jasonspencer8558 My point is the Scriptures are supreme over men’s opinions.

[@djsarg7451]

This was history class, a good one. That is why. 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. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@Potocalter]

I assume, since the earth is "without form" it isnt the physical earth, since physical objects always have a form, so it might have talked about an infinite universe (that expands into itself), as that is the only way something doesnt have a shape or form.

[@lesliewilliam3777]

You didn't mention, inter alios: 1. Lactantius (AD 240-320) wrote: ‘… the philosophers, since they were ignorant of the origin of all things … said that many thousands of ages had passed since this beautiful arrangement of the world was completed’; and in the same passage ‘… let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed’. 2. Basil: "And there was evening and there was morning: one day.’ And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say ‘one day the first day’? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says ‘one day’, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day-we mean of a day and of a night." 3. Theophilus: “All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days … . For if even a chronological error has been committed by us, of, e.g., 50 or 100, or even 200 years, yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books.” 4. Augustine: “But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive … what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it.” Pal, continue on your disingenuous and tendentious path and fool the foolworthy!

[@Logos_Unveiled]

🙏

[@RealBakedTahu]

Man, I really struggle to fit in with my fellow christians. I love science and scifi, and so much of that is tied to prehistory and evolution.

[@ThomasKundera]

Most Christians agree about prehistory and evolution.

[@AmachiEligwe]

kind of weird how tolkien and lewis were writing sci fi in the 1900s and in the 2000s it is controversial for some christians.

[@RealBakedTahu]

@AmachiEligwe Tolkien probably had the most based take on alien intelligence.

[@AmachiEligwe]

@@RealBakedTahu elaborate, pls.

[@RealBakedTahu]

@AmachiEligwe He speculated that if the universe was, in fact, created by an intelligent being, then the emergence of intelligence through natural processes would not only be possible but expected.

[@waxworse]

Are YEC's being divisive?

[@djsarg7451]

Yes. All YEC leaders teach if you are not with us (YEC), you are an atheist evolutionist. Falsely claiming there are only two world views YEC and atheist evolutionist. (Thus Old Earth creationism is not even real). YEC call Christans atheist evolutionist all the time.

[@sparkyy0007]

Spoiler alert... Genesis

[@adam_kadmon1585]

But the iterpretation of genesis shouldn't be literal

[@cavitenoblackpill9720]

@@adam_kadmon1585 yep your right. Even st. Agustine said that you shouldn't interpret it as literal

[@shooterdownunder]

@@cavitenoblackpill9720 the problem is that st Augustine was interpreting genesis through the Lens of his day which was based on the Aristotle model

[@sparkyy0007]

@@adam_kadmon1585 You might want to tell all the Israelites over the last 4000 years, they interpreted their own writings wrong, as well as all Christians for the last 2000 years as well as all Hasidic Jews today... and Jesus as well who said he made them male and female in the beginning....We have finally figured out the true interpretation of Genesis for them, and it matches up with secular science. "Hath God really said he made creation in only six days" Good grief, how many times before we learn...

[@cerealbowl7038]

As interpreted by Ellen G. White.

[@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

[@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 :)

[@ParaousiaComingnow]

Yeah, what a stupid conclusion on the part of the content creator. These people either don't understand philosophical concepts or downright lie.

[@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

[@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'

[@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.

[@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?

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@-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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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

[@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

[@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. :)

[@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?

[@GutsickGibbon]

"No relation to Kent Hovind" Beautiful!

[@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.

[@brandonluker3660]

Technically I'm not a young-earth creationist, since I believe the earth is 10,001 years old. JK

[@djsarg7451]

LOL: 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.

[@austinapologetics2023]

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

[@terminusest5902]

Evolution is such a great idea it was probably developed by god himself.

[@litoaykiu]

Evolution contradicts itself and has never been proven. Your god also contradicts itself, so it wouldn't surprise me that you adhere to contradictory views.

[@tysonwastaken]

​@@litoaykiunever been proven 💀💀💀 the fossil record, genetics, morpology, shared traits. the christian god is a he by the way

[@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.

[@Milagrosvenezuela874]

I'm a Seventh Day Adventist and a fan of your channel. Too bad you misinterpreted a few SDA teachings. 1) No, we do not believe that Sunday worshippers have the mark of the beast. We believe that, in the future, Sunday will be used as tool to take importance from the Sabbath day. And people will know openly that sabbath is on saturday, but the people who for convenience reject this are the ones who will get the mark of the beast. 2) No, we do not believe that Ellen White's writings are on the same level of that of the Bible. This is completely untrue. Not even Ellen White said that, she actually called herself as a minor light and the Bible as a Major light. Also, we don't hold Ellen White to be infallible. She didn't even saw herself as infallible. "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible." Selected Messages, book 1, p. 37.

[@JosueWithContext]

This always tends to happen when a Christian youtuber tries to interpret SDAs teachings and doctrines. They mostly misinterpret or try to make things match their narrative. I also like IP on a number of topics mostly historical in nature. However by clearly misinterpreting our teachings and beliefs I find it hard now to take this video seriously… and since this is the case with this video now I’m wondering if I’m being misguided by some of his other videos.

[@raheemcamal998]

@@JosueWithContext yep am at your stage aswell

[@EpaphroditusBeltishazzar]

I'm not a SDA. My kids attend a SDA school in the Philippines and I absolutely LOVE the Bible based education they're getting! It's absolutely fantastic.

[@djsarg7451]

You are quoting the current teaching of SDA. The video is talking about past SDA teaching. Ellen White at the time she was a leader and for many years later held the teaching shown here. I am very glad that SDA teaching are more Biblical now than in the past. Most hold that SDA is now a blessing in Christ Church. But do not white wash the past. 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]

Please do not mix up SDA of today with SDA of the past (this video) SDA has changed a lot and is now part of the Christian Christ, Christ Church and a blessing.

[@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".

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@TheLords-Will]

Unsubscribed, you are using people to justify your gross misinterpretation of the Bible. Let the Bible speak for itself

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I never interpreted the Bible in this video, I just surveyed what others thought, but you do you...

[@TheLords-Will]

@@InspiringPhilosophy you are extremely biased and now I see why the name philosophy is included in your channels name. You now to the philosophy of this world rather than depend on the truth of scripture. I'll be doing a video exposing your worldly view. Today

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@TheLords-Will LOL 😆

[@djsarg7451]

No, this was history class and a good one, not what you claim. 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. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@truthovertea]

Interesting you don’t analyze any of the rabbinical scholars or ancient Jewish historians and scholars. The majority hold to Genesis being a literal interpretation with a 6 day creation. Look at a Jewish calendar…Josephus even held to a 6 day creation

[@marculatour6229]

After reaching spiritual maturity, creationists automatically become evolutionists. It's amazing what funny conclusions a creationist's brain can come to. Did you know that for them we live on a flat earth? It takes many millions of years for a creationist's brain to reach the capacity of an evolutionist's brain. At the moment they are stuck in their evolution. Creationists are stuck in their evolution. Only in a few million years of evolution they will, maybe, have reached the brain capacity of evolutionists and thus automatically become evolutionists. In effect, they are the ape-like ancestors from which evolutionists descended. In a few million years there will be practically only evolutionists after reaching spiritual maturity.

[@timetravlin4450]

@@marculatour6229straw man. Not every yec believes in a flat earth. I love how you completely miss the initial comments point and go on a tangent about generalizing yec as if we can’t think for ourselves. I lean more yec but I wasn’t always a yec. I was a agnostic evolutionist

[@marculatour6229]

@@timetravlin4450 14 billion years ago we where all a very little dot of energy. Hidden in the primordial matter. Stone Age people were masters at making stone axes and other stone tools. But then someone came up with the idea of explaining the origin of the world. With the knowledge of how to make stone tools. And living in the center of the universe on a flat earth. The result was? The Bible. So you can say, "The Bible is a Stone Age tool for explaining the universe." Modern people are already using laser tools. But nothing prevents anybody from continuing to use Stone Age tools. Maybe in 2 million years of evolution a lot of earthlings reach the level of modern people. Until the Middle Ages, people thought they lived on a disc of earth at the center of the universe and everything revolves around them. Anyone who claims otherwise was been made a head shorter. By people who had studied theology. Someone ask me: "What is an atheist?" That's easy to answer. Someone who doesn't believe that our universe was conjured up by an invisible Harry Potter. So someone who is not a bit soft in the head. Yes, we live in the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. Could it be that's why some of us are dizzy in the brain and therefore can't think straight? Hopefully I've helped you reach the next level of evolution. This is the homo superior. He himself is a god because he created artificial intelligence that worships him. Many intelligences need something to worship because they think they can't live without something like that. Even if it's just a homo superior or a little green, invisible extraterrestrial, nested in their minds.

[@djsarg7451]

This not a complete view. 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. Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?

[@truthovertea]

@@djsarg7451 The word Yom never means anything else in the Hebrew Bible other than a 24 hour period, including exodus 20:9 and 20:11. Why do we change the meaning in Gen? Seems like none of the early Jews or Esrly Church fathers did this. Only after Darwin and Lyell we started interpreting Genesis differently.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@MadebyKourmoulis]

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

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Always do

[@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."

[@CaseyCovenant]

Trash video. Young Earth creationism's origin is from Moses and thus, from God.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@djsarg7451]

Please read the Whole Bible. Do not trust YEC websites that do not teach the Whole Bible, but teach past 7th day church things. 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]

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" ..

[@RLMMinistries]

Young earth was a teaching since the Middle Ages….. evolution was created by Darwin’s grandfather and made famous by Darwin’s book much much later down the road in time

[@simplesimon8586]

I usually enjoy your videos greatly, and this is not a topic I have any strong opinions on one way or another. That said, I am rather disappointed to find just 4 minutes in that you appear to be assigning intended meanings to the writings of Irenaeus that do not appear to align with what he actually wrote. You seem to be doing what you often accuse others of doing….assigning your own meanings to things that align with your own beliefs but which are not what the original author intended to convey. Irenaeus appears to be laying out his believe in dispensationalism in that he believes history to be structured in 6 one thousand year periods. He does not say here that he believes the six days of creation were of one thousand year durations each. In fact, the opposite seems to be stated. However even if he doesn’t believe in young earth creation, it does not come through in this writing in any sort of clearly definable way. I will continue watching this video, but I truly hope to not encounter further mistakes if this nature. It’s your unbiased treatment of the evidence that has made your channel so enjoyable.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I do not see that in the scholarship. For example, historian Stephen O. Presley, who specializes in patristics, says in his book The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1-3 in Irenaeus of Lyons, "Through his appeal to the conclusion of creation (Gen 2:2-3), he interprets the “days” (dies) of creation as six one thousand-year periods with the consummation of creation coming at the conclusion of the 6,000 years and the institution of the eschatological Sabbath."

[@simplesimon8586]

@@InspiringPhilosophy that may be in the scholarship. Perhaps my initial response may have been a little bit too harsh and I will not deny that you are vastly better read in this than I am. However you simply gave us a single quote from Irenaeus and and interpretation. With nothing further offered than that, a simple reading of this quote does not support the proffered interpretation. I have noted that many young earth creationists claim - vocally - both the Bible supports dispensational theology based on scriptures describing a day being as a thousand years to the Lord and also that the “days” of creation outlined in Genesis are just that…24 hour days. The quote from Irenaeus appears to be outlining exactly that sort of thing and to demonstrate that he held to something contrary would require further support. Support you may well have but that wasn’t evident in the video. That is my concern. Nothing more. Still I have watched your videos for several years and you have my greatest respect. You have taught me a genuine appreciation for philosophy where I previously had not considered it something worth my time. Thank you for what you are doing. I may not always agree with every conclusion you come to, but I respect how you arrived at them and I learn a lot from your explaining the common sense manner in which you did so.

[@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

[@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.