The Bible and age of the earth? | John Lennox at SMU

[@falcon7404]

"On this topic (age of the earth) the saddest thing is to see Christians fighting one another. That brings the Gospel into disrepute" John Lennox. Well said!!

[@mcmanustony]

Reality brings the gospels into disrepute.

[@fatstrategist]

@@mcmanustony How so?

[@holesinthenarrative816]

​@@mcmanustony😮

[@millennialpoes5674]

​@@fatstrategistreality brings the whole notion of the supernatural into disrepute. An omnipotent being is an especially ridiculous notion.

[@fatstrategist]

@@millennialpoes5674 How so? You’re presupposing materialism.

[@claudelebel49]

Truth is not a question of belief. Beliefs often change. Truth does not. Believe what you want. Truth will wait for you to catch up.

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

That depends on how you define truth.

[@DavidRodriguez-yy6kc]

💖💪🕊📖!👋ABBA GOD IS TRUTH!.. HE DEFINES TRUTH! JESUS IS GOD WITH US IN THE SON!.. JESUS IS THE TRUTH! REJOICE🌅! Or! Perish💔! AMEN!🕊💖👋😔🙏z!

[@TheLoveOfGod_Gen]

Wise words, kind sir! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

@@DavidRodriguez-yy6kc Are all gods truth or just the one you believe in?

[@timothywilliams4089]

@@TheLoveOfGod_Gen Claptrap and blather.

[@answersingenesis]

"And God spoke all these words, saying, “I AM the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt... You shall have no other gods before me... in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." - Exodus 20 "Jesus said to them, “... from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Mark 10

[@wayneroberts4144]

True and even though the Bible says the earth is fixed they take that to mean it doesn't move. Reason on deeper thought on the subject suggest it is fixed, fixed in it position in the Universe..........yes it rotates, yes it circles the sun but those movements are fixed in place.

[@deafgospelworkinamerica2645]

In Hebrew there are two different words for make one is "bara" which means to create out of nothing, the other is "asah" is the generic word for make or do. In this verse asah is used not bara

[@stalker7892]

@@deafgospelworkinamerica2645 Never forget the sun was not created till the fourth day. I find it very hard to believe the prevoius 3 days were 24 hour solar days.

[@timothywilliams4089]

Stop preaching,...and now you're cherry picking the bible, conveniently leaving out exodus 21,...endorsing slavery.

[@paulbenj1277]

​@@stalker7892 Revelation 21:23 and Rev.22:5 suggest it's possible to have an existence of light without the sun. While that doesn't answer the 24hr day question, if God decided there was evening and morning the first 3 days without a sun and says the same for the latter 4 days, is it so unreasonable to think God could make it possible for them to be 24hr days?

[@BlueNotaMaestro]

First time someone explains this the way I always understood it. Thank you professor! For almost 50 years I was doubting myself at times and listened to different interpretations but in the end always came back to Genesis 1:1

[@twosheds1749]

And the talking snake I suppose!?

[@BlueNotaMaestro]

If I had a dime for every time someone said that .... ever heard of ventriloquists? Bible pretty consistently speaks who it was. Perhaps open Bible and read it without prejudice ... it's literally throughout the text, and in Revelation 12:9 even plainly spells it out.

[@pankaja7974]

@@twosheds1749 if a trillions of atoms can simply arrange themselves to form a cell and boot then talking snake is not possible ?

[@twosheds1749]

@@pankaja7974 Where does science make the claim that atoms just arranged themselves? AND its molecules not atoms!! LOL I suggest you get some chemistry lessons and come back!

[@pankaja7974]

@@twosheds1749 sweetie molecules are composed of atoms. I could even have said neutrons protons and electrons simply assembled themselves and I would still be right. That is besides the point. Science does not make any claim. Scientists do. Have I said science claims?

[@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473]

When we ask ourselves how much we really know with that little information we've been given, we'll quickly realize if honest, that some things are not worth fighting about.

[@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11]

Inerrancy of Scripture is worth fighting for; the clearest verses (it seems in the entire Old Testament) indicating actual 24 hour days (by the amount of contextual clues) are within Genesis chapter 1 (evening, morning, number, and day; and all of these cues occur, for every single creation day, until God rests on the 7th day).

[@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473]

@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 Yes, but to what level? Are we going to judge someone's salvation on if they hold to a young earth model or not? There are very good old earth arguments based on ANE culture, which explains a little of how Genesis was written, but we look at it with modern western eyes, which could be right, but then again, it might not be. We must keep in mind the culture of the time, what would it have meant to them first. I am open to either view, its not a salvation issue.

[@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473]

@@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11 Just a follow up, did you watch the video? I think Prof Lennex is spot on. God-bless

[@TheHumbuckerboy]

@@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473 From what I remember Dr Lennox's conclusion necessitates that death and predation ( and therefore fear and suffering and hardship ) existed on planet Earth before the fall.

[@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473]

@@TheHumbuckerboy Yes that may be possible from his view, there are others who see this as well arguing that the "death" scripture is concerned about is "Spiritual". There is actually some good arguments for that position from scripture, my personal view is that its "both", but I am not dogmatic. God-bless

[@manofgod1910]

Claiming the Bible says something that it doesn’t actually say? How about Exodus 20:8-11? “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Sounds pretty clear to me!

[@donthomas4793]

And in the book of James, who is also the half brother of Jesus said if you’re gonna keep part of the law, keep it all.

[@googoo-gjoob]

@@donthomas4793 , thankfully, Jesus fulfilled The Law

[@DavidRodriguez-yy6kc]

​​@@googoo-gjoob💖💪🕊📖!👋AMEN!🕊💖👋😌🙏z!

[@RobertEWaters]

But not spoken to contemporary Gentile Americans. Part of the Civil Law.

[@JonathanMarshall-kc6pi]

Very important scripture, yes, yes indeed. However, you left out a crucial bit of information that goes with all that. How one goes about receiving rest. Christ says: "Come evening of the 6th day at the 9th hour. Take yourself away from everyone. Go into your room and shut the door. Then pray and I will give you rest.

[@poolbob8776]

When the Bible says, "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day", I always felt, it was simply saying God's time, is not the same as our time. To be clear it doesn't say, one day is equal to 1000 years, but one day is "like" 1000 years. One day to God, who is eternal, is a long time to us.

[@davegaskell7680]

You can interpret it any way you like if you want to continue to think that the bible is correct. It's best just to accept that the bible is simply wrong (and not just on the creation story!)

[@tobystamps2920]

The length of each day is given in the Genesis record. “Morning and Evening.”

[@Mannwhich]

@@davegaskell7680 How about you prove it wrong, rather than just tell people to accept your word for it blindly.

[@davegaskell7680]

@@Mannwhich I am not asking anyone to accept anything blindly. Indeed, accepting things blindly is why a lot of people believe a lot of false things. In terms of proving the bible wrong, if you think it is the inerrant word of God then you just need to read the bible to see that it's wrong as there are inconsistencies within it which prove that it can't be inerrant. If you aren't a biblical literalist then it depends on your interpretation. Is it your interpretation of the bible that all the kinds of life today were created separately and uniquely over a few days?

[@Mannwhich]

@@davegaskell7680 If you can't read and discern it through the spirit, YOU WON'T be able to understand it! The rest must be understood through prayer, study, and personal revelation. Understand why God raises up prophets from time to time, as he always has! To ensure the truth is taught correctly. It's up to you to seek them out and test them, to see if they are divinely appointed or not.

[@BATTY3459]

The thing old earthers don’t seem to understand is the debate isn’t really about the age of the earth. I agree that is pretty much irrelevant. The debate is about where you turn to for authority on the issue. I know old earthers who are faithful to the rest of scripture, but there are implications old earthers don’t realize. For instance if “day” in this context doesn’t literally mean “24 hour period” then it is easy to see how people can read other passages about homosexuality or the deity of Christ and say it doesn’t mean what it clearly says. Not saying all old earthers do that, but it’s easier to justify it. Secondly, the major problem old earthers have is accounting for death prior to sin. This is really where the issue lies that I don’t think too many old earthers think about. In order to accept the millions of years viewpoint, you would have to account for these millions of years to be occurring prior to the fall of man and introduction of original sin. It would also mean things died and decayed. If this is true, it means that death was originally part of God’s plan for creation, that it was “very good” despite including death, that Bible wrong to say “the wages of sin is death” and it ultimately undermines the Gospel and attacks the character of God. Why? Because if death was around before sin, what did Jesus have to die for? What was the point of him rising again? If death was around before sin, then death is good according to God and death is from God rather than sin and makes God wicked because you’re claiming He said something was “very good” which isn’t.

[@Count-kp3oy]

Good point. I never considered that. Thank you for the insight.

[@catross3713]

So what your saying is you have to believe the earth is 6000 years old or you can't justify your hatred for gay people?

[@Count-kp3oy]

@@catross3713 I do not hate gay people? Where do you get off making judgments without facts. Do you hate Christians? How do you feel about Muslims?

[@Count-kp3oy]

@@catross3713 What does gay have to do with this theoretical discussion?

[@Count-kp3oy]

@@catross3713 Dont gay people believe in God also?

[@arthouston7361]

When I find a difference between scripture and science, I immediately know that I have a lack of understanding, and for me to have a greater understanding would require God’s intent for me to have that greater understanding, and at this point in eternity, I content myself with where God wants me to be and the understanding He wants me to have.

[@yuy2375]

yea, whether it's science or interpretation that is correct, we shd keep an open mind. becos scientists or bible scholors, they are all god's wisdom.

[@TheFightingSheep]

We should differentiate between objective, experimental science, and popular theories paddled by scientific establishment and the education racket.

[@Mauser_.]

This, right there, is the correct approach 👏👏👏

[@jtapia0]

In short, when the Bible is not true in what it indicates, do you try to accommodate the interpretation so that it fits with reality and the evidence? What a way to lie to yourself !! Otherwise How do you know (with what verifiable method) that god tells you that this or another interpretation that you find about the Bible is the correct one?

[@arthouston7361]

@@jtapia0 You're asking yourself is, "is the Bible true?" And, you are doubting that. I'm not doubting that when the Bible seems to be not true, it means that I'm not understanding. That's not "me lying to myself." It's acknowledging that God's knowledge and His leadership is greater than I can imagine. Let me refer to you to 1 Corinthians, 2:14.

[@dorrenes.missdthetruthtell5342]

John Lennox IS A MAGNIFICENT professor! When life on life's terms delivers a PUNCH and I'm attempting to regain my ballance, then listen to John's CALMING lectures.. Thank you kind Sir 🙏

[@philipbuckley759]

he may have intellect, but how or why the old earth.....

[@rubiks6]

@@philipbuckley759 - John Lennox has been swayed by the delusion, most likely for the sake of his academic reputation.

[@ARRAM57]

If we can give different interpretations of verses in the bible how can anyone claim it is the unerring word of a perfect all knowing god?

[@rubiks6]

@@ARRAM57 - You can walk on your hands but I claim people were intended to walk on their feet. What _men do_ with the Word of God does not change the fact that it is the Word of God.

[@ARRAM57]

@@rubiks6 I would expect the word of a god would be unambiguous and crystal clear to all that read it......he is god after all, the creator of everything, including language.

[@megalopolis2015]

How I Love John Lennox. Such a voice of reason and peace. As believers, we must remember that Jesus Christ Is Lord, the rest are details. May God continue to bless John and Veritas Forum.

[@TheAdventurer1]

Jesus was not a god. There is NO invisible sky fairy who created this world.

[@stephenberry8658]

How come he is not the Messiah for the Jews???

[@BeefT-Sq]

"I direct you toward Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. In her system, she identifies the needs of men succinctly. She talks about individualism, productivity, a flourishing life, an exchange of physical and emotional values between men. Importantly, she provides reasoning to substantiate her claims." -Anonymous-from an Objectivist forum

[@brianoconnor6326]

This wonderful brother John Lennox has devoted much of his life to persuade unbelievers of the resurrection of Christ and the power of his word. I'm sure many atheists have gotten serious headaches from John's powerful logic and faith. Please pray for him and those that listen to his lectures that God will open the ears of the unbelievers and they would be saved. I think this is God's will that he continue, not many are able to do what he does and are as respected as he is. Thank God for this man and all others who have given their lives in the belief that Christ died to save sinners

[@dennyworthington6641]

Do you also believe in talking snakes?

[@johnkaz1476]

Yes logical people get serious headaches when listening to lennox mumbling about things which don't make sense at all.

[@johnpro2847]

Prof Lennox is from the old school of superstition and revenge by celestial bogeymen..he should stick to teaching arithmatic.

[@ExpatriatePaul]

I've been an Atheist for 40 years, and have never heard Mr. Lennox say anything that gave me an even slight headache. Perhaps that's because I'm a rational thinker and realize there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of any "god".

[@johnkaz1476]

@joeturner9219 I want a lot of things to exist my friend. But wanting to and actually existing is two different things unfortunately.

[@rhydyard]

I don't care how old the earth is or isn't.. I keep my eyes firmly on the author and finisher of my salvation.. Jesus Christ the Holy Child of God.. who is seated in glory at the Father's right hand..

[@TinyFord1]

See the problem with this sentiment is the fact that if the earth is old, then there was death on the earth before the fall of man, and if that’s the case then there is no original sin which caused death. Effectively there cannot be a second adam if there was no first adam as described in scripture. So as nice as it may seem to say “I don’t care about this issue” it is a fundemental issue to the truth of our religion. If there was death in the world before sin then scripture cannot be trusted, if there was not then of course the biblical narrative makes sense. The age of the earth is perhaps as important to the truth of the bible as the empty tomb is. And it’s crazy for me to not see people realise it.

[@rubiks6]

How would you even know about the "author" of your salvation if He had not authored a book? Why would you not believe His Book?

[@fred-x3s7e]

Spot on, and I like your choice of words (sentiment). Lennox sounds like a gap theory guy.

[@rubiks6]

@@fred-x3s7e - He believes in some kind of millions of years and in human evolution. It's quite disheartening. He such a good speaker but his foundation is just wrong. He is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[@Dheyja]

⁠@@rubiks6when did he say he believed in human evolution?

[@daniellouw1]

If the Bible says in Psalms 104:5 that the earth does not move, then the Bible also says that: - God is a shepherd (Psa 23:1) - God is a rock (Psa 29:1 and Psa 118:2) - God is a hen (Mat 23:37) - God is an eagle (Deu 32:11) - God is a lion (Isa 31:4) - Trees have conversations (Judges 9) In the same Psalm 104, it also says: covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind; he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire. We do not take that literally, right? Why then does Lennox want to read verse 5 literally? Psalm 104 is poetry; however, Genesis 1 is not. Also, the earth's movement is part of operational science, while the age of the earth is part of historical science. If people in the past used verse 5 to argue that the earth is fixed, the correct rebuttal is not that science has proved the Bible wrong, it is the people who read their Bible wrong. Read history as history, poetry as poetry, etc

[@JL-xn3zy]

John Lennox is a great man.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

He certainly has a lot of get-out-of-jail-free excuses whenever his holy book is shown to be wrong.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

@@TonyEnglandUK Surely if the Bible were the word of god he would intervene during the writing of it and say _"You can't put that part in my book, it's wrong and by definition, god cannot be wrong."_ That leaves just two options. Either god can be wrong and therefore he cannot be god, or god doesn't exist.

[@JL-xn3zy]

@TonyEnglandUK You will not get out of this world alive. I encourage to dig into "the book" for yourself. God bless

[@TonyEnglandUK]

@@JL-xn3zy _"The Bible is primitive legend."_ *Albert Einstein*

[@JL-xn3zy]

@@TonyEnglandUK Albert wasn't God. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. Instead of relying on the take of Albert, why don't you really find out for yourself?

[@SonjaShindler]

Excellent. Our history has been lies manifested by people for uncountable years and timelines. Thank you.

[@theunclejesusshow8260]

The One Eyed Farmers of today are the same as the ones from the Beginning The Authors of Confusion wrote The Holey Script-yourz .

[@tonypino5415]

His Story

[@TheAaronExperience]

@@tonypino5415 it's story.

[@ovechkin100]

it really is crazy how short our lives are compared to how long it takes ideas to change. thinking about all those people who lived and died in an even more stagnant time than our own is incredibly sad.

[@brick2392]

​@@tonypino5415The short version is that the term history has evolved from an ancient Greek verb that means “to know,” says the Oxford English Dictionary's Philip Durkin. The Greek word historia originally meant inquiry, the act of seeking knowledge, as well as the knowledge that results from inquiry. If you use a word that sounds like something else in English you're going to come to some pretty mixed up conclusions like people who teach the name Jesus derives from the word Zeus words are not created with nefarious intentions. Words are translated from older words that means specific things

[@ss396rip]

I sometimes think the question really being asked is. How long has man been on the earth? That would be a different answer.

[@goodmorning6827]

No, they're two entirely different questions -

[@ibealion1]

I agree with you. I think that is a much more precise question.

[@kenneths.perlman1112]

Well the answer to that question is about 2 million years.

[@RuiManel-i9j]

​@@kenneths.perlman1112 haw do you know ?

[@Rooster1212]

​@@RuiManel-i9jhe doesn't

[@meatyourmaster]

So, whenever science is in conflict with scripture, we are simply looking at some misinterpretation of scripture? The consequence of this is the complete loss of falsifiability, isn't it?

[@Spladoinkal]

You're making a strawman argument

[@mikedunningham9614]

You’re an extremely simplistic man John. Cheers Mike

[@Christian10111]

In the beginning might not be day one but life only started with the announcement of the days. If the earch existed for billions of years before the announcement of days, it existed without death. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, we have the days counted...

[@mrgoodintent]

Of Course.... this plain analogy just occurred to me also. It is important to a Holy God that human beings are the priority being discussed here. The actual planet earth (physical three dimensional substance) possesses no soul or spirit so needless irrelevant credit of adjectival (good or evil) is necessary prior to mankind's existence.Please think on this!

[@anthonykanemd]

The problem is that “Let there be light” happened on day 1. Six days later you have man walking around. His explanation does not work

[@CarlosRodriguez-hu4eb]

Agree Anthony. That is the problem. Apologist cherry pick verses. You must keep reading. Few people do and follow blindly

[@coreygardner59]

@@anthonykanemd you are assuming "days" is a 24 hour period. Scripture uses a lot of poetry, etc to describe things - not all to be taken literally.

[@anthonykanemd]

@@coreygardner59 When the Bible is being poetic, like Song of Songs or Psalms, then the Bible uses poetry. Here is the Bible is not being poetic and it is meant literally. And no, 'days' does not mean 24 hours.

[@msa4548]

Grew up going through Christian schools, had speakers every Friday. I've never heard this before, or explained so simply.

[@SalvableRuin]

He explained it so incorrectly.

[@oldtimerlee8820]

It's called the Gap Theory. Proposed in the 1800's. Millions of years have been forced into space between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3.

[@cryptochris9001]

Gap theory is probably bogus why would there be millions of years gap

[@dustinberes6401]

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:11

[@richardgregory3684]

The bit with ththe talkign snake is more entertaining, though of course, just as ridiculous.

[@thegospelmessenger1corinth634]

I would like to share with you the gospel of our salvation in the dispensation of God's grace. “Grace can be defined as the undeserved favor of God for people who deserve His condemnation.” God does not hold sins against us because they have already been paid for (every sin for every person.) Christ was made to be everyone's-every-sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). However, full reconciliation is not achieved until an individual "reconciles himself" to God (2 Corinthians 5:20). This happens upon belief of the gospel of our salvation. All humanity is forgiven but not all believe it. Being forgiven does not equal being saved, salvation comes by faith. Salvation is appropriated by faith, forgiveness of sins is NOT. Your sins were forgiven regardless of your belief. God did not need your faith at Calvary, He only needed His Son. SALVATION is only gained by trusting Christ - via belief in the word of truth (the gospel of our salvation.) Salvation IS by works, just not our own. It is not of ourselves, but through the gift of God's grace that we are saved. Upon HEARING the gospel, if we BELIEVE the gospel, we are sealed with the holy Spirit of promise unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14). A lost soul can only be saved by trusting Christ to have done everything necessary for our salvation though His finished cross-work. Romans thru Philemon are the only books in the bible that explain salvation for today. In those books we find salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone, without-any-works-of-any-kind-at-anytime. Christ died for your sins, and has risen for your justification (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Put your faith in what He did rather than what you have done, are doing, or are going to do. Salvation is not getting-your-sins-forgiven, it's believing they already are. (2 Corinthians 5:19) Truth Time Radio, also on youtube and facebook, is here to help you better understand your bible and better articulate your faith to others.

[@richhand930]

One of a 1000 reasons not to believe in the Abrahamic God.

[@LilRedRasta]

Sweet now look up the definition of "yom" which in hebrew is day. It has 4 literal definitions. It doesn't have to mean 24 hours. For example. There's no morning or night on the 7th day. The bible claims we're still in the 7th day. In Genesis 2 the hebrew reads. In the DAY that God created the heavens and the earth. What day was that? Day 1 or 6? Biblical Hebrew was a very small language only consisting of a few thousands words. Roughly 3k-5k words. Day in Hebrew can mean an indefinite amount of time that has a start and a finish. The meaning depends on the context. Another example is heaven. Heaven meant the sky in Hebrew, it also meant the entirety of the universe, and it also meant the place where god resides. This why in the bible they'll say i went up to the third heaven. They're letting you know which one they mean. The same can be deduced from Genesis upon close inspection. Adam watches the trees grow in Genesis 2. He names all the animals that God has made. He tends the garden. He has enough time to get lonely. Are we meant to interpret that this all happened on one day?

[@davedavis2132]

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

[@manofgod1910]

Let me give certain Christians - especially in the scientific field - a slice of advice: don’t try to fit the Bible into science, but rather fit science into the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God; science is the word of fallible man.

[@andrewdurand3181]

We are moving on. Thank you though.

[@Robert-ct6bc]

"don’t try to fit the Bible into science, but rather fit science into the Bible." Throw every bit of reason, integrety and dignity over board and just buy into the magical claims of some random middle eastern mythology. Obvious that you choose to do that...

[@8House]

I don't believe in either. Science is politicized and religion is in total disarray. Neither even begins to satisfy my curiousity.

[@Robert-ct6bc]

@@8House That's one way of saying: "I don't understand how science works"

[@savedwretch8711]

Ok, so all those who think that the age of The Earth is not important, If we can't believe Genesis, why should we believe any other part of the Bible?

[@galileog8945]

The Bible is an awkward collection of myths, often contradicting each other, and partially borrowed from other mythologies. Most important, the origin story in the Bible is simply factually false. It has zero knowledge value, and progressive Christians have understood this simple lesson. Grow up!

[@andreab1144]

I was an atheist and got powerfully and wonderfully saved 45 yrs ago. I knew ZERO… but I knew my salvation wasn’t based on my IQ… in fact very little of my salvation is based on me… except my trust in Him. He did it I only need to accept His work on the cross. I love theology, I love to talk and hear about my Lord. I just want to be with others who love Him, not those who agree with me. Those who agree with Him. God bless

[@petyrkowalski9887]

Do you like to believe things that are true? If you really were an atheist then you were a critical thinker who needed evidence to back up claims. What led you to let go of your critical thinking faculties, join a cult and think that you have been « saved »? Saved from what?

[@BornOnThursday]

If you don't mind sharing, did you identify as an athiest at the time? And, what were you doing before you were saved?

[@thegospelmessenger1corinth634]

I would like to share the gospel of our salvation in the dispensation of God's grace. “Grace can be defined as the undeserved favor of God for people who deserve His condemnation.” God does not hold sins against us because they have already been paid for (every sin for every person.) Christ was made to be everyone's-every-sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). However, full reconciliation is not achieved until an individual "reconciles himself" to God (2 Corinthians 5:20). This happens upon belief of the gospel of our salvation. All humanity is forgiven but not all believe it. Being forgiven does not equal being saved, salvation comes by faith. Salvation is appropriated by faith, forgiveness of sins is NOT. Your sins were forgiven regardless of your belief. God did not need your faith at Calvary, He only needed His Son. SALVATION is only gained by trusting Christ - via belief in the word of truth (the gospel of our salvation.) Salvation IS by works, just not our own. It is not of ourselves, but through the gift of God's grace that we are saved. Upon HEARING the gospel, if we BELIEVE the gospel, we are sealed with the holy Spirit of promise unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14). A lost soul can only be saved by trusting Christ to have done everything necessary for our salvation though His finished cross-work. Romans thru Philemon are the only books in the bible that explain salvation for today. In those books we find salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone, without-any-works-of-any-kind-at-anytime. Christ died for your sins, and has risen for your justification (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Put your faith in what He did rather than what you have done, are doing, or are going to do. Salvation is not getting-your-sins-forgiven, it's believing they already are. (2 Corinthians 5:19) Truth Time Radio, also on youtube and facebook, is here to help you better understand your bible and better articulate your faith to others.

[@andreab1144]

@@BornOnThursday sorry I just ran across this ? I was an angry atheist. Thought Christians were all hypocrites. One day I was looking outside and saw the beauty around me. I said, “God if You are real, I do want to know You. … … I just said, I just can’t believe. A few days later the tv is on and the guy says “if you can’t believe in God, just tell Him.” I thought ok. He says now say this prayer… I asked the Lord into my heart… when I said amen… on the nnnn… I was on the floor. Not only did I know there was a god… I knew God was Jesus Christ. As if He’d infused a knowledge of Himself into my being. Thats over 40yrs ago. It radically changed my life, I’ve never looked back. I’m always in awe of His mercy for me an atheist. I was an enemy of God and He loved me anyway. What grace… truly I am beyond blessed and grateful.

[@paxvlog]

@@andreab1144 🤣

[@ivanscott2367]

Very good reconciliation. The problem with such questions is we often forget God, and therefore his word The Bible, are never wrong. At the same time He never contradicts facts. So, if The Bible says something is thus and so, and the facts seem to contradict that, the issue IS NOT The Bible nor the facts. The issue is OUR choice of interpretation.

[@tims5268]

The bible says mustard seeds are the smallest seed, it isn’t. The bible says bats are birds, they aren’t. Etc etc etc

[@airbornesnow4541]

So you admit that religion follow science, and you must change your interpretation according to science. When science proved that the earth is over 4 billion years old, your religious beliefs must also follow it.

[@ivanscott2367]

Yes, I did change my interpretation, from a literal 24 hour day and 7 day week (which neither the greek nor hebrew support btw) to "some periods of a period of time". However, I'd like to help you with something, science never proves anything. It does disprove all else that is untrue. Laymen get that wrong a lot, but scientists know the difference.

[@hakki368]

Creation ministries (CMI) is an excellent resource, with multiple videos that tackle this question based on numerous scientific data.

[@LostsTVandRadio]

One of the first things you learn in secondary school physics is just how strange time is. It proceeds at different rates depending upon the frame of reference of the observer, and depending upon the effects of gravity and the velocity of the observer relative to other objects. And those are just the some of things we have begun to figure out - there is doubtless so much more complexity to time. Ultimately if there were a reliably definitive statement about time it would have to come from creator of time. I'll humbly settle for that.

[@DarthMWAL]

THis man is a JEWEL. What a great way to frame this...and I think everyone in the church on all sides should listen and take heart to his words, he's RIGHT!

[@douglaswebster1028]

I see a pattern in Genesis that cannot be dismissed. When God created Adam and Eve and vegetation and animals, He created all of it in a mature state. Much of it needed to be mature in order for it to survive. So it is no stretch to imagine God creating the cosmos in a mature state having the appearance of being old in order for it to function.

[@markb3786]

So God was limited in what he was able to produce and had to follow certain rules for it to function? Wow. I thought the Christian God was all powerful. Sumpin aint rite hear

[@TheHoodie63]

Love listening to John Lennox- he removes the religion from faith.

[@jounisuninen]

"John Lennox- he removes the religion from faith." - Pretty well said. I became YEC by studying first the evolution theory, then genetics, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, information science and the laws of physics. The impossibility of abiogenesis and the false theory of natural selection acting as a gene generator made me reject evolution theory. Instead, I became 100% certain of the Intelligent Design, especially because there is no 3rd alternative. Give me one observable evidence of abiogenesis. Give me one observable evidence of genetic information developing from dead matter. I say: Both life and genetic information are created by God i.e. Jesus Christ. That is proven by science itself, since abiogenesis would break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and there is no 3rd alternative.

[@Wertbag99]

@@jounisuninen How did the science lead to YEC and not OEC? It is possible to not believe in abiogenesis or evolution but not believe the world is only 6000 years old. I'm also not sure why you say there is no 3rd alternative? Surely there have been countless ideas on how life was created and if by supernatural means, which deity in particular did the creating? Abiogenesis doesn't break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so I'm unsure where that idea comes from.

[@THEJIG-IS-UP]

He's the clean Benny Hill

[@youkuya]

My response to another Lennox video... Firstly, from what Lennox said is interesting to learn that Usher wasn't specificaly working out how old the earth was, he was working out when Adam was born. From 6:34 Lennox talked about the earth moving idea. The important point in this section is that Lennox around 7.50 stated that the word 'fixed' in the Bible is NOT talking about being geometrically or spatially fixed. This is an important point. When we are reading the Bible we must be careful not to impose some popular/traditional contemporary definition of a word upon how the Bible uses that word. We need to examine what Moses etc had in mind when using that word. When I was a kid if someone said 'Web' I would think of what is made outside by a 'spider', but now I would most likely think of the internet. Unfortunately, Lennox doesn't apply the principle he used for 'fix' to 'beginning', 'heaven' and 'earth'. What is the word beginning in verse 1 of Genesis Chapter 1 referring to? You can't use the word beginning without having the object or action to which this belongs to. In the same verse we have 'made'. God was making things. This would take a period of time to accomplish. Moses was telling us that God made 'Heaven' and the 'Earth' at the START of this manufacturing process. Why is it important for this to happen? It would help if we knew what Moses had in mind with the words heaven and earth. If we look at the context, like the rest of the chapter, we see that Heaven was made on the 2nd day and Earth was made on the 3rd day. This is the BEGINNING of the WEEK / manufacturing timetable. There must be a reason why Moses tells us that "heaven" and "earth" had to be made at the beginning. The answer is in verse 2. God had picked one of His water-covered planets to put Adam and Eve on. The land God wanted to put Adam and Eve on was way down in the deep, dark water (without form) and therefore couldn't be inhabited (void). God had to do something about this water. In Isa 45:18 we are told that God FORMED the Earth so that it could be INHABITED (not VOID). Notice in day 1 that we have an evening and a morning, a term used to refer to a 24 hour day. Evenings and mornings are based on the apparent movement of the sun through our sky. The sun was already there. If you think that 'heaven' is the universe then that is a problem. However, we will now look at what Heaven is. In regards to day 1 notice that the Apostle Paul said in 2Cor4:6 that the light that God made on that day came from the DARKNESS which was at the bottom of the water in Gen 1 verse 2. I suggest that it was the activation of the VISIBLE LIGHT SPECTRUM. On day 2 we are told that God turned the middle portion of the water of verse 2 into a firmament to which God gave the name 'Heaven'. What is this firmament made of? Obviously components of the water. If we go to day 5 we find that WINGED fowl FLY in the FIRMAMENT of Heaven. So Heaven is the Atmosphere, containing the air that Adam and Eve need breathe. This is WHY Heaven was made at the BEGINNING or the start of the week. Making the air AFTER making Adam and Eve would have been a disaster. The 2nd day ends with a layer of water above the atmosphere (that would have fallen in the Flood), then the Atmosphere, then another layer of water which was sitting on the land referred to as the Face of the Deep. So we still have water on the land. On the 3rd day God made Seas. Seas have basins so obviously God had formed basins in the Face of the Deep and all the lower layer water flowed into these basins. This left the surrounding land to be at last ABOVE the water level. The Atmosphere dried out this land between the seas and God called it Earth. So in the Bible the word Earth does NOT refer to the whole planet, but only to the dry CONDITION of the land. It is this CONDITION that is 6000 years old, not the planet. Notice that we are not told about the land and the water being made during this week. Since the universe and our planet existed before the Genesis creation event, why did God carry out the Genesis creation event? The CONTEXT of this event is the conflict between God and Satan. Many angels had left God to join Satan (Jude 1:6, Rev 12). Jesus said that the believers shall be equal to and like the angels (Matt 22:30, Luke 20:34-36). Even if Adam and Eve had NOT fallen, they and their descendants would still been made as angels to replace the fallen angels. Don't forget that there was a 7th day in this creation week in, which God (plural: includes Jesus) blessed and hallowed. Jesus told the Jews that He was LORD of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8. The 7th day of the week to the Jews). Why do so many professed Christians ignore the day that Jesus Himself said that He was Lord of?

[@thingamejignobodyknows4346]

How long until you get the answer?

[@NathanP711]

The difference was Galileo wasn’t trying to push God out of the picture, but the idea of an old earth and the Darwinian evolution that that idea supported were largely pushed by those who wanted to get God out of the picture. So it is difficult for Christians to have a conversation about the topic, because it’s already very muddled.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

I disagree… scientists want to know the truth based on facts…proven by empirical evidence…not « feelings » or « personal revelation » or simple blind faith.

[@NathanP711]

@@petyrkowalski9887 No they don’t. Scientist are humans just like everyone else. They’re subject to the same motivations as everyone else. There are plenty of people who can stare empirical evidence in the face and blatantly ignore it. Many of those people are scientists. They’re not immune to their personal bias, nor is anyone else.

[@joenbjerregaard7816]

As one who believes in God I can appriciate that you dont learn anything about how stuff works by reading "God did it" (and it is not like the Bible gives any details anyway). Science must work with the observable and Christians should simply accept scientific consensus. It is really a false dilemma created by conservative churches afraid to loose members and power. But on the other hand, we dont all need to know science stuff and knowledge about the dinos will not fill any starving stomachs today.

[@olubunmiolumuyiwa]

@@petyrkowalski9887 empirical evidence is only seen by human through personal perspective...

[@Springwater475]

@@petyrkowalski9887 sure, if you speak against climate change - defunded , speak against certain viruses or treatments , science has been hijacked as ,icy as anything else .

[@davidwalker5274]

So it sounds like God made the Heavens and the Earth, then did nothing for millions or billions of year before the first day. Is this how we tie it together? Remember that Adam was made a man, not a baby. He was fully grown so it stands to reason that other parts of creation were is different stages of age as well.

[@PC-vg8vn]

I think Lennox is wrong in his understanding. 'In the beginning. God made the heavens and earth' seems to be not only an opening statement, but also a summary statement. The following verses then provide more details, focusing on the earth. Genesis 1 should not be viewed as a scientific text. All of the evidence is that the Universe and the earth are very old indeed.

[@petergaskin1811]

A book says a thing. Is that all you've got?

[@petersinclair3997]

⁠@@PC-vg8vn And, the Earth is a part of the Universe, now. Prior generation stars lived and died over billions of years to create the heavier elements today on Earth.

[@greggoodrich5189]

Dude! John Lennox is in front of you. Have someone else sort through the questions. Pay attention to him so others will also.

[@paulyester1965]

Couldn't believe that....

[@paulsilsby5355]

So why does John imagine that God had his word written in the Bible in a way that could be interpreted in different ways. Was this beyond his ability ?

[@Mdangelo22302]

01:38 What verse is he quoting? I can't find that anywhere! I found something similar but it doesn't say what he is professing. "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Psalms 104:5 As far as the age of the earth he is spot on. "Of OLD thou hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands." Psalms 102:25

[@theroguetomato5362]

It doesn't say "in the beginning". It says "[the] beginning", and it's an introductory statement that is elucidated in the next verses. So Genesis does describe a young earth.

[@Isaac5123]

It always says In the beginning

[@theroguetomato5362]

@@Isaac5123 That's the translation. That's not what the Hebrew says.

[@Isaac5123]

@@theroguetomato5362 it doesn't make sense starting with beginning. It's In the beginning. Do you read Hebrew?

[@theroguetomato5362]

@@Isaac5123 The Hebrew is רֵאשִׁית which is simply "beginning". Adding "in the" is a translation decision. They did the same thing in the Septuagint.

[@Isaac5123]

@@theroguetomato5362 do you speak and read Hebrew?

[@EET8689]

Very interesting analysis! Above all Let us not “disrepute the gospel”! I would however like to add one note (no controversy here, just food for thought), when thinking about creation. There is a vs. from Exd 20:9-11 “six days you shall labor and do all your work… 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.” NIV

[@zacdredge3859]

Interesting that he didn't ask the professors what yom(day) means.

[@richardstorier6172]

Yom is a literal 24 hour day

[@butcherjsy8]

@@richardstorier6172 It depends on the context, it means a period of time.

[@Peekaboo-Kitty]

@@richardstorier6172 No it is NOT! *Yom means an undefined period of Time.* It can be from sunrise to sunset, it can be one week, one month, one year, one age, one lifetime, or one eon.

[@justinmon6659]

​And in this case it means one day

[@LilRedRasta]

@@richardstorier6172 Actually no. Has 4 definitions. Doesn't always mean 24 hours. It can mean an indefinite amount of time that has a start and a finish as well.

[@gleeman959]

One of my favorite writers and teachers of the faith is C.S. Lewis because he taught that reason should be built into one's faith. I like Mr. Lennox (apologies if he holds a doctorate), but in this particular subject he seems to be misquoting Genesis in order to soften what is written there. While I'm using an ESV translation, the passages appear in the other translations I've cross-checked. Gen. 1:5 "... And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Gen. 1:8 "... And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." These phrases appear after each accomplishment on the respective day. I once tried to hold the belief that what was said in Genesis 1 merely referenced an unknown amount of time in seven sequences. That is until I reread the scripture and saw these passages. For me, these passages are too purposefully placed within the text to allow for interpretation as Mr. Lennox is professing. And as for those stating science has proven the age of the Earth. I merely have to look back 50 or 100 years to the writings of the scientists at that time who were just as certain of the Earth's age that modern science has since debunked. It is only through humanity's hubris that we say anything is certain as to how old our universe is or how it even works. Science is our method of learning about our universe, but to say anything we learn is the absolute end of the mystery is folly. Scientific theories must be tested constantly so that we can know they hold up to new evidence.

[@susienatarajan7335]

Thank you , this is how I understood creation, 6 days and 7th day of rest. The Professor, (due respect to him) is trying to put the square peg in a round hole, to accommodate the scientific age of the world. I love everything else he says about God and the Christian Faith but on this point I'm unable to agree with him!

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

God says He created everything in 6 days. Time commenced when God said it did.

[@johnrowland9570]

What about Ex 20:8-11? Does honest exegesis allow a different interpretation of the word 'day' within a couple of lines? Let John Lennox answer this.

[@legron121]

Might Exodus 20:11 be read as saying that God created in 6 sequential periods of time and rested afterwards (Hebrews 4 implies that the seventh “day” lasted thousands of years, so this “day” is not 24 hours)? The analogy between human work weeks and God’s creation doesn’t have to be exact. God’s week is a pattern for ours, but not identical. After all, Exodus also speaks of the “hand” of God (9:3) and “voice” of God (19:19), despite God’s not literally having physical hands or a voice box the way humans do (but in a metaphorical sense). So I don’t see why the six “days” of God’s creating have to be exactly the same length as human days are.

[@user-yb9hi3us4p]

According to Strongs, the word for "day" is the same in Gen 1 as Exo 20. However, the word translated "made" in Exo 20 is different to the word "created" in Gen 1:1. But everything made in the 6 days Hod saw that it was good. However, verse 2 doesn't say the verse 1 creation was good, in fact it says "without form and void". Ie, not good. Either way, we can agree that God did it. I'm not prepared to tell Him what He meant

[@michaelloewen902]

I honestly think this is one of the more boring arguments of faith. It's like arguing whether or not each day of creation was 24 hours or not. It misses the point. A God...THE God who created all things (53 billion light years of universe) took 6 days because he chose to. He could have created it instantaneously or over a gazillion years. He did not REQUIRE the time, he chose to use that time to express his creativity and love. .....and remember....this the same type of dude who in the 80's said the earth was MILLIONS of years old. Then somewhere in the last 40 years they added an additional 3 zeros to the timeline when they realized they couldn't fit evolution into millions of years. As a Computer Scientist, I can assure you that adding those zeros was more than a big deal. It was an admission they didn't know what they were talking about. I mean how could today's scientists, who can't figure out if you are a dude or a chick, be wrong about the age of the earth?

[@lesliewilliam3777]

Allow me to suggest that saying God could have created the Earth etc in "gazillion" years is something God could NOT have done. If he had taken 4.5 billion years to bring the Earth to this present state of existence then it would give the atheist/materialist an excuse because he could always say Nature did it. This is the reason why God took only 6 days so that the miracle of creation can be truly see from the creation itself, that the denial of God's existence would be irrational.

[@michaelloewen902]

@@lesliewilliam3777 Thank you for providing an example of why this is such a nothing burger argument. With your insistence (and I am not saying you are wrong) in stressing the significance of 6 days, you accomplish 2 things. You start an argument on 'what is a day?' and you suggest God required 6 days ('only 6 days'). He did not. It distracts from the fact that God and God alone is creator, and the glory He should receive for His creation, and instead has people arguing about a timeline in relation to The being who created and is outside of time. But everyone has the right to focus on what they find most important. I choose that it be the Creator, and not the process of what in all creation is, although of great importance to Him, less than a speck in size to all He has created.

[@Dudeguy36]

He chose that time to establish a pattern for us and so we work 6 days and rest on the 7th. The first day of the week is SUNday, the first day when God established light and the last day is sabbath day or Saturday, when he rested.

[@daonedaonly942]

Unless you can actually dispute the methods with which scientists use to determine the age of the earth such as radiometric dating, what you are saying is essentially waving in the air. It's nothing. This argument is a nothing burger? I think you denying the fact that the earth is billions of years old without a shred of proof is a nothing burger. How can you, who likely doesn't even understand how scientists reached the conclusion that the earth was billions of years old, even begin to dismantle it? We've estimated it was that old since the early 1900's.

[@johnrowland9570]

This answer is full of scientific errors if you happen to believe so called science.

[@sophiandethiu2721]

I love God because He is mysterious in all His ways. If we knew everything about God and about the earth, we would not need what God wanted us to have. Faith. I believe it makes God thrilled when a man can humbly say....l cant understand it, but nonetheless, l believe what you have said is the truth. God didn't want us to understand everything. If we did, he would just be one like us! I am a teacher. If my pupils knew everything l knew, they would not need me!!! You want to understand everything about God? Do you even understand everything about your closest friend??

[@ryleighloughty3307]

"The Earth does not move" is a red herring. The Bible uses various literary methods, and the reader must discern which method is used and where.

[@Chris-hf2sl]

Movement has no meaning unless you specify what you're measuring it against. So a 'fixed earth' is meaningless unless you specify with reference to what. Someone standing still at the equator isn't moving since he's standing still (relative to the earth). But the earth is spinning and since the circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles and there are 24 hours in a day, that same person is moving at 1000 mph, relative to some 'fixed' point near the earth. This brings us to the next problem - what is a fixed point ...

[@Crimsonlupus]

John Lennox is a fine chap,I’m not even British but I feel like that’s the best way to describe him. I’ve always been infuriated by Christians who insist on this rigid interpretation. It’s like ppl take the be as wise a serpent’s and gentle as doves and completely forgor the wise part.

[@johnbrown6189]

Christians insist on their own interpretation. That's why there so many different "Christian" denominations.

[@alainstasse4602]

Nailed! Exactly what I've always seen. 'In the beginning' and 'God said' are two different sequences/events. Another example is 'In the beginning was the word' and 'the Word became flesh'. Two different sequences/events.

[@glen1482]

All nonsense no matter how you read it.

[@jamesmcallister9645]

@@glen1482 You must be born again, you obviously are not born again so of course without the Holy Spirit you cannot understand, no offense because most of us who are now born again christains through wholehearted repentance used to think the bible was nonsense.The fact remains Jesus Christ died in agony to reconcile sinners back to the Father and thats what's happening since the resurrection of of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. Glory to God.

[@SatanFollower1]

@@jamesmcallister9645nice u just admitted to being brainwashed 😂

[@jamesmcallister9645]

@@SatanFollower1 Speak for yourself , and not brainwashed but deceived, do you even know the meaning of deception? Get yourself a dictionary and learn something.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

Are you sure you want to use the term _"nailed"_ when discussing this issue?

[@ragibby6557]

No one ever says or believes the new earth and new heavens will take billions of years. Why do many think that of first creation? It was literally days. God spoke it and it was. The Hebrew word "yom" ALWAYS means a literal day when used in conjunction with a number or description like day or evening.

[@jollyrancher521]

William Wilson's _Old Testament Word Studies_ says the following regarding the Hebrew word “yohm”: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”

[@ragibby6557]

@@jollyrancher521 Yohm always means a literal 24 hours when used with a number (day 1), or when used with "evening", "morning". You will never find sn example of yohm meaning other than 24 hours when it has a qualifier like this.

[@jollyrancher521]

​@@ragibby6557 How can you say that with such confidence? I am no expert in Biblical Hebrew, but I quoted for you what experts in Biblical Hebrew say. Am I supposed to believe you just because you say so?

[@davegaskell7680]

Of course, he is absolutely right in that the overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth goes round the sun, and that the earth is billions of years old should be accepted. It is ridiculous not to accept this. If the bible contradicts this then the interpretation of the bible should be modified. He is correct. The big problem is that he should apply the same principle to accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence on evolution. It is ridiculous not to accept this. He should advocate modifying ones interpretation of biblical creation accordingly.

[@shelleyg218]

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[@davegaskell7680]

@@shelleyg218 That's what the claim in the book is, yes. Evidence says otherwise.

[@shelleyg218]

@@davegaskell7680 actually, there’s overwhelmingly evidence that we’ve been duped. There’s no curvature, the earth is flat and the sun moon and stars rotate above us, Polaris in the center (it doesn’t move). But I don’t want to get into a debate here, the truth isn’t for everyone. It’s fine that you believe what you believe. Virtually all flat earthers, including myself, believed the earth was a globe their whole life.

[@davegaskell7680]

@@shelleyg218 Oh yes, you have persuaded me. I hadnt realised. How foolish I have been. ;-)

[@shelleyg218]

@@davegaskell7680 I didn’t try to persuade you. It would be impossible to put years of research into a few sentences. That’s why I said in my comment that I don’t want to debate.

[@craigdamster2955]

Lol the ‘scientific’ professor. “It’s simple! You all just misinterpret the Bible!”

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

the bible says that plants were created before the sun, how should we “interpret” this ?

[@dennyworthington6641]

It's a short walk between Mr. Lennox's views and a sanatorium.

[@davidwelch5186]

The problem is , the Bible acknowledges a time line from Adam to Jesus. Lennox ignored basic facts.. Lennox says the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is, but the book does say how many generations from Adam to Jesus . It is not millions of years.

[@tsfurlan]

Right, but the earth could of been around millions of years before God created Adam

[@LilRedRasta]

Actually it doesn't. It's well known that the genealogies in the bible have many people missing. And they'd often exclude people while focusing on others to emphasize to theological point. In other words, They're not exhaustive. Also the word for father in Biblical Hebrew doesn't necessarily have to mean direct descendant. It CAN also mean great-grandfather or grandfather as well. There's gaps.

[@studiolivingroom]

​@@tsfurlanBut in Mark 10:6, Jesus said "But, from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." ("them" in reference to humans based on the context) Jesus understood that humans were created in the beginning. And according to John 1, all things were created through Him, so who better than Jesus to tell us when it happened. John Lennox' explanation sounds great but ignores Jesus' own clear understanding that "in the beginning" wasn't any distance from the rest of the creation days.

[@q-petebassin2557]

@@studiolivingroomthat verse doesn’t support a young earth either. Because even young earthers ignore that humans weren’t made in the beginning. The heavens and the earth were. So even in the literal sense, humans weren’t made in the beginning. The earth is old

[@studiolivingroom]

@@q-petebassin2557 5 days older to be exact.

[@kurtdvet]

Gotta give Lennox credit for being so calm while trying to explain away his cognitive dissonance.

[@Stupidityindex]

He is transparently void of any quality-control in the reasoning department. What nature of people suggest a prayer fantasy, when we know nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. Even the fictional Jesus The Nailed said faith was worthless if you can't move mountains with voice-commands.

[@ivanscott2367]

So which cognitive dissonance do you subscribe to?

[@Martel858]

@@Stupidityindex Inane platitudes. Nothing screams pretentious more than an atheist on religious debate. I wonder how many atheists out there are seeking truth, where religion is not simply anathema to them?

[@pankaja7974]

dont you believe that a trillion atoms came into existence by itself and assembled into a cell by itself and booted ?

[@ilovelambs5534]

@@Stupidityindexyou think Jesus is fictional? Bro be serious 😭 there’s more recorded history about Him than there is of Pontius Pilote, who existed at the same time. Are you going to say Pontius Pilote did not exist, too?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

So well explained. God bless him. I pray others who need this find it.

[@Gettin_chunky]

People see scientists using dating methods (contradict each other) and see the Bible seeming to indicate a younger earth. If u can believe God created a fully mature man and fully mature animals and trees then why is it hard to believe the earth was also created mature so that it had fossil fuels etc that we need?

[@michi9816]

did I get it right: some 6000 years god brought the universe, earth, all the creatures and humans into existence ? probably with an old earth history ? you are not serious

[@musik102]

As soon as the word " interpret" is spoken all possible validity in the truth of the Bible evaporates.

[@wondery6693]

Lennox is brilliant and his non answer was also.

[@CSUnger]

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe is far older than the six 24 hour periods that many young earthers claim the Bible proposes. but if a modern day scientist had been present at the marriage feast in Cana in Galilee, he would have said that the wine he had just consumed was the finest wine he had ever tasted and it must have been brought out at the peak of its aging process and most certainly could not have been made that same day

[@samsonite363]

That is an interesting point considering this was also Jesus’ first miracle

[@CSUnger]

Consider something else about that miracle, samsonite363. First off, John is the only Gospel writer who records this incident and he places it between John 3, the New Birth, and John 1:13 “born of God”. Think figuratively. Water into wine. Six stone jars.

[@pannonia77]

Only problem that the story of the wedding at Cana never happened. It is a fictional story. (Most - or perhaps all - stories found in the gospel of John not found, and even contradicting the synoptic gospels are fiction.) The synoptics say that the relationship between Jesus and his family was strained, they even thought he had lost his mind. John says that Jesus' relationship with his mother was very close, indeed he turned water into wine only because his mother asked him to.

[@CSUnger]

@pannonia. LOL. Make up your mind. Either the Gospels are a reliable source of information or they are not.

[@pannonia77]

@@CSUnger They are not. The synoptics may contain traces of actual history, but the gospel of John is entirely fictional.

[@adamsifford6228]

We are lied to all the time. Giants are covered up...

[@nate78824]

Care to elaborate?

[@johnlol7416]

Thank you, someone aint afraid to say it

[@eswn1816]

​@@nate78824 Read Genesis 6 🙏

[@doctorartphd6463]

The Bible does NOT say the Earth is fixed (stationary). That is a gross misinterpretation. Go back and read it again. One can follow the days of Adam and Eve, and backtrack all the people who have lived. I think this will give a close approximation of the age of the Earth.... I don't know. Reading the Bible and properly interpreting the Bible are different issues. ...and troubling ones.

[@sudhirkalapala]

The Bible says God firmly established the earth. When Adam was 1 day old he would have appeared young 22 year old. Enough said?

[@JamesRichardWiley]

John Lennox does math but not logic, reality or the scientific method for arriving at truth.

[@peterwebster7785]

Thank you! The bible is the Authority, not our understanding of it!!

[@lizadowning4389]

If you can't or are unable to understand it, then how do you even know it is the "authority"? Or is it "any interpretation of it will do, as long as it fits our narrative"?

[@alwilson3204]

It was written for human understanding, and therefore our interpretation as well.

[@glen1482]

@@alwilson3204 And how do you know this? Did god tell you?

[@Danny451]

Well, as a Christian, I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old. I mean, who could possibly imagine such an enormous number as that?

[@davidmacpherson8710]

Add about 4 billion to your 6K.

[@Danny451]

@@davidmacpherson8710 🤣👍

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

​@@davidmacpherson8710You have no evidence for your claim.

[@trevorstieger6762]

4.5 to be exact

[@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh]

@@trevorstieger6762 4.5 years? Boy, I thought I was YEC!

[@JonathanMarshall-kc6pi]

Where can I find :"God has set the earth on its pillars that it should not be moved."

[@viliamrajnic7396]

In the Bible, the concept of God placing the Earth on pillars appears in a few passages, particularly in poetic books of Old Testament texts that use figurative language to describe God's power and creation. For example Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." One of the well-known verses mentioning the idea of pillars is found in 1 Samuel 2:8, which states: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." A similar image can also be found in Job 9:6: "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble." These verses are symbolic, expressing the stability and control that God has over the world, rather than making a literal statement about the physical structure of the Earth.

[@BrianMadican]

What Professor Lennox says about the different tenses all sounds nice and neat, however, it would seem that Yahweh disagrees with him. Take a look at the Ten Commandments listed at Exodus 20:2-17. In the fourth Commandment, Yahweh justifies the reason why people should rest on the seventh day as :- “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.“ Yahweh himself says he made the earth within six days. Lennox is therefore wrong to say that “In the beginning” is not referring to the first day. For anyone who thinks that Yahweh’s days are not standard 24 hours, but can be any time period then again refer to Yahweh’s reason for having a Sabbath day - “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work.” Yahweh is referring to the timescale of the human week. It is implicit that the days of Yahweh are the same as the days in a human week. What the Bible states is exactly what people have always thought it meant to say i.e. that Yahweh created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. Again it is stated that Yahweh rested on the seventh day in Genesis 2. Having said all that I believe that the Genesis story is a creation myth like all of the other creation myths in other societies that tried to explain how the earth was formed. Lennox is arguing from a mistaken point of the view about what the Bible says. The Genesis timescale is simply incompatible with the age of the earth and the universe and what Lennox says does not even agree with the scripture he quotes from much less any scientific research.

[@cornelkittell9926]

Christians often get into arguments over those things that don't really matter. Ask yourself, is it a salvation issue? If not, let it go. That is why we have so many denominations. They split over the minutia.

[@SalvableRuin]

It IS a salvation issue. If you don't believe that Adam was a literal man who died as a consequence of sin, then you have no reason to believe Jesus died to redeem us from that sin. If dinosaurs died millions of years before man existed, then death is not a consequence of sin, and Christ cannot have saved us from death. If fossils of dinosaurs and mammals and birds were made millions of years ago, then they were made before the creation week when God said he made the land, the sun, the moon, and all the animals. NOT BELIEVING GOD'S WORD is a salvation issue.

[@Peekaboo-Kitty]

You're correct. The Age of the Universe is not a matter of Salvation but it is a matter of Truth. I want to know the Truth in all things. Do you?

[@cornelkittell9926]

@@Peekaboo-KittyYes, and I would tend to go with the Bible as the source. After all my years working in science I have come to realize that we actually know very little. We base so much on assumptions. When you look at what we do know it does not contradict scripture.

[@Peekaboo-Kitty]

@@cornelkittell9926 You haven't been reading your Bible properly then because Science does contradict Scripture - that is if you take Scripture literally. Of course we know Genesis is not a literal account and was never meant to be.

[@cornelkittell9926]

@@Peekaboo-Kitty Let God be true and all men liars. The Bible is the truth. Science, real science does not contradict the Bible. The Bible does contain the supernatural, which is not understood by science. But it is real.

[@Gettin_chunky]

For the record, genesis is literal, what he mentions about the earth is found in the poetic writings

[@questor5189]

Agreed. I consider Genesis chapter one as written from a celestial perspective, Genesis chapter two as written from a terrestrial perspective, and Job chapters 38-41 as a poetical cosmogony.

[@Peekaboo-Kitty]

Genesis cannot be literal because the earth wasn't created before the Universe (it had to be created into something) and you cannot have Plants without the Sun. Plus the order of Creation is completely wrong and half of all life forms, such as Microscopic life forms and Amphibians, are not even mentioned in Genesis!

[@dongee1664]

If the Bible was clear about anything it would be the only miracle in it. Look how he has to waffle all around the original question and actually say nothing..

[@michaeloshea5505]

A theologian waffling on and actually saying nothing 🤔

[@MH55YT]

If you can't take a particular Bible verse literally, how do you choose which verses are literal and which are figurative? There are so many verses in the Old Testament that depict God as evil, do you create symbolic meaning to the written word? Tell me how you take 2 Kings 2:23-25 literally (that God isn't evil)? I have a list of Bible verses long as my arm where God acts evil (ask and I'll give you more). If these evil acts weren't in the Bible, you would absolutely ban this book in Southern schools.

[@gdsandkes8912]

How are we to reconcile Job 26:7 with this line of thought? The earth is indeed fixed in its place (thought it moves) and no one is able to move it from where it has been fixed on that first day of creation.

[@bobmoore7481]

Once again, verbal gymnastics to make the bible relevant. A University Professor ? Universities are meant to be places of critical thinking and enquiry not of delusional dogma.

[@beyondsquid]

Think of "In the beginning..." as a chapter or book heading. A summary statement.

[@glen1482]

Yes, for a work of fiction

[@Peekaboo-Kitty]

Everything has a beginning. Nothing special here!

[@phav1832]

The scriptures were not written to be science or archaeology books. They reveal profound truths beautifully and poetically. If you study ancient literature even a little, you realize that many of the numbers, images and narratives are not meant to be read literally (that's the shallow approach), but are meant to be prayerfully pondered again and again as multiple levels of truth are uncovered. This is particularly true in the Creation Story, Job and a few others probably. That doesn't mean that there are not historical components to the Biblical text; there are for sure, but too many take a literal approach when none was intended.

[@davegaskell7680]

I agree with you that the bible shouldn't be taken literally but the big problem you have is that how can you tell which bits are meant to be taken literally and which aren't? I completely agree that taking the bible literally means that you have to believe things that are quite clearly and demonstrably false, but the alternative (other than taking the path that I took) is to take a 'cherry pick' approach to deciding which bits you want to believe literally and which you don't. The approach I took was not to take any of it literally because so much of it is clearly wrong.

[@almightyzentaco]

If it is not meant to be taken literally, then what is it actually for? How do you divide between crucial dogma and poetic license? I would say that if the bible is not true it should be abandoned, unless you consider pondering it to be some sort of philosophical or spiritual enterprise, such as contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, that somehow leads to enlightenment.

[@John777Revelation]

Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, God was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, God was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that God would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though God is everywhere at all times, God did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) God is beyond heaven, earth ... and time.​

[@moirathompson310]

Excellent point! As the Most High says, his ways are not our ways. The earth was given into the hands ⏰ of the wicked, who devised times, changed places . You are right how could time be measured from creation. 🌻🌺🌸🌺🌻🌺🌸

[@willbrooks3490]

Talk about IRONY...John Lennox is involved in the very thing he says Christians shouldn't argue over - the Age of the Earth! IF God intended readers of Genesis to believe the Earth is NOT circa 6,000 years old He, instead of inspiring Moses to use the term yoms (which in context are 6 days of 24 hours) could have directed Moses to use the terms OLAM and QEDEM which are appropriate for indeterminate long periods of time even up to millions and billions of years. BUT.....He didn't and instead he inspired Moses to write 'yoms' and furthermore the same terms and grammatical constructions are used again in Exodus when Moses again under inspiration wrote that the people of Israel were to work for 6 yoms i.e. days (not Olams and Qedems) and to rest for 1 yom i.e. day. Does Lennox really think the Israelites were to work fo r6 millions of years and to rest for 1 million years?! The 'giveaway' in Lennox thinking is in his opening sentences in which he ASSUMES the scientists and astronomers have it right.....and it seems evident that he puts his faith in those secularists and probably hasn't even considered what other scientists and astronomers such as for example, D Russell Humphreys and Jason Lisle both Bible-believing Christians have to say about this issue. So, marks out of 10 for Lennox? 1/10 for showing up.

[@170221dn]

What a fantastic point Lennox makes. People read the bible and think it is true and join what they believe to be a group of Christians. They then study sciences based on facts, evidence and reality and this tests their faith in the bible. What a wonderful thing science is that it makes people question blind faith.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

This is an illogical view. People misreading poetry doesn't invalidate Jesus referring to Adam and Eve as real people, or Peter referring to people like this who doubt the flood as fools.

[@Shikuesi]

Dr Lennox appears to be advocating the Gap Theory, as though God made the earth before the first day of Genesis 1, but ignores Exodus 20:11. Also his language is surprisingly loose when he refers to "astronomy and astrophysics" as pointing to a very old earth, when he urgently need to get up to speed that nothing in the solar system actually looks that old, and that multiple objects in it look much younger - orders of magnitude younger. So his claim of a "conflict with science" is a mirage. Speaking as one mathematician to another (and sure he's a good deal more advanced than me on that), I'd suggest that in big-picture terms the old earth's Achilles' heel and thus the young earth's secret weapon, time and time again, is the exponential function. Now there's something to chew on.

[@zacdredge3859]

Well by Gap Theory you'd have an old earth and then every other celestial body would be much younger. Given the dating of interplanetary objects give results that exceed that of the Earth it doesn't track; either their calibration and data selection is at fault or the Earth really is that old, there's not really an option of both being true.

[@dulls8475]

There is nothing in scripture that advocates the Gap theory. No support from either "science or God". I do find his compromise irritating. The Atheists know that Genesis being disproved in any way undermines the reason for Christ dying on the cross.

[@dmfour]

I see many who profess to be believers that hang their beliefs on the logic and view points that Mr. Lennox warns about here. Well said Mr. Lennox. I see it with beliefs on Gods sovereignty. I see it on their beliefs on Heaven and on Eternity. I see it on their beliefs on who God is and how He moves in all things. Too many people want a comfortable and convenient belief system. For that I can say confidently, You can not follow God His way and be comfortably numb? "The FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge". Just studying what this means will give you wisdom and peace. God bless those who seek Him.

[@JamesKroen]

Dr. John I have to disagree. In the beginning, is the start of the timeline. The Holy Book does not say, Once Upon a Time.

[@RiyonAkaEasydoesit]

I would love to meet John Lennox just to expand my knowledge with his guidance!

[@stevenhird1837]

Me too but just to help me with my maths .the rest of it Ah forget it.😝

[@dmfour]

Read his books and view his interviews. What's stopping you?

[@Danny451]

Maybe you can expand your waist like his too.

[@wesleygordon1645]

A day with the Lord is as a thousand years!

[@normchristopherson5799]

"AS" does not mean IS. A day with the Lord is like a thousand years is saying that God is not bound by time. It is not saying a day with God is equal to a thousand years. Similarity is not identity.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

Yep..long and boring

[@ObjectOfMercy]

@@normchristopherson5799 actually the context of this verse is relating to time BOTH in the space time continuum and God’s not being bound by time. The context contains Peter writing to believers about the last day and they are dreading persecution by those that mock the faith which is one of the indications of the last days according to Jesus’ words about His second coming. but Peter is telling them, “hey it’s not time because the Day of the Lord is not 1 day in duration so don’t think Jesus lied to us or is running late. Time for God isn’t the same as we see time. One day for the Lord could be 1 day or a thousand days relative to our understanding of time. His understanding and adherence to time is totally different so calm down everything’s going to be alright just focus on getting in right relationship with God and be on guard because that time could be at any given moment so don’t get caught slacking” I’m paraphrasing of course but that’s the gist of 2 Peter 3:1-10

[@oscargr_]

With that kind of magic you can explain away religion and science.

[@MCNinjaDJ]

I don't think the age of the earth matters greatly, but the meaning we are to glean from the genesis account matters greatly. It gives us an order of events I believe to be significant. It gives us a framework in which to continue living (the week). I think it's important that we are not the products of evolution, that we are made distinct and separate from the rest of God's creatures, in His image. I think it's important that, even if God used evolution to bring about his many creatures, that death came into the world, not just for mankind, but for all creation at Adam and Eve's sin. If we can agree on those things, then I dont care what the age of the earth is particularly, only that our ultimate basis for truth remain the scriptures, and thta we test science by scripture rather than deny scripture for the sake of science.

[@stevepierce6467]

I am glad that you prefaced each of your sentences with "I think" or "I believe." That way, you have made absolutely true statements. Without them, all you have is speculation and wishful thinking.

[@adamwhite3811]

So ignore the parts of the bible that are wrong, because thats basically what he is saying without saying it. And still use the parts that are right. He brushes over the fixed earth position and then uses the sequence of events of creation and says well its interpretation etc etc. He didnt say the fixed earth was interpretation, it was wrong. Well, then how do you know the other parts are right? As he said, we all thought it was until it wasnt, how much is going to change in 500 years? If you read a textbook with serious mistakes, is this the one and only textbook you are going to use and trust. No, no logical person would. What if there was no other textbook, and the basis for your whole mode of study and field and even field validity was this one textbook, surely, you would question if what was written, was true as a whole

[@bingo7799]

I wished he stated what verse he was talking about because there are plenty of verses talking about the earth moving. You don't concede a point based on something that isn't true. He's right about making a dogmatic stand based on a few verses that could be legitimately interpreted differently.

[@tedgrant2]

All religions are based on a misunderstanding of facts. Now we understand lightning, nobody believes in Zeus.

[@oscargr_]

It's the perfect retrospective explanation of the bible. And EVERYTHING you currently hear people (including Lennox) explain about the bible is subject to future correction.

[@lierox9]

Ah but lots of theologians before modern science also took the days of genesis as not 24 hour periods.

[@oscargr_]

@@lierox9 Meaning that even theologians can't agree between themselves what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which parts are to be taken allegorically. My problem here was that its quite a bit easier to determine that "the bible doesn't say that the earth is young" now that science seems to show it isn't.

[@lierox9]

@@oscargr_ my point is that theologians were in debate about it before science said any different. The text alone wihtout our scientific motivation puts things up in the air

[@oscargr_]

@@lierox9 So when will theologians come to a conclusion?

[@lierox9]

@@oscargr_ Well it implies that possibly the text does not have that in mind as an important question to answer which it doesnt. The first chapter in Genesis has 100 things on it's mind before it speaks to the issue of timings. God as lone creator,hints of plurality of God, Humanity as the pinnacle of creation, the responsiblity of humans, God as provider, God's word as means of creation, The seperation and filling of the various groups on the days. The equality of male and female, the all conquering power of God- this is just to name but a few. It's a tragedy that so many christians read that passage and their takeaway is how long it all took.

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

So, the esteemed John Lennox says, 'You could interpret it . . . this way, or you could interpret it another way'. In other words, the Bible doesn't actually give the Truth. You make the ambiguous words fit want you want to believe - then it tells the Truth!

[@Unique_Monk]

No ambiguity in the 7 days

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

@@Unique_Monk What exactly is a day? How long is one? Is a ‘day’ simply an expression for a symbolic length of time ie one ‘day’ for God is a billion Earth years? Is the length of a day constant? Is it a literal day as we now understand the term? Is it literal, symbolic, allegorical, heavenly, astronomical, or any other representation? If you don’t think there is ambiguity in such a term, you don’t think!

[@Unique_Monk]

@@SolveEtCoagula93 You haven’t read the bible have you Genesis clearly defines this And there was evening and morning To suggest it could mean a billion or any other amount of time is desperate Is the day constant - yes it is… we see morning and evening constantly This isn’t hard to grasp

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

@@Unique_Monk Let me remind you that the topic here is whether 7 days is ambiguous or not? So, in the above you are quoting Genesis 1.3 to 1.5 - correct? God creates 'a light' to separate the dark from the light. What light (ambiguity)? It clearly isn't the Sun since 'lights in the sky' are not created until Gen 1.14, which, togther with the added detail at Gen 1.16 pointing to the 'greater light to govern the day', ie the Sun! So, if the Sun isn't created until after He created the 'light which separated the darkness', then what type of day are we talking about in Gen 1.3 - 1.5? (Indeed, what type of light - more ambiguity?). Whatever type of day it is, it is clearly not the 24hr cycle that arises from the spinning Earth receiving light from the Sun. You then go onto say, 'Is the day constant - yes it is . . we see morning and evening constantly.' Well, firstly that's ambiguous already since unless you live on the equator the legnth of the day and night constantly change throughout the year. So, if I asked how long is day light on Earth, I would need to state when in the year I am talking about and where on the planet I am. In the extreme, the North pole experiences many months of continuous light and dark. So, on Earth presently, a day is far from being constant - hence you are factually wrong. BUT far more importantly, how do you know that what we experience NOW is what was experiened at the time that Genesis is talking about? Remember, I don't need to prove that they are different, that isn't my argument, I merely need to show that ambiguity, or uncertainty, exists. Unless we have definitive proof of the time scale in Genesis, we cannot say how long a day was - hence we have ambiguity! If you agree with my analysis, good! Thus it shown that, when considering what is meant by a 'day' at the time of Genesis, we clearly have ambiguity floating around all over the place. If you don't agree with my analysis then better still. By defintion, ambiguity arises as a result of the possiblity of different ways of interpreting something and since we have at least two different ways of interpreting Gensis we have ambiguity. (In fact we have many more than the two of us because my analysis above is a very standard.) Actually the mere fact that this chat exists shows that we have ambiguity. You can argue about about how much, or how strong such ambiguity is, which is what you have done - you used the expression, 'desperate' but that is a simply a value judgment - but, so what? The length and meaning of 'day', any 'day' at any time and in any place, contain HUGE ambuguity!

[@Unique_Monk]

@@SolveEtCoagula93 Nope, only in your world view He makes it clear what a day is, how it is supposed to be represented etc I think you miss the whole point of the reason for the debate too, that a) man evolved b) there were dinosaurs millions of years ago Both not possible according to the bible

[@jonifejes6815]

We don’t know how long a minute was, an hour was, a day was when God created the world……man created time as we know it today

[@KenLongTortoise]

its sad when people with such gifted brains waste so much time in this babbling truth bending

[@nanoffyourbesyness9577]

If you have unanswered questions that trouble you about the time line and age of the earth and genesis ! Do not worry ! It is possible to find the answers to the questions ! You just have to ask, wait and be patient, and persevere !

[@Crich_Leslie]

The answers are already there. «Let God be true, but every man a liar» (Romans 3:4).

[@antichrist_revealed]

You mean like this? 1,000 years for each day. 2 Pet 3:8. Adam was created around 600 years into the 6th day. 5,600 years. From beginning to now has been roughly 10,600 years. There is roughly 2,500 years to go until all bible prophecy is done. Easy enough?

[@difficultjourney3216]

Can't have it both ways. Either you believe the Bible in its entirety or you don't. Thr Bible explicitly says that God created the heaven and earth in six days which would make the earth only thousands of years old. People like this just need to admit they don't believe it and quit trying to smooth it over. And if the Bible is wrong about that what else is it wrong about?

[@nickfaulkner4808]

A lot of Christians including myself don’t believe that those 6 days are literal 24 hour periods of time. We don’t know how long a day is too God since he is outside of time. I suggest checking out the KZbin channel Inspiring philosophy. He has a whole video on this topic exact topic where he explains it perfectly.

[@difficultjourney3216]

@@nickfaulkner4808 what do you do with Exodus 20: 11 and Exodus 31: 17? There it's says specifically that God created the heaven and earth in six literal days. Is Exodus wrong also? And what about in Genesis where the talking serpent decieved Eve? Or the angels with the flaming swords? All just symbolic? At what point does Genesis begin to become literal in your opinion? I don't need others to convince me that Genesis is mythically written. I've thoroughly studied it for myself. You should do the same.

[@JasonScoopComedy]

So God hates analogy?

[@Logiactor]

This whole argument for the literal six days is ignorant, superficial, and increasingly tiresome. Look up the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘Yom’. Besides, since when was the bible supposed to be a scientific handbook? It isn’t one single book, it’s a collection that comprises all kinds of writing genres and styles.

[@salmonkill7]

I'm a Christian that earned a BS in Physics and Chemistry from Whitworth University and then completed my PhD Physics coursework at Purdue University with a 5.9 / 6 GPA. I worked 34 years as a National Laboratory Scientist and invented new technologies in Ionizing radiation detection and invented a new dosimetry system for Hospitals and Medical Facilities that use Ionizing radiation. The dating of the Earth and Universe is correct to within a very tight error percentage. There are dozens of ways to date sediments and many other rock dating technologies that are independently that confirm a very old Earth. I am a committed Christian and I agree with Dr. Lennox that it's very sad there is a debate about this. Dr. LENNOX is right that this should not be a controversy, but sadly it is, because some refuse to understand the science behind dating.

[@bonnie43uk]

absolutely right Stephen, he didn't want to offend the Creationists in the audience, so he spent 3 minutes avoiding having to tell the truth. It's 4.5 billion years old.

[@salmonkill7]

@@bonnie43uk Correct thank you!! It's a touchy subject because the Creationists attack Christian Scientists that understand how the GRAND CANYON was formed and the various dating techniques that are used to date the Grand Canyon sediments and Earth rocks. The Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating agrees with radiometric dating of the sediments to very close tolerances. The Grand Canyon was carved very slowly just like Scientists have Hypothesized. The Hawaiian Islands are another good phenomenon that shows the islands took 70 million years to form, although this is fairly recent compared to the age of the Earth. This is a massive HOT POTATO at my Christian school because Genesis literalists are passionate about it, and they will look at you as a GENESIS denier, and nothing could be further from the truth. It's just a matter of time scales, and besides GOD TIME is not human time....

[@djparsons7363]

Lennox is correct, the statement in Genesis 1:1 means the Heavens, the entire universe, were created "in the beginning" of God's creative works which is NOT day one. The already existing earth was then being prepared for humans starting with day one.

[@salmonkill7]

@@djparsons7363 The message we should be giving out students and the World is definitely not reading THE GENESIS CREATION STORY over and over and "FIGURING IT OUT" as if we have some MYSTICAL SPECIAL power of reading SCRIPTURE the way GOD intended. The MESSAGE in GENESIS is simply GOD created the entire UNIVERSE, Including the EARTH and all life. Just exactly HOW GOD created things, we will never know and it's disgusting to me as a CHRISTIAN PhD level Physicist, that people that haven't taken ANY or very little science CLAIM to KNOW BOTH the SCIENCE and exactly WHAT SCRIPTURE is supposed to be communicating!! I am not going to be as kind as Dr. LENNOX, because I fight this DEMON all the time at my school!! God CREATED EVERYTHING and all of HISTORY has culminated towards the gift of GODS SON JESUS CHRIST and his mission on Earth to save all mankind from their Sin and pay our debt of Sin so that we can be RIGHT in God's eyes. Thank you JESUS for being our Savior, for suffering and dieing a horrible death on the cross, bearing our Sins !! Jesus should be our FOCUS AND HIS WORDS and LIFE and for GOD SAKE PLEASE STOP FOCUSING ON THE AGE OF ROCKS FOR GOODNESS SAKE!! I delivered this message to my students just yesterday and they appreciated my sincerity and my truth, that JESUS should be our focus!! God Bless

[@fatbastard246]

You mean like the same method they used in dating of the rocks produced by the eruption of Mount St. Helen in 1980. That method dated them from 200,000 to 2,000,000 years. As Maxwell Smart used to say " Missed it by that much".

[@marcusmuse4787]

The Bible contains several passages that suggest the earth is stationary and does not move. For example, Psalm 104:5 states that God “set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” 12. Similarly, Ecclesiastes 1:5 says that “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises” 1. However, it is important to note that these passages are poetic and should not be interpreted as scientific statements. In fact, the Bible does not provide any explicit scientific explanation of the earth’s motion or lack thereof. I also believe that the earths foundation could easily be interpreted as its position in the universe it being the 3rd planet from the sun and if it has a solid core with several layers that could make it a foundation. It's founded on a solid rock or iron whichever. Houses are built on a solid foundation. It's all interpretation Everything in the bible is not literal. Also, Earth holds a very special place in our universe being that life springs from it this can also be interpreted as a foundation. You can't move the earth from these positions. SO, IT'S FOUNDATIONS ARE ROCK SOLID.

[@marcusmuse4787]

it has foundations like I said but there not the kind of foundations that people think, it's about interpretation. you think they didn't have earthquakes back then? so obviously they knew in that way that the earth moved. you see the sun and the moon every day and night, so they knew in that way that it had shown them its position was fixed somehow. The Earth will always be the 3rd rock from the sun and the moon will always come out at night.@@D-Bunker-zv1bj that's its foundation in the cosmos. Set apart different from the rest. So, no those passages are correct. The sun has its own orbit in the center of the galaxy, so the same time earth is in rotation around the sun the sun is also rotating. It appears to rise and set that's just an observation. The water cycle in the bible was written about thousands of years before scientists discovered it in the 1600's. So, in that way the bible was correct scientifically.

[@calvinismistrue]

This is what happens when someone tries to fit a presupposition into scripture. The day age and gap theories become rebundled into a lot of word gymnastics that basically says "I believe the Bible, but it is wrong because a lot of scientist say so". If the beginning was not really the beginning, what do you do with Jesus saying "have you not read that in the beginning He created them male and female?"? What do you do with Exodus where it says "in 6 days God created the Heaven, the Earth and the seas and all that in them is"? Lennox is not simply casting a shadow on a hand full of verses peppering the early pages of the Bible, He questions Jesus's claims in the new testament and Moses' account of later OT books. It amazes me how John appeals to astrophysics and other branches of science to say that you don't have to believe what the creator of all those subjects of study says about their origin timeline. Simply stated, Jesus references Adam & Eve being created at the beginning. We are then given in the following chapters a comprehensive genealogical list of the patriarchs. Luke follows Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam. Blathering on and on about mathematics and physics enlightening us over 1700 years falls flat when considering how many times Bible deniers have been shown wrong thru the centuries. As far as what the lost world thinks of Christians having disagreements, who cares? I'd rather pursue the truth than put on a front for the pagans and compromise fundamental doctrine. They don't believe either one us, but do enjoy seeing one side capitulate and undermine trust in the Bible.

[@catherinesummers5057]

Agreed!!!!!!God bless you