DEBATE: Is Evolution Compatible with Genesis? Michael Jones vs. Dr. Marcus Ross 

🐐

Give this man a cape

Thank you so much

@Soldier yet we have Genesis so

@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD Yet before humanity sinned, there was another rebellion.

Yeah!!! He DESTROYED HIM!! He agrees with MEEEEE!!

Nah, I became a theistic evolutionist *after* I heard Ross say "Well that's your view but it's not the scriptural view so we need to work on that." When that's the whole topic of the debate. So him revealing himself to be a supreme douche harmed his cause given that Jones is very disagreeable, but remained pleasant through the debate.

​@@jacknickelson8096I wouldn't become a Christian because its beneficial. Id most likely get murdered if I'm the type of Christianity to speak loudly and don't care what anyone says if it's only me murdered but then again eternal life and One relationship with God who's beyond the foundation of mere existence as we conceive of it. But I certainly wouldnt lean to theism because some guy failed to provide emotional support it's disruptive to hear any atheist curse and slander their Christian opponent. Atheism is wrong on almost everything that it doesn't already steal from God.

​@@NSOcarththat's what I was thinking. My views weren't pre existing. But if his foundation of his strength faith is firmly steady then I guess it's good.

​@@jmorrayeah we're probably both wrong mabey God made the universe trillions of years old bruh. Trillionaire earther vs billionaire earther vs thousand year earther fun dun dun! Realistically It's up To God to tell us ultimately we shouldn't fight over this silly stuff. It's not nonsense. But IT IS nonsense to fight for it.

Hard to not be sarcastic when your opponent (IP in this case) literally has the worst possible arguments. Hard to take IP's theistic evolutionism seriously. Dr. Ross gave IP a free education and IP should be thanking Marcus for that

@@StandingForTruthMinistries I rather like what IP had to say and considering both with respect is best

Three weeks ago I would have strongly sided with Ross. Now I'm totally on Jones' side. I've learned so much about ancient Near Eastern mythology in the last three weeks. I'm now completely convinced Genesis 1-11 is Jewish myth and a polemic against the other Mesopotamian religions.

@@icypirate11 myth is a long stretch i would say an allegory

@@icypirate11 The Devil has got you big time.

I think both came short in some ways. Dr Ross seemed to be attacking Mike’s worldview rather than critiquing the translations by scholars. But Mike wasn’t as concise or firm with his arguments, and I think that’s why many say “Ross won.”

@@sidtom2741 I did notice that (on IPs part I mean, specifically in his opening statements). While I disagree with Mr Ross's YEC view, I would partly agree that he won the debate. But, you can win the battle and lose the war. Cheers! :)

Agreed. Dr. Ross definitely won. IP must be exhausted after nearly 2 hours of twisting and turning the scriptures on its head.

@@StandingForTruthMinistries that wasn’t even what he said, and you’re acting like such a child

@@StandingForTruthMinistries Thats not exactly the most respectful way you couldve put that. Even as a YEC you should atleast give credit where it is due and praise IP, not just start saying he twists and turns scripture to fit his ideas that are contrary to yours.

What does CCv stand for?

​@@yekkub9425 Can't stop Christ violinists. They make amazing music

@@yekkub9425 Closed-Circuit Vision. It's a surveillance company.

🤣@@daMillenialTrucker

are you a christ violinist?@@daMillenialTrucker

How did it go?

Ross is wrong. Moses didn‘t write Genesis. The Author is unknown.

​@@Tessinentdecken there is no definitive evidence that is was written by Moses and there is no passage that says Moses writes like in the rest of the Pentateuch. However, the theory with the most evidence and scripture backing is that Moses wrote Genesis.

@@cthefro what evidence do you have that Moses wrote Genesis. Give me only one.

@@Tessinentdecken Question, why is one of Moses' miracles a literal scientific fact that has only been observed recently?

The Oxford Annotated Bible and the Harper Collin’s Study Bible have pretty thorough footnotes which touch on some of the grammatical details that Michael mention. I personally liked the Harper Collin’s notes better, but the Oxford Bible also included a lot of scholarly essays as well.

John Walton and Craig Keener’s Niv Cultural Background study Bible has a lot. It doesn’t really talk about IP’s view of Genesis 1:1 but it’s great otherwise.

Is this a genuine statement or is it a dig at Michael?

@@taylorj.1628 lol a genuine statement. Love might be a bit exaggerating for it, but it’s genuine. I like the idea of having a bible to read that has accurate wording.

Get a Jewish version of Bible. These grammatical anomalies have been discussed at length and in depth. In fact, everything he mentioned came from these commentators.

That summed it up nicely, Dr. Ross was really unprofessional and childish here.

The... “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” is a common type of fallacy but I forget the name for it.

@@thebestSteven Protestantism? 🤣

@Soldier didn’t sin enter the world through one man?

@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD My understanding is that sin = disobeying God. Just because God forbids something doesn't mean that something didn't happen before. There is no record in the scriptures that murdering was a sin before Cain and Abels time, however, when Cain murder his brother, he committed sin.

Ditto

Im catholic, when you mean being a minority of an evolutionary theist is that mean most of your church believes in young earth creationism?

@@haronsmith8974 from my experience as a non denominational protestant, yes.

@@thrasher9898 Yea I went to a friends "service" theres a lot less worship and a lot more culture war stuff thats just garbage.

Who really cares whether macro-evolution is real? Why would that impact your belief in God?

He does inspire because he's the inspiring philosophy

Terrible theology. Trying to massage Darwinian evolution into Genesis is a waste of time. Darwinism is a failure while the historical approach to Genesis is more sound.

Half his beliefs he just made up out of thin air without any reason or proof

Not to toot my own horn but I've made a few videos on the subject. There not the best quality in the world but if I was successful in my task I did a decent job of giving an explanation of Adam and Eve and the days in Genesis

When you are done watching Austin’s videos, you can come over and finish watching mine 😉😉

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

​@@austinapologetics2023 You don't need to. Genesis is a creation myth modelled on the older Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. Don't tell your followers that though, huh? 😉 *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

@@ancientfiction5244 We don't really care the ancient wisdom is known and written down in other narratives, but there are significant differences. But nice of you to take the difficulty to copy and paste you're message everywhere.

That was a real debate?

​​@@albertbecerraMichael's opponent was a Muslim

@@EmberBright2077 ahh explains it

​@@albertbecerrayeah look up Mike Jones vs Daniel Haqiqatjou debate

@@demonking86420 oh brother. Alright then

He's made videos on that. His argument is that Hebrew numbers have certain meanings and that the ages actually symbolize important characteristics or accomplishments of the people rather than their actual time on earth.

@@bornagainbart8352 sheesh. It looks like the Bible is enough study for life, but life is not enough for the Bible study.

@@vladislavstezhko1864 Well, I think it’s important to know the nature of the language that the scriptures are written in. I guess that’s why certain people are vocationally called to study the linguistics of the Bible, and why we can be grateful for their work.

@@bornagainbart8352 If the text is inspired I don't think one would require tremendous external academic knowledge to understand. When Jesus came he didn't go to the Pharisees, he went to Fishermen, he spoke to the laymen first and in ways they understood, not debate the academics above the heads of everyone else. We should study the bible exhaustively to understand what it tells us about how to live, but finding interpretations to meet contemporary scientific theories seems like a waste of time. Most of them are going to reject it whether it fits with their timelines or not.

@@kriegjaeger but if the text is inspired should it be easily understood by a 21st Century American or a 5th Century BC Jew or an illiterate 18th Century Chinese Peasant? The most central parts of scripture are easily understandable - the greatest commandments are love, God is a Father, Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Do all the details need to be easily understood as they clearly aren't. Revelation says that the number 666 should be understandable by anyone and the church has frequently debated what it means since (as the meaning was presumably obvious to 1st Century Christians but not as obvious to all peoples subsequently).

I wish more creationists were like you.

As a Theistic Evolutionist, all I can say is thank you.

Very good and charitable take. Most of the discussion in the comments have been good too, which is nice to see. I'm a former YEC, now an OEC/TE, but I think Dr. Ross has moved up in my book as the best defender of the YEC position and I really appreciate his defense, even if I disagree.

@cchhiicckkeennss, my problem with Mike argument is that it's not backed up by the physical evidence. There are no "Pre Adamic" grave found

@@telleroftheoneso are you an OE or TE? I think there’s a difference right as OE don’t hold to evolution?

Too bad YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. Raising your kids YEC all but guarantees they'll turn into atheists as adults. Meanwhile, old earth Christians have no problem with science. Also, Ross was a condescending prick (probably why you found him compelling).

Dr. Ross assumed a lot of things

I would say its weird to assume anything outside of what God purposely revealed to us. If we trust in Him to preserve his word, it would be weird to argue that "In the beginning" was never there, though all translations have it. @M.E-Martinez

Michael Jones is far from formidable. His interpretation of scripture is based on assumptions and external scholars, rather than on the clear and contextual reading of The Bible itself. I just can't take him seriously at all. The concept of evolution was alien when all 66 books of The Bible were written. Only now, in the modern age, have people tried to reinterpret The Bible and make it fit the evolution fairy tale. If evolutionary theory didn't exist then no Christian would get it from The Bible. They would just be believing in the creation story as it's presented. People are just taking manmade modern theories and injecting them into scripture. That's an observable fact. Show me anyone in the past who taught evolution is in The Bible, and who didn't accept the creation story as it's presented. This interpretation of scripture is a very serious sin in my opinion. It's the fear of man, where people go along with the popular accepted theory in society in order to fit in. It's either due to cowardice or brain washing. Those Christians who affirm evolution are either under the fear of man, or they've been genuinely brainwashed. That's the only two possibilities. The latter is more understandable, but the former is due to spiritual weakness. There is a lot of pressure to go along to get along, especially when your job, social staus, and even relationships can be at risk.

@M.E-Martinez Excuses for what? You comment makes no sense.

YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. You should just raise your kids atheist, and skip the part where they apostatize due to YEC nonsense and become leftists for a couple decades. Or, you know, raise them with a biblical interpretation compatible with the natural world (i.e. old earth).

Just curious how do you deal with the fact that rocks and minerals in the Grand Canyon and other surface to very deep rocks and minerals contain samples that can be dated by radiometric dating and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating that are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of one another (the factors that lead to the dating technology is completely unrelated from each other). Radiometric dating uses daughter products from radioactive decay, while OSL dating using metal oxides (rocks are Silicon oxides primarily) and they absorb and integrate the radiation background until the moment they are analyzed. Interestingly enough BOTH of these dating techniques give the exact same dates for GRAND CANYON sediments taken from the top of the Canyon to the bottom at regular intervals. Isn't it amazing that they are in TOTAL AGREEMENT over the entirety of this geological column? Even if you don't concur with these dating techniques, you must take issue with the fact that no HUMAN BONES are mixed with DINOSAUR fossilized bones. I have personally reviewed all the ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos tapes and there are FATAL FLAWS with absolutely ALL OF THEM. If you have to LIE to reveal BIBLICAL TRUTH then there might be a PROBLEM WITH THE STORY YOU ARE TELLING!! Note I am not saying there is any problem with the BIBLE, my PROBLEM is with these YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!! It's amazing how COCKY Marcuss Ross comes across like he knows all the answers, yet they GLOSS OVER ANYTHING THEY HAVE ISSUE WITH! My challenge to YOUNG EATHERS IS TO PUBLISH their "scientific work" in REPUTABLE SCIENCE JOURNALS and submit yourself to the same SCRUTINY that all Scientists have to submit to!!

​@@salmonkill7 DAYUM 🫡😤

Yes, I would also like to see a debate between a young earth creationist and a christian flat earther

@@belialord I'd like to see a debate between a flat earther and one who believes we live in a matrix

There is no debate Anthony. The earth is much older than 6000 years. By a lot.

@@dagan5698 figuratively or literally?

@@dagan5698 Ok so I just watched a (Nothing) for 1hr 55mins. Interesting theory...

I think a good source for arguments against the theory of evolution, but not necessarily against an ancient earth, would be two books called" signature in the cell" and "Darwin's doubt"by Dr Stephen C Meyer.

Why don't you accept the most well-established scientific theory we have to date?

@@jameswatts2338 there are no good arguments against the scientific theory of evolution.

@@calebsmith7179 In my look on the internet for the evidence I didn’t find anything very compelling. I found the data didn’t necessarily lead to what people say it does. To be fair that was from a basic internet search so I’m sure academic books from scholars in the field would be better. But until I see the evidence and conclude that it leads to the type of evolution most people are talking about, I’ve yet to be convinced

@@gospelfreak5828 to help me understand where you are coming from, how exactly have you come to know evolution? There is misinformation everywhere these days.

@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell you seem like a lot of fun

@@soldier7332 How do you determine what is heretical or not?

check out his channel "Inspiring Philosophy" he probably uses the same source in his Genesis series.

Not sure if you found it or not. Try Benjamin Kilchor

Wasn’t This translation around since the 1700s, instead of the more traditional view of ex nihilo?

@YAJUN YUAN The video is called "Bible Scholar Puts Genesis 1 in Context ft. John Walton" and the time stamp is at 22:03.

@@dustinkfc6633 The most popular view in the 1700s was either gap theory or day-age. This is a bit different as there's no gap at all since creation wouldn't start until Genesis 1:3.

@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou “When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void.” JSB My mistake, not 1700’s, but the Middle Ages. I thought Hebrew scholars back in the Middle Ages thought it be translated this way?

@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou But there is a gap. But you must study the bible honestly to realize it.

Well then, lets put that to the test, shall we? PResent ANY SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, FACT, PIECE OF EVIDENCE, OR EXPLANATION EVER MADE that was gained specifically through your religious beliefs and not scientific research. Alternatively, admit that all knowledge comes from us studying the world, and not from believing in fictional characters like Jesus and God.

Can you give me one specific recent example of evidence of evolution that’s not “millions” of years old? Whats imaginary is this theory of evolution that’s been placed by Darwin even though all he had under his belt was a degree in religion. This theory is as credible and evidential as the Big Bang theory.

@@edihoxhalli do a simple DNA test between you and your parents. What you'll find is genetic mutations in your DNA. These mutations are Evolution. We find that in every living thing, in every generation. If your dog had puppies, you can do a DNA test between them and you'll find genetic mutations as well. That's Evolution. Banana's have been cultivated by man to be the way they are. Wild banana's are short, straight, bitter, and filled with large seeds. Domesticated banana's are longer, curve, have small seeds, and are sweet when ripe. Dogs are bred by humans from wolves and are now available in a wide variety. Various vegetables are the result of human intervention through selective breeding. Bacteria evolving nylonase to digest nylon, which is not a natural product and thus an example of Evolution. Humans growing larger brains and smaller jaws. Tetrachromic vision. Malaria resistance. Cholesterol resistance. Ability to digest lactose. Etc. all examples of Evolution within the last 10.000 years. And you're right, both Evolution and the Big Bang are scientific Theories, meaning they've been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Gravity also has Theories btw.

​@@jehandesains8674 but their still theories. You atheist know for sure just as much as a Christians do. When the earth was created there were 1 of 2 things, energy and mass, guess what energy and mass can't do lol create organic life.

@@daMillenialTrucker a scientific Theory is not to be confused with the layman term for theory. You're thinking it's "just a guess". In SCIENCE, the word Theory means that it's the best conceived explanation for all the facts, data, and evidence, which has been rigorously tested and scrutinised by the best of the best in the respective fields of science to make sure there are no mistakes, no inconsistencies, that it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Theory of Special Relativity are 2 Theories on Gravity. We atheists know far more for sure than you Christians, because all our claims are proven beyond reasonable doubt. For example, we know with absolute certainty God does not exist, because history proves we made him up, along with all the other gods. Earth was never created. It formed through natural processes. And Abiogenesis shows that life can form from non-life, and no, it has not been refuted, as the refutation you're thinking of talks about spontaneous generation, which is not the same.

I like IP also, but yes. I agree with you. He lost this debate because theistic evolution doesn't make sense. (I'm an OEC)

Yeah

So what view do you actually hold? A special creation long ago or a big bang?

@@tonyabrown7796 a big bang and since posting this I have read the Bible cover to cover and decided I am no longer Christian and I’ve completely dropped “faith” idk how anyone could read that book and say that a all loving all powerful god wrote that book when it was clearly written by barbaric savages that didn’t know any better

@@the_banshee6708 I'm sorry to hear that.

@@tonyabrown7796 there’s nothing to feel sorry about honestly

@@the_banshee6708nobody says that God literally wrote that book. Much of the Bible is descriptive, not prescriptive I highly suggest you check out the book ‘Is God a moral monster’ by Paul copan I will be happy to share more resources with you if you like. Remember, Jesus is real and He loves you so much

I assume you're being sarcastic and your comment is implying that Ross therefore had a fantastic and scriptural-supported performance in that respect.

@@Ttcopp12rt Just say you disagree man

I'm an old-earth creationist, and I will admit that Dr. Ross won this debate.

@@theoverreactor8731 thanks for being honest!

@@theoverreactor8731 He did win.

It's a hard position to take when all evidence humanity have gathered points the other way.

@@Zandman26 that’s a bit of a bold statement but could you point me toward a source I can check out that you think really supports theistic evolution? I sincerely appreciate the help.

@@Zandman26 That's a very bold claim which an entire camp of scientists supporting the young-Earth concept would evidently strongly disagree with you on!

@@Xenosaurian It would be great if science deniers actually tried to argument using evidence that could be tested, instead of trying to use the argument from authority (fallacy).

@@Zandman26 What is that supposed to mean? Stop being obnoxious and make some actual sense.

Yea do this book is like $480 on Amazon rn lmaooo. Do you have any idea where I might be able to read it without paying $500?

@@Tornadospeed10 Holy cow. It was only 50 bucks a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know of anywhere else to get it right now. I'd try finding a pdf, but it's a long read for a screen.

@@Tornadospeed10pirate it Edit, ha I just looked it doubled to nearly $1000

@@Tornadospeed10just in case you never found it or anybody else is wondering, you can look up the title along with “internet archive” and it shows up 👍

@@alt8938 thank you!

Because yom and eretz implicates a rotating earth.

Because the Bible never says flat

Yea, I have to agree with others, the idea that the Bible promotes the “flat earth” concept is false. If someone says the Bible teaches that, ask them where it states that and in context.

The Bible never says the earth is flat

@@NewASMR24 Literal interpretation would conclude the sky is a dome and that the earth is on pillars

I still don’t know how!

@@thomasglass9491 That's because you are incapable of understanding that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. I am a Theist and when I want to learn Science, I study Science. It's that simple.

@@robinrobyn1714 The Bible is not per se a scientific book but it talks about the creation and how God did everything, evolution is not compatible. Also, evolution is no science, but pseudoscience.

@@thomasglass9491 Where did you study Judaic Hermeneutics? Because the Tanakh has varying levels of understanding. As for Evolution, which I believe and always have, David Berlinski disagrees with you. And before you even go there- he's not a Christian. He's an Agnostic Jew. He takes serious issue with Evolution. He is not uneducated either. He has a Ph.D from Princeton.

@@robinrobyn1714 Terry Morteson in his book, Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin. He examines that topic and searched what the jews prior to christianity and the early church believed. The majority of the early church believed in a literal Genesis that favors the YEC interpretation (well except from Origen and his school of allegory, which is consider a heresy and the hellenistic jews who are not orthodox). Has David Berlinski brought evidence for evolution? Because since darwin there has been zero evidence, just theories.

Elsewhere it says he created male and female from the beginning. If it took millions of years before different sexes evolved, wouldn't that contradict the statement? And if Adam and Eve were the original humans and we have a short genealogy then that contradicts a long age.

what, and not with Jones?

@@PC-vg8vn unfortuntaely, Mr Jones did not adhear to the TEist strengths. Trying to put a theological argument forward only to support TEism will always fail when confronted with sound theological doctrine from the Bible. Mr Jones should have avoided that approach...he was never going to survive the problems associated with his view from that angle. It also doesn't help when one is up against a Dr of Paelentology who also happens to be a very well doctrined academic theologically and a YEC. Big ask to defeat this kind of opponent. Mr Jones gave it a great shot, but even from his opening statement, the huge theological flaws in his speech were clearly evident from the outset.

@@adamedgar5765Agree fully. I though Dr Ross' analogy of an argument or reasoning being like cotton candy i.e. it tastes great but in the end there's nothing there, sums up the point you make well. On the whole Dr Ross' arguments were far more scholarly sound than Mr Jones' "mostly, could be and maybes."

@@adamedgar5765 💯

@@PC-vg8vn Jones' theology and understanding on Genesis is woeful and flies in the face of what was believed by nearly all of the early church fathers of the first few centuries, and most importantly affirmed in scripture. Jones had to constantly rely on modern scholars opinions to affirm his inaccurate interpretation of Genesis. Cheers, ex-atheist.

This was not doc's interpretation. He quoted the Bible. Michael on the other hand, interpreted freely. I 'll ask you the question : is God limited in Creation? Do you believe the ressurection of Jesus or did that took billion of years too? Do you believe , that when Jesus says in revelation , we will be ressurected is a lie or is it truth? Will that be billions of years too?

@@rebeccad6840 the answer to your first question is n/a and the answer to the other questions is no

@@rebeccad6840 wrong, he quoted his interpretations. You didn't notice, because you agree with him. Like when he dishonestly told Michael, "that isn't the scriptural view," that was a lie. In reality, that just wasn't *Ross's interpretation* of what the scriptural view is. They literally disagree about what the scriptural view IS.

@@rebeccad6840 No Ross interpreted freely. Like when he assumed that Adam was the first man on the earth because the bible ways "there was no man to till the ground" focusing on the "no man" part, but ignoring the "to till the ground" part. He also showed he doesn't understand how analogies work. I don't know where he gets that analogy's only work forward in time. When your comparing two things an alalogy only works backwards in time because we don't know the future. Also when he said that the mountain tops could still be seen even though the flood covered them. The problem with that is a little thing called gravity. Water flows to the lowest point because of it, unless he's suggesting God kept the water from flowing off the mountain tops, but the bible never says that happened.

@@rebeccad6840absolutely no one is arguing that God couldn’t have done *anything* It’s arguing that God set in place natural scientific laws. Evolution may be a mechanism made and lead by God

Well, we know for an objective fact that Adam and Eve are fictional characters, as was Jesus. That's why first of all, our genetics and fossil record prove we evolved, and secondly, not a single contemporary historical source exists nor any other form of evidence to suggest Jesus ever existed. Also, biblically, death came through God. Adam and Eve, according to the bible, had no concept of sin, no concept of evil, no concept of disobedience or wrongdoing. They weren't even aware of their nudity or why that should matter. Only AFTER they ate the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil" (gee, it's like the name is telling us something we should probably take note of) did they become aware of what has happened. Only AFTER they ate the fruit, were they aware of their nudity and were ashamed. This means that God deliberately made Adam and Eve, completely oblivious of what it means to disobey, then deliberately took them right to the thing that they weren't supposed to eat, did absolutely nothing at all to prevent them from doing so, had a walking talking snake (not Satan in any way btw) there that told zero lies, then deliberately left and gave them some time to play around, and when he came back he was "shocked" that the thing he caused to happen, happened. This is like putting two babies in a small room, and put a loaded gun between them, tell them "don't shoot each other" and leave the room, waiting for a gunshot, then come in "oh no, didn't I tell you not to shoot each other? I guess I'll have to torture the one who's left for the rest of its life now". If a human did this, he'd be considered an extremely evil monster. If God does it, you praise him as the goodiest of good goods that can be. And you wonder why atheists aren't convinced.

That’s what I was thinking!

You’re gonna say this and then not tell us what it is or how he got it?

Because of context. Ross' explanation of the light/sun is based off of what scripture explicitly says - whereas IP's wasn't (its founded on speculation). So it's not at all the case that Ross was doing what IP was doing.

@@Ttcopp12rt Actually he was doing the same. Other creationists who dont believe in literal days but long periods use exactly the same argument - bara means to give functionality to something that already exists, in this case to give light to the earth and as a time-keeper, ie calendars. But I disagree, I think the text implies the sun and moon were created on the 4th day (ie after the earth), which is one reason why I reject a literal understanding of Genesis as that is not how it happened in reality. It seems Ross wants to have it both ways, whichever is convenient for his position.

@@PC-vg8vn If you want to argue ad nauseum - go ahead. Simply stating something over and over doesn't make it true lol.. You stand corrected by my comment above.

@@Ttcopp12rt You clearly dont understand what 'ad nauseum' means.

@@Ttcopp12rt “simply stating something over and over again doesn’t make it true.” Lol that’s one of the most ironic statements I’ve read in a long time given your previous comment. But if you didn’t get it when they explained it to you then I’m sure this comment will do no good lmao

Hey hun, I’m really sorry to hear this. I’m not entirely sure of an alternative view. My best suggestion would be for you to break down Genesis and go back to the direct translations and make your own stance. I pray your faith is not faltering! Also, just because we can’t always see a clear solution doesn’t mean God is not bringing one about ❤️

I am definitely not buying YEC. What is important to me is that Bible is NOT a science book. It is about relationship between man and God. The relatively small part of Genesis dedicated to Creation is very limited, written in most general terms by author that was, of course, not present at the time. He wrote in cosmology terms (dome, lights) that were easily understood by his readers. Imagine if he tried to explain the scientific details of fine tuned Universe to people in bronze age! That would not bode well. God chose to have man write the Bible, and this is a clever thing. Although He had to cope with their limitations. That He allowed words like dome and lamp for atmosphere and celestial bodies is because it was a perspective point of man and not matter of accurate scientific description. Even today we say that Sun rises. Only back then they thought that their perspective reflects reality. Today we can view it knowing that the description of bronze age perception is not scientific reality. Back to Genesis 1 and 2. As I read it I am noticing some holes in narrative. These are not errors but they show that main thing of the story is that God is the one responsible for our creation and it is Him we have to give glory (Romans 1). This is what was given to all humans in Genesis 1 which is a description of how humanity came to be. There was no Law in Genesis 1 but the one in their hearts. In Genesis 2 we can see God is presenting humanity with a special kind of people. They are isolated pair of humans one made from earth and other from his genetic material. The creation of these is special, they were not to be "multiplied on whole earth" but to be in Eden where they had access to the Tree of Life. Eden was created by "planting" and had it's creation in different order then creation of heavens and Earth in Genesis 1-2:4. These two, Adam and Eve, didn't stop to be those special people after being removed from the special place. The circumstances changed for them with the Fall but we can see that they and their children did have extended life spans and that through them worship of God continued. The Fall was about the covenant with God and Adam letting the sin into the world by the trespassing the given law. After the fall, Cain had a wife. He found it among people of the earth (the subsequent children of Adam and Eve came after the murder), among those who were created in Genesis 1 and were obeying the command to multiply for some time now. These have explored the land and that is how the writer can now about the gold, precious stones, rivers, and land of Kush. These were the people Cain was afraid of and these were the ones with whom he built and settle his town in, already named, a land of Nod which was east from Eden. The recorded story of Adam and Eve is how we were unable to live in a perfect communion with God and how God promised the deliverer.

See John Walton's lecture's on the Lost World of Genesis One

That is interesting. Did he comment on what that means for this passage. It seems indeterminate to me as if it could support both interpretations but neither strongly.

It’s because we read the hebrew to understand what the original authors were meaning.

Lol! Nice spot there xD

Christians should not use much time to look at friends who's focus is to make sin funny and acceptable. Hopefully that's why. Unfortunately I was not where I should be at that time myself, and got your point....

😂😂😂

The word ערץ is the same used as in the beginning… (genesis 1:1) so is introduced as meaning the whole Earth. The flood account is a recapitulation of the creation narrative, but other contextual details make it explicit that the whole Earth is in view

@@MrWholphin But again, the whole earth did not mean a globe as we now know it to ancient Hebrews. Youre reading the text with a 21st century understanding.

Ok, great point. So the flood could have been a local flood that was 20 thousand feet above sea level, covering the tallest mountains in the region.

@@UnderTheFloor79 do you not know what hyperbole is?

@@UnderTheFloor79 It may be a case of hyperbole which a number of OT writers were prone to. Another reminder that we are not to read the Bible as a scientific textbook. The Hebrew translated 'mountain' could just as easily be translated 'hill'. Or it could simply be that from the point of view of those on the boat, it seemed that everywhere that they could see from their position was covered in water. I understand this is quite possible due to the curvature of the earth - a fascinating insight.

@N/A ahh good point

Perspective is an interesting thing. IP had to totally dance around scripture in order to justify his positions. Whereas Carter used scripture as his basis and confidently won this debate.

​@@TheSaintFrenzy Show me where IP did not use scripture as his basis?

I find his opinion unconvincing. His opinion to me always sounds like he thinks God has to bend the knee to the laws of nature or that he’s subject to them. He takes specific verses bluntly and then other loosely to fit his worldview. He believes the science then works backwards which is why his interpretations seem odd.

@@Checkmate777 no rather the law of nature has to bend the knees to God, basically God working through the ordinary, God working through nature, what we see in nature is God's work, so he trying to show evolution is compatible with God and does not deny the existence of God at all

@@justinpartogi disagree. I think the whole continuity and narrative of the Bible is destroyed when you disregard Genesis as history. If you don’t believe the Bible just don’t believe the Bible. No need to pervert it. God is not a deceiver or confuser. Especially to a THEORY that doesn’t have any actual proof other than fossils and animals that look similar.

"The missing fossil recorded disposes I feel of millions of humans preadam. " I literally don't know what this sentence means

Because "the plain reading" is normally out of historical context.

His voice cracks regularly in every debate I’ve ever seen him in lol

I watch lots of Michael’s livestreams. His voice frequently cracks. That’s even when he’s joking around with his friends. I don’t think it means anything. My voice cracks a lot too. LOL!

Great verses.

Close your eyes

​@@aggressiveworshiper3155 that's funny 😂😂😂😂

Well, Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, so it's easy to accept this objective fact through education. Christianity...that's the silly part.

Then why does gen 1:27 use bara for creation of man. You also have to ignore many other verses. Or if you read isaiah 43. Verses 1 and 7, is it creating out of nothing there?

@@405servererror A simpler way to know the difference between created(bara) and made(asah) is when something is new God created it but not when God made things.Things that God made were not new.Things that God created were new. Now read Exodus 20. and notice God made it in six days he did not create it.So it was not new.Old earth

@@405servererror you didn’t read the text well. The text in question about man isn’t about actualization of its existence but in preparation of it. God creative processes in this regards is in his mapping of human existence in one man which was actualized in making of Adam. Note: the text says 27. So God created mankind (species) in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 NIV Let me add little knowledge I have here: note: I’m not imposing my view or opinion on anyone. It remains what I think and which I used mostly in explaining to people who need to know. When it is time for Adam existence, God made him from existing materials then putting what will animate and what will help him replicate himself in him. We know a Man contains XY chromosomes (X- Female) and (Y-Male) {male and Female) he created them. When Woman was made from Man, God took from the Man’s side (X) and made a woman. God by his supernatural power doubles female chromosome (XX) to enables her able to produce part of herself (X) in forming her kinds along with the Man. No matter what the man give from (XY): Male (Y) or Female (X), the woman is readily able to match and produce their kinds either a new (XX) or (XY). All these happens making process called reproduction. Reproducing what God already made or produced.

Lol nop even science is not even accurate on the age of the earth, they calculated the age of the earth with assumptions that everything was constant which may be incorrect

No one is arguing that genesis is a scientific account of creation, nor that the authors knew about modern scientific theories. Genesis is not a literal account of creation, it is an allegorical account that tells philosophical and theological truths about creation. You can believe in natural revelation through the sciences and also believe in the deep, philosophical and theological revelations of scripture. None are incompatible.

He missrepresented the certainty of that translation of Genesis 1:1 by the way.... it CAN be interpreted that way, but doesn't have to be.

Yes With the Lord, but not for us we don't perceive time like God. He is outside of time actually

I would STRONGLY urge you to watch Dr Heisers videos here on youtube (there are a LOT) and/ or read his books (including his study guides) Jones SEVERLY cherry picks snippets without giving Dr Heiser's overall view. For a couple of instances, Dr Heiser EMPHATICALLY says he does NOT believe in Pre Adamic races (I believe in his FringePop videos) and also says that while Genesis 1:1 states that in Hebrew "When God creates the Heavens and the Earth" it IS correct but also says that it is A CHAPTER HEADER, NOT A DISCONNECTED PHRASE (I believe that is similar if not what Jones claims) and taken as a chapter header "When God creates the Heavens and the Earth" it IS a stand alone statement and does not imply anything must follow it for it to be complete. Jones REALLY picked the wrong person to continuously quote as I have been watching Dr Heiser's videos for years now (and there are STILL some I have not gotten to yet) and Dr Heiser hiself sent me a half dozen of his books (of which I have read only 1 so far, I am ashamed to say) so I am WELL versed on his views. I HIGHLY recommend him, both book and video formats. I dont believe EVERYTHING he does, but I would say around 99.5 to 99.8%

I’m curious what did you change your mind on? Thanks 😊

Lol you are an clown

​@Soldier Why do you come to that conclusion? Why is your salvation based on something possibly read so easily as allegorical as early Genesis? What about the prophesied savior through the entire Old Testament and the actions of Christ? Or the historical and archaeological evidence for Jesus Christ?

@Soldier Hilarious. Millions of people believe firmly in God AND evolution. Did you listen to none of Jones' arguments?