Ever since I became a christian I've been struggling with this subject, thank you man for bringing so much clarity to our comunity, you are such a blessing, I have so much hope in you
How To Go To Heaven According to the holy Word of God in the King James Bible! It is very simple to be saved and takes only a minute to explain. Please let me show you how to get to Heaven from the Bible, God's Word... Man is a Sinner in the Eyes of a Holy God. Isaiah 53:6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”Romans 3:19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”John 3:3, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” There is a Price For Our Sin―Burning in Hell Forever. Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”Revelation 21:8, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Jesus paid that price by dying on the cross and shedding His blood; Christ was buried and bodily rose again the third day! Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”1st Timothy 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”1st Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ...”1st Corinthians 15:1-4, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” This is the Gospel. By faith in Jesus Christ ALONE we are immediately saved.Galatians 3:26, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”John 11:25, “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”John 6:28-29, “Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”Mark 1:15, “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”Acts 26:18, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”1st Corinthians 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”Galatians 3:26, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Salvation is NOT found in a religion or good works, but in a Person... The LORD JESUS CHRIST! Simply BELIEVE the Gospel and You Are Saved!
I think the Bible is the most amazing document ever written. It has several layers to it. If you are simple minded and willing to accept certain passages at face value(literally) and it does not negatively affect your walk with God, you can. However, if you are the type of person who picks things apart, there are plenty of apparent problems and contradictions to point to in order to justify your desire to dismiss the Bible. However, the mistake many make at this level of reading is they find the problems and stop at that point. There is another deeper layer available if one is willing to dig in deeper still. When one does this the answers and explanations are found and create an even more beautiful picture that solidifies your faith even more. I find it interesting that all of these passages that create these layers are concerning stories or areas that are not vital to the core Gospel message. I believe God allowed the Bible to form exactly this way in order to properly prove out the heart of each individual when it comes to whether or not they have a true desire to seek after God or if they will instead allow small things to stand between themselves and God. It is almost like having 2 investigators who investigate a murder. One who is truly impartial and wants to get to the truth and will not stop digging into the evidence until a clear picture forms, and another who wants a certain person to be guilty and as soon as they find evidence that points to the person they want to find guilty, they stop their investigation and make their conclusion.
If you're able to overlook the issues that make the book sound ridiculous and if you're not willing to be quite damn silly and ignorant to so many facts and allow this to get in the way of God...even tho God has nothing to do with all this BS you'll be ok...lmao!!! It wouldn't cause one change one way or another to read that comic book😂 That bible and all the so-called secrets...the only secret is COMMON SENSE.
@@rent1plussouth562 It's not overlooking...it is continuing to dig deeper. When you do you find out the things that seemed so silly and contradictory actually have a very good explanation, but to find this underlying truth you have to care enough to research and go beyond the surface level.
No joke, I am about to have an oral presentation about History of Religions and Middle Eastern studies and I needed some topic for the Torath. This video can help me a lot. Thanks man.
Catholic here. This is such a great video. I run into Catholics who are very literal about everything with the faith. I feel like it misses the reality of how people actually operate in the world. Great post.
Reading the Bible with the view of the world today, The Bible wont make "sense". I agree totally, Gods word is great, but we have to see certain things in the Bible differently. For example, "in the BEGINNING", doesnt say how old the earth is. Beginning doesnt have a number.
@@johanthornqvist5686 Actually, good news, it does make sense! The hebrew word we translated to "In the beginning" is "rashit," which just means "when." Along with a few other mistranslated words (Earth was void (Tohu) and formless (Bohu, both meaning unproductive), and created is "Bara" - assigning function/order), the real Genesis 1:1 should read: When God assigned function and order, the heavens and the earth was an unproductive wasteland/wilderness.
Genesis 7:11 When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. Genesis 8:13 Noah was now 601 years old. On the first day of the new year, ten and a half months after the flood began, the floodwaters had almost dried up from the earth. Noah lifted back the covering of the boat and saw that the surface of the ground was drying. Doesn't sound symbolic at all. If you read Genesis 8:1-12 it talks very specifically about lengths of time in months and days. The plain meaning is that Noah was 600 when he got on the ark and 601 when he got off. He aged one year. That is not symbolism.
I'm sure someone could spin it to be symbolic [But I agree, it's not symbolic, but literal. I understand that inbreeding manages to add genetic problems to populations. Also, what Jacob said [That he's _old_ but he's nowhere near as old as his other fathers were] Here: Googled it Genesis 47:9 And Jacob said to Pharaoh, "The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers." and in the KJV: Genesis 47:9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage. Edit for additional thought: You could try to spiritualize it, saying he didn't do _works_ as cool... but it doesn't make sense to say "attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage" if you're talking about doing mighty works; if you were you might as well speak outright about doing mighty works.
The only room that can be allowed for symbolic/figurative would be in genesis chapter 1 and 2. ( I personally disagree with that stance, but sure, maybe there is room for debate). The rest of genesis should be taken literal history. If not, then sure why not interpret it to be a reggional flood rather than global. Oh and now let’s interpret the genealogy as figurative/symbolic. Wow what’s next ?
@@boosminogstatus6460 Agreed. But what do you think of the idea that one shouldn't look to the Bible for facts? biologos.org/articles/series/science-and-the-bible/galileo-and-the-garden-of-eden-the-principle-of-accommodation-and-the-book-of-genesis
Silversilk I think facts will not contradict what the Bible states. I understand there are few ways of interpreting what the Bible actsully says, but my point still stands there are many facts that clearly contradict what the Bible preaches. For example naturilism and applying naturism in ur worldview can contradict what the Bible preaches on a theological level. Although I belive in general that most science application to the Bible is a secondary issue, ( certain theological issues are a primary issue ) I believe that one should be very careful in interpreting the first book of the Bible and then apply it the same way to the rest of the Bible. The Bible is God inspired and has authority over any other book that contradicts it( whether it be science or history or philosophy). I think Amongst Christians there can and should be civil debates/conversations on these topics. I think there are better arguments and explanations for old earth Christianity than this one. This idea that the ages of the people in the genealogy of genesis are just symbolic and not literal, idk where to begin.
@@boosminogstatus6460 I agree this video wasn't very... excellent. I think there are also cool arguments for young earth - this talk is so enjoyable to me I actually end up rewatching it for fun: If you have trouble finding the other three parts I will link them for you - it's a four part series and very smart. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uJGairhrPGc.html
Came across your work on a David wood interview. Great this is what I needed, philosophy, ancient history, Biblical study and the study of the supernatural etc...
Run away from this man (at least regarding this subject). He's trying to make an All-Powerful supernatural Creator God conform to naturalistic thinking. Not to mention the fact that evolution is literally mathematically impossible. Go to the Hoover Institution on youtube to see evolution debunked by 3 experts. Also, watch videos by Dr. James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist with a multitude of scientific awards and achievements. Evolution is the biggest lie of this modern age.
I have no problem accepting that numbers can be and often are symbolic.I just don’t see the symbolism you are asserting.Clearly, Genesis is recording the ages of the patriarchs.If these ages are purely symbolic and we attribute modern lifespans to the patriarchs, that greatly reduces the age of the creation.Having heard your interpretation of Genesis, are you saying that the earth and its inhabitants were without function 4500-5000 years ago? Genesis also records the ages of the patriarchs when they gave birth to the next generation. Is that also symbolic? You do believe the patriarchs were actual people and the genealogies are real too, right? Although I think your intentions are good, would you admit that we could find patterns and symbolism in any set of numbers if that’s what we want to see? Maybe the ages are symbolic, but they certainly aren’t obviously so and are written as if recording history. You also have defended the position that the process of death began after Adams and Eves sin.If I take your position wouldn’t I have to say the rest of the human population was sinless? Does that seem realistic to you? My main disagreement so far with your interpretation of Genesis is that the line between historical and metaphorical is increasingly difficult to define.On one hand you say that Genesis is a metaphorical Temple inauguration and on the other you claim that the narrative is historical also. You say that the patriarchs existed but the ages are symbolic. You say the tree of life could have prevented death, while saying you reject the ages because they are unscientific. You say that God had to assign functions to the fish and the birds that already existed, but what the heck do you think they were doing before that? I agree that God assigned function to his creation.I just think it makes a lot more sense that he did so the moment he created it. Genesis is defined as the origin of something. Another words the origin of creation.For some reason you make a semantical shift about the creation and say that the culture wasn’t concerned about it, but they recorded it in the first line of Genesis. “When God made the Heavens and The Earth” records the creation of material. I will grant you that they weren’t interested in where the material came from but in my opinion it seems more logical to conclude that all of life was created with a function and purpose necessarily so. If you take the days of Genesis as literal days and believe in evolution from a universal common ancestor, then you are definitely going to run into contradictions. You would have to defend that the earth was a formless water wasteland days before the creation of mankind or mankind was assigned the function of being fertile and multiplying. How does evolution fit into that? Where were the people living before God separated the water from the land? Where were all the land animals living before God separated the water from the land? How did all of plant life outside of the water evolve in just in just days? When God said let the water teem with living creatures, do you believe it already was teeming with living creatures? I think we both can agree that all life has functionality and that God created it for a purpose.I can’t relate to the idea that life existed for millions of years without God assigning a function to it. You’re making an issue out of material creation that I don’t think exists.The issue is fitting any evolutionary explanation that is compatible with Genesis and unless you take all of Genesis 1 as metaphorical, I don’t think it’s possible. Genesis is not a scientific account of origins, It is on the other hand, a supernatural account of origins. Since you do accept the supernatural, I don’t quite understand your motivation to give a natural explanation of a supernatural event.He certainly gave the land and the water functionality, but you’re ignoring that he separated the land from the water on day three or does the Hebrew not say that? Sorry for going on for so long but I do hope you had the time to read this because I do value your opinion.Nothing I said is an attack on your character or your Christianity. My intention is to better understand your position and to understand how you answer the contradictions and issues that I would have if accepting your view.God bless you.
Personally, I take the _whole_ of Genesis as metaphorical myself. Right off the bat, the order 'of creation' is demonstrably wrong anyhow. But, as I mention elsewhere - and possibly as a result of the influences from the Babylonian exile - which WAS real if you check, then the practice of almost mystical Jewish numerology was developed. See: - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria
The six days of creation are not literal 24 hours each, they are ages or a way to summarize the creation in 6 steps in order to make a sense the perfect 7, the number of God.
I’m a Christian. For the life of me I cannot understand how a man living over 900 years can be a “stumbling block” While another man rising from the dead is not. 🤷♂️ Well done though, cheers mate.
this is an apples to oranges comparison i feel. The major difference being that Adam was a mere mortal whereas Jesus is God in the flesh and has the power to be raised from the dead.
@@plantbasedwater9274 hmm. Yeah, I suppose you’re right in the sense that my example could be found lacking. The basic rationale remains the same though. Believing that Jesus is God is first a biblical supposition and then a rational one based upon scriptures authority. Not the other way around. Sure, it’s logically circular but all base-level epistemological statements are. Regardless of creed or confession. If ya dig.
@@plantbasedwater9274 Nahh. Just me unnecessarily hedging against what I thought would be the counter argument, apparently. 🤷♂️. Cheers bro. Have a good one.
Hey man. Thanks for the video. Keep doing what you're doing because even if we don't have the whole picture of what's going on with Scripture, the best progress is made by people like you. God bless.
9:00: With Moses’ age, it is also interesting to note that his 120 years of life are divided in 3 stages of exactly 40 years each (3 and 40 are also popular numbers in the Bible): 1) Moses the Egyptian resident (0-40), Moses the shepherd of Midian (41-80), and Moses the servant of God and leader of Israel (81-120).
@@1MoreTurn ok what does mean? I have a birth certificate and banks records that I exist. Moses doesn't he talk about couple of times in the bible and that it and Exodus from Egypt didn't happen. Because the Jewish people weren't enslaved.
@@sophiawilson8696 The Bible has proven to be reliable and trustworthy throughout the ages and have stood through one accusation after another. It has always been vindicated and always will and Sophia, l wouldn't go against it. I'll give you one example of many that the Bible has vanquished over time. King David WAS also considered by liberal Biblical scholars to be a made-up king, like King Arthur. They touted this for many years, that is, until the Dan (a tribe of Israel) Stelle was found in Northern Israel with the name of King David clearly written in stone. Archaeology is the Bible's good friendly vindicator and forcing Atheists to tell the truth for many a year. Joshua, Jericho, Isaiah having 3 authors and also Daniel had 2 authors, all have been shot down by archaeologists but not before Seminary schools tried to destroy the faith of so many students. These Atheist professors taught this crap for decades, but again Indiana Jones types seem to come through every few years, and will continue to.
You missed the most important part. The hidden message in the names themselves. They mean "Man is appointed mortal sorrow but the blessed god shall come down teaching his death shall bring despairing comfort"
Legit I fucking laugh when people say oh my God I don't need to read it I've already read the Bible bro I've been studying the Bible for 10 years now and have not even got out of the first 7 chapters in Genesis yet. That's how much study needs to be done the preachers these days are a joke they don't know their head from their butt you pay for a watered down Sunday matinee. Dare to Rob God?, you asked wherein have we robbed you? in your tithing and offerings.
Yes let's study the numbers. If they weren't literally there would be no reason for them to add up. Careful study of the ages at the time of birth and age of deaths add up to the timing of the flood. When "philosophy" says it may not be "literal"...then can't we say that about any scripture? Should we take "Abraham died at a good old age" literally?
@@jthomas5226 excellent point. The oldest man to ever lived. Methuselah literally means his death shall bring. The moment Methuselah dies the floods came. He dies in chapter 5 and chapter 6 the floods happen, and just because you can't explain everything doesn't mean it didn't happen in the obvious way that makes the most sense.
Hey IP, are you ever going to do a video about the passages in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? They seem to be the source of most of the controversy among atheists who think God and Christianity are evil.
@@Draezeth actually i read the whole book and it makes the laws seem better than what the internet makes it out to be you buy it and read it yourself and form you own view if you want
What is God punishing the damned for if nothing we do or don't do can help or hurt God due to his Immutability, Infinite Beatitude and Impassability? Does Aquinas write on this question?
@@michaelflores9220 The same way a judge sentences someone of a crime even though the crime never effected the judge Not because he wants to, but because its the just thing
Something important to understand is, people that lived in the pre-flood world were living in a far different world in which we live today. Hence, a reason why people at that time lived several hundreds of years. The flood changed this world to the point that it wasn't recognizable in the exact way before and why we today simply cannot understand what it was exactly like, nor should we assume that life had the exact rules as it has had post flood.
However, it is not exact. The text does not say "about" 120. What is the cut-off limit that would change this interpretation? If someone lives to 126, 130, 135?
@@haggismcbaggis9485 There's so much evidence. Especially if you know the current state of what the illuminati believe about the true history of our world. They hide God from us. Evolution and a billions of years earth was their doing. If you wanna know more, check out the series, "Know Your Enemy" by The Fuel Project. One of many interesting studies I've seen out there so far. Very biblical.
@Haggis McBaggis It's not really hard to find geological evidence for that. What you won't get is "proof". What you should do is try to reimagine the world as if that were true, and then try to form explanations. You don't have to accept it, just perform that thought experiment.
I feel like the symbolism argument is worthless. Why would you use such manipulative ideas? Yes people use symbolism but MOST document accurate numbers when writing History or for preserving information. Describing your father as 318 is one thing but to make a list of your family tree, while noting each person’s sex, Father, mother, brother, sister, age one was when children were born and death are most likely not going to be symbolically represented. To believe that is absurd.
It was extremely common for parents to name their first born after themselves, so many generation would pass with the first borns having the same name until you had a case where the first born didn't live long enough to have a child. I alway used this as the explanation for how long the ages were in genesis. They didn't represent a single individuals age, but the entire line of first born children. This was also how time was measured before they had calendars. They would say "in the time of...." and they would pick the name of the most well known person.
Can anyone answer in light of this? "Jacob answered Pharaoh, “The length of my stay on earth has been 130 years. The years of my life have been few and difficult, fewer than my ancestors’ years.”
Oh, you offer a good counterpoint to IP's point about Abraham seeing 100 as old for becoming a father. I do wonder if that can be explained. I'm very interested in and open to IP's interpretation, but I'm glad you point out this difficulty to it.
Take it literally. If you believe that God could create the universe and raise the dead then you can also believe that he let people live for 900 years
@@305thief8 Do you bbelieve that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead? Extra long life in a near-perfect world is much easier to believe. I believe them both just like the Bible said
I have only one problem with this. In Genesis 17:17, Abraham seems to say that he was literally almost 100 years old at that time, and also Saint Paul seems to take the age as literal in Romans 4:19. How can we solve this difficulty without descending into strict biblical literalism?
Leonardus. Yes I think the theory hits problems when you get into the narrative itself where Abraham says he's a hundred years old, and Jacob says he's 130 years old to Pharoah. Joseph says there will be 7 years of famine, that two have passed but there would yet be 5 years without sowing and reaping grain. The problem is how do you know when the author really does mean literal years and when he doesn't in Genesis? It seems like there is a lot to support the symbolical interpretation of the numbers so I don't dismiss it. Also I'm curious how the Rabbis as far as the earliest records of their commentaries goes understood these years. I would expect that if this was understood culturally by the Israelites to be symbolical this would emerge in their earliest commentaries on Genesis. I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think the case is proven for the symbolism of numbers for ages in Genesis. The problem as I said is how to make sense of narratives where Abraham and Jacob specifically say what their ages are. This opens the way to the charge that the author just invented dialogue to make some symbolical theological point and this undermines the historical integrity of the narrative, I think. Paul takes it as real dialogue in Romans 4 as you said, though curiously he says "being *about* a hundred years old." Your question is a good one though.
@@ohisnuccadoc Lots of people through history have tried to use the datas from this chapter of Genesis, using also other datas from other historical books of the Bible and from profane history, in order to write a biblical cronology of the world, only to come out with very different results. Given that, I think an argument can be made that the numbers are not to be interpreted literally.
@@ohisnuccadoc The Bible does use numbers symbolically at times so I suppose it's whether the symbolical or literal interpretation fits best in a given book. I think there are problems with the symbolical interpretation of numbers in Genesis, though the theory is persuasive in some ways. I wouldn't see a problem with long ages in Genesis if the literal view is correct.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks for making this series on Genesis. I’ve always struggled with it. The only things I’m not convinced about is the Flood. But, many ancient cultures have some kind of Flood myth, surely there is a reason? Places all over the world have them so I don’t think it’s likely that they are simply copying one another.
If you believe that God created time matter and space, why is it so hard to believe that with his presence people lived longer till he decided to limit age at 120...
Age limit? 120 years then explain Abraham's age of 165 when he died? Genesis 6:3 I am guessing you are referring to, and God is stating that man has 120 years before His judgement comes (the flood).... by your logic of 120 year limit God imposed on man, God or the bible has a contradiction with Abraham living to 165.... this is purely symbolic and purely symbolism of the patriarchs living an ideal life in old age...
That's a big if... so... he created then he did silly intervention with ages? Here we are just seeing a natural life span but... I heard some scholars say they used to measure by months which was made years somehow. Just do the commandments and you will be fine. Wait... how old was noah when he had kids? Nope don't believe it one bit.
It seems interesting to me that man begins to die earlier after the flood. Possible reasons for this could be: change in atmosphere, loss of genetic diversity, loss of nutrition from plants that went extinct. I know IP doesn't believe in a global flood, but that seems like one of those positions people arrive at out of concession rather than exegesis.
You've got it IP! Divide the numbers! Get the 7s and 60s! In all seriousness, there is no reason to suggest we must begin dividing all the Biblical numbers by 5, 2 or 7 for no other reason than because they can be divided that way. Noah begat Shem when he was 502, not 500, so what is the spiritual significance of 502 compared to 500? All this to say: you can't just make up a reason to reject the clear and simple meaning of the text - and Sargon building a wall is very much not in the context of a genealogy. If he built a wall to 16,283 cubits according to the number of his name, would he then go and build a wall of 5,000 cubits? Unlikely.
6:59 In Gen. 11:26 it says Terah was 70 when he had Abram, Nahor, and Haran - not 130. The math used here in the video is assuming Abram was 75 when Terah died, but the text only says Abram was 75 when he left Haran. So the video is assuming Abram left the same year his father died. But that is never stated in the text. In fact, 12:1 records God telling Abram to leave his father’s house. A statement that doesn’t make as much sense if his father was dead. It is more likely that Abram left Haram when his father was 145 and still alive. If this is correct, then no one had fathered children at 100+ y.o. since Shem. Not trying to critique the whole video but I did notice this one error.
The comment was in reference to the video. The argument made in the video was that the numbers in Genesis 5 are not literal because the narrator finds them "highly improbable" and not what we know from "science". Thus if this narrator takes other passages dealing with virgin birth, resurrection, etc, these also are improbable and not what we know of science. If the video Creator were consistent in his arguments, he would denounce these as well. Again, this is about his basis for believing the numbers in Genesis 5 are not literal. Whether he actually believes in virgin birth, resurrection, whatever...it's only relevancy to this discussion is to see if he is consistent: numbers aren't literal BECAUSE IMPROBABLE vs virgin birth ALSO IMPROBABLE. I'm merely pointing out consistency. From my experience, the more I take the Bible literal, the greater the revelation of God and the more I am blessed (which is the same thing, imo).
Oh, and by the way, there is a whole field of science dedicated to hacking our genetic code to live forever. In other words, there are many scientific reasons to take the numbers literal. In fact, the real mystery is why are bodies don't live longer? We know the atmosphere was different in history, even secular science tells us that. How would that effect longevity? There were also Dinosaurs which suggests at some point our world was different.
I’ve only watched about 6 minutes because I have to run to a meeting, so forgive me if this is covered. First off, one of the Mesopotamian myths gives the name of the town where their hero lived. I have lost the book, but archeologists found that this town had a unique counting system that employed fractions in a unique way that they used for all types of counting. So ages were written in fractions also. If a later interpreter did not understand this, then the numbers would be greatly exaggerated. I have found this information in two separate books, one of which I owned, but is now missing. I will try to find it and post the info here.
Abraham dying at "good old age" might not be in reference to his ancestors, but to the contemporary audience at the time Genesis was written. Also the fact that a number can carry symbolism doesn't necessarily mean the base value is lost as well just because it has another meaning. If someone says I'll be there in 5 minutes you wouldn't then assume it to be impossible that they arrive in 5 minutes. Also wouldn't it be strange to assume 5 minutes really means 5 seconds?
He follows "the science" and tries to mould scripture to fit whatever is the scientific narrative of the day. Hence everything must be allegorised, metaphorised and told in story form just to get a theological message out. He does this with the creation account, the ages in the geneologies, with the worldwide flood, with the giants before the flood and perhaps other topics which I'm not aware of.
Genesis 9 verses 28-29, "After the flood Noah lived 350 years. All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died." That is exact and is not to be taken anyway, but literal
Yeah, just because something is said, doesn’t mean it should be taken literal. 😂😂😂 Did you watch their video? Notice the formula those follow? Both end in 0? The ancient people didn’t use numbers in a literal sense. What proof do you have?
I think the Genealogy of the bible is BOTH Literal and also have a Symbolic meaning. I do believe they lived that long before the flood. Scripture itself would have told us otherwise. I don't have to study pagan nations and use there pagan information to interpret scripture. Not to be Misconstrued Not saying you can't study history... The pagan nations/Empires ancient civilizations etc etc and the many nations that have come and gone, just don't let it cloud your mind into a sea of speculation. The Bible says that The Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth and understanding.
I ask then why do you think Abraham found it strange that he would have a child at 100 when seemingly that would be the norm if we're meant to take the high ages literally? I dunno I think that's a pretty convincing argument
I really want to see you debate Ken Ham. Being that you’ve debated Kent Hovind and rely on actual sources rather than saying “it must be taken literally otherwise you’re wrong”, you would be a huge breath of fresh air to the ongoing debate on Genesis.
For the literalist, this is easy to answer. The whole nature of the environment was changed by the flood event. This would include much higher oxygen levels that have been measured trapped in air bubbles inside of fossilized amber (think Jurasic Park), a well as likely higher air pressure. Provided an environment that promotes healing, longer lives are normal. Longer lives also explain most, if not all dinosaurs, since reptiles don't stop growing. There are many modern animals who resemble classic dinosaurs. Might it be possible that given a lifespan 10x's greater, perhaps we are essentially looking at what were once dinosaurs? The notion of a healing environment would also account for the former existance of mega-fauna.
@@NicholasChorba You're preaching to the choir. I believe all of what your said, except for some slight differences. I was just trying to trap the person into answering the question because it would expose that his argument for their ages being recorded differently makes no sense. We know they lived as long as they say they did back then, but some people try to attack that notion and say it's not true.
@@cephyr13 he has some interesting things to say here, but even if the numbers are symbolic in some way, he's forgetting that God knew these people would be recorded, and that He holds our lives in his hands. Very easy for Him to end their lives at the apropriate times.
@@NicholasChorba Well, scientists have said that humans could possibly live 10 times longer with double air pressure and a little higher percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere because the body is constantly repairing itself under those conditions rather than degrading under our current conditions.
To complete this discussion I think you have to address why the life spans fall off after the flood so smoothly and steadily, almost linearly, from 900ish years to a normal lifespan. If it's just a matter fo switching from a symbolic to a literal age, then there wouldn't be such a smooth descent--one guy would live to 900 and his son would live to 90.
Just a question? If the Bible states that Enoch had a child when he was 65 years old, how young was he actually? I’m asking because another study worked on a division of 10 or 12 to work out the accurate ages and the only problem on that would suggest that Enoch was only 5-6 years old when he became a father which makes that idea go out the window!!
@@xplicitgoofy1015 Right, genealogies were not strict historical records, you can tell because they differ in the Bible slightly. They were more a "greatest hits" or listed to make a point than exact one after another chronology.
Literalist here. I like your show, especially the genisis 1 and 2 breakdowns.. And the Abram videos. One more crazy longevity theory, without details. Read about carbon dioxide levels and cell methylation. Any how, keep those videos coming. Very interesting.
Good video. Heretofore my best answer to "did Noah really live to be 900" would be a breezy "it's probably allegorical or symbolic or something." Thinking about this in terms of ideal numbers and cultural context helps to make this case in a less flippant, more serious way.
Is it possible that these ages have symbolic meaning and are literal too? I find it hard to reconcile how the Bible can say Adam lived 930 years and then died, if he didn't in fact live 930 years. In the video you suggest that because the surrounding nations had a different understanding of numerology and the significance of numbers, that they would read the biblical text in a non-literal, symbolic way. While I can appreciate that as a possibility, I find it difficult to believe the God of Israel would adopt idiosyncratic numeric systems into Holy Scripture, which future generations would largely be ignorant of. How can we be expected to read the Bible and believe it today, if one must be familiar with antiquated pagan numeric systems in order to be rightly understood? That seems convoluted and confusing.
@@vedinthorn I'm not sure what you mean by "just plain leave out messages"? When did God ever leave a message out of the Bible? My understanding is the Bible is complete, without anything missing. If you mean that God revealed things progressively over the course of time, that doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion of whether or not the numbers are literal. I do agree however that there are parts of scripture that are not to be understood until a future period of time (Daniel 12:4), but that is to do with prophecy, not history. Since Genesis deals mostly with history, I find an incongruity between the historicity of the text and numbers being used that are not literal.
4:38 I guess that 110 was the ideal age in Egyptian inscriptions, but why Joshua and not Moses? I know Joshua has a connection with Egypt, but Moses has an even bigger connection, after all he IS the Prince of Egypt! Yet he lived to 120 and not 110! Edit: at 7:35 the ages used there are ages used from biblical manuscripts families from ~300 AD onwards[Latin Vulgate, Masoretic], biblical manuscript families from ~400 BC to ~100 AD [Samaritan, Septuagint, and even Flavius Josephus] add an extra 650 years total from Arphaxad to Nahor. Making IP's point invalid. Edit 2: So people have been saying that the reason Joshua lived to 110 and not Moses was because Moses betrayed Egypt. So did Joshua, since he was Moses's follower and successor. In fact, Joshua has almost nothing to do with Egypt, other than being born in Goshen, Egypt. But so was Moses, in fact, Moses was the son of the daughter of a pharaoh, he was brother to another pharaoh, he was a prince and a judge in Egypt, and Moses is an Egyptian name [Being an ending to a name, meaning "The son of the god" eg. Thutmoses, the son of the god Thoth, and Rameses, the son of the god Ram]. So Moses, being an Egpytian, related to the pharaoh, a prince, and judge in Egypt, and having an Egyptian name, he should live to 110 and not Joshua.
@Kaizer Zotac Moses was an egyptian, grandson of a pharaoh, brother of a pharaoh, a prince, and a judge in Egypt, and had an Egyptian name. Moses was righteous, and lived a good egyptian life, so he should've lived to 110 rather than some guy who literally has no other connection to Egypt than being born in Goshen. In fact, Joshua was Moses's follower and successor, so why would the successor of a person who waged war on Egypt live to an age of egyptian perfection?
@Kaizer Zotac "IP explicó en el video que 110 significaba específicamente una vida perfecta en Egipto, troglodita sin cultura" is that better language?
I like the possibilities, but this is an issue when one looks at Isaiah 65:20, stating a [believing] person who dies at 100 will be like a child dying today, making an inference to the longevity in the Messianic Kingdom. I think trying to explain away the basic reading creates further issues and just causes people to stumble later and twist Scripture more to fit what they are comfortable with. Now, one can obviously be saved and disagree with what I just said, but I do believe it does an injustice when you undermine the text you adhere to. It causes you to slip back to avoid mocking, which leads to more and more slipping. This just seems like taking fictional accounts, interpreting the Bible as fiction, then claiming it is true. And just because surrounding cultures had certain styles does not mean the Israelites had the same practices. I like a lot of what you do, and I respect most your work, but I disagree with this analysis and the conundrums that arise from accepting this view. All that said, I do like the presentation and possibility.
It’s not undermining the text. In fact, on the contrary. This provides an explanation for the ‘contradictions’ we find about age in the Bible, and can explain that this is symbolic rather than literal. Many verses are to be taken symbolically. But the line is drawn when it comes to more important things in the Bible. Us Christians would never claim that Jesus was only a symbol or never died on the cross. Stories like His are serious and not to be taken into other interpretations, other than literally. What IP is doing is using the cultural context of the times to explain how their writing style sometimes involved symbolism. Regardless, whether or not the writing regarding to age is literal or symbolic, this debate puts no dent in the truth of Jesus Christ
One thing I think you missed is that the geneologies do work in the same way that the Sumerian official title geneologies do, in that Jesus was supposedly part of a line of priesthood.
The problem with IP is that he’s capable of recognizing this, but is incapable of explaining why he attributes divine inspiration to one and not the other.
Abraham was not 75 when his father died. He was 75 when he left his father’s house. That’s a definite inaccuracy in this video. I know it mentions Abram’s departure after the death of his father, but it does so in the past perfect tense. And contextually, it’s clear that his father was alive when he left.
When God said that men's life would be 120 yrs, He did not mean life span or that He was shortening his days, but that He was giving men 120 yrs before destoying the world with the flood because of man's wickedness. Also Genesis says that Noah was perfect in his generations, meaning the men in his genealogy were perfect in genetics because they fear God & lived as God instructed men (plus direct descendants of Adam who was created directly by Gods hand) & thats why they lived so long & plus the earth's composition & atmosphere was different and allowed it and it changed after the flood.
@@donlimoncelli6108 look for Walter Brown's explanation on the composition of the earth changing after the flood. He goes into specific details which will take me too long to write. He's a geologist with proven scientific credentials.
That's why he specified the solar year. The ancient Mesopotamians used both; they primarily used the lunar calendar but synchronized it with the solar.
My only question, as a Christian is if facts were omitted at leisure and the “chronology” was altered purely to be symbolic in nature instead of representative of the actual unfolding of events, then what does this mean for the rest of the Bible, if not, the Old Testament? If there is no set standard for acceptance of an unfolding human historical narrative, but rather we selectively choose to design it in the order that fits our preconceptions, then how is the word of God reliable? How can we take it seriously if dates and people and events are merely included or excluded based on whether it fits the desired story or not? I think it’s important for one, to look at the ancient Hebrew itself, because I’ve seen at least that the names of the genealogy in genesis 5 actually provides a transliterated meaning to prophesying the coming of the Messiah in mortal form to be killed and bring us comfort. In other words, if you grab the meanings of the names between Adam to Noah, you will find that their names tell the story of the coming of the Christ in mortal form.
The genealogy seems to go into Adam and the descendants of Seth, but never the house of Cain. I have supposed that Cains descendants, or at least most of them, would have had an ordinary life expectancy for their time. The reasons the descendants of seth early on have such early lives could be simply the same reason a few loaves of bred fed 5000, simply a miracle of God.
What you’ve got to remember is after the flood humanity began to die at an earlier age. That’s because there was water in the sky and water on the earth (Genesis 1:7). This will preserve life longer and vegetation will grow more bountiful. Once Cain slew Abel, the ground was cursed and the earth began to die (Genesis 4:12). As the earth began to die the waters in the sky came crashing down causing the flood and replenishing the dry earth. So before the flood humanity would live longer and after the flood humanity began to die at an earlier age because there was no more layer of water in the sky. This is where condensation and precipitation began. The flood is the first time it rains in the Bible because plants were watered with water gushing from the ground (Genesis 2:5-6). This can all be proved with scripture. The ages are literal. I hope this helps. God bless and take care everyone.
Where does it say there was a magically floating "hydrosphere" in the atmosphere? The problem when you take things hyper literally is you have to add things that aren't there and make no logical sense to make them work. Even if it was there how exactly does that make humans live longer? The humidity". Then why don't people in the Amazon live centuries?
There is a theory called the Hayflick Limit that puts the maximum human lifespan at about 120 years due to the shortening of telomeres which are found on the ends of our chromosomes. These telomeres shorten as cells repetitively divide and errors crop up in the cell division. Quite the "coincidence" that this limit matches what God said. Of course modern research into aging is trying to increase or even eliminate this limit.
Clearly something is going on with the ancient use of numbers we don't understand (and I say we to include scholars, as well), but I'm not convinced those quoted in this video are on the right track, either. One of the problems is we have zero idea what numbers were symbolic and how they were used-- it's almost all guesswork. For instance, in the video a quote is provided saying, "it is clear that 10 denotes corporeal talents, because each has 10 fingers." Uh, okay. Maybe. 10 has significance, sure, but how and in what form it's difficult to say. Also, what numbers are used symbolically? We're told 10 has deep symbolism, but so does 6 and 7, 120, 15, 12, 5, 3, 1, 75, 64, 8, 17, 175... on and on. Abraham died at 175, Isaac died at 180, Jacob died at 147, Moses at 120, and somehow if we monkey with the numbers enough, we find deep symbolic meaning behind all of it. This reminds me a little too much of the old Bible codes that would spring up from time to time, where you could manipulate numbers in whatever way you'd like to find whatever you want.
Dennis Mulcahy your points are valid on face-value. I don’t think IP is trying to say that what you have mentioned are definitely the case, it just seems like that could be a possible explanation.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I get that, and it's a good video laying out the problems with our understanding of how the ancients used numbers-- I'm not discounting it. But I would lean more toward 3000+ years of cultural differences, translation issues, imprecise record-keeping, and the manner in which oral traditions are passed down long before I would start to lean too heavily on symbolism. Going down the symbolism path blind leads us to contorting ourselves into pretzels. For instance, Noah died at 950 years, but Jared died at 962. Does this say something about the two relative to each other? How can we possibly know? Was Jared 12 years holier than Noah? Is there some formula involving the numbers 5, 6, 17 and 32 minus the age at the birth of Jared's firstborn plus the age of Seth from the time of creation to give us some insight? Probably not.
Dennis Mulcahy you’re probably right. It’s almost impossible to know what the numbers symbolize unless the writer explicitly says so and I think IP would agree with you in that regard.
You guys don't get it... God is God. He can make our lifespan however long he wants it. It doesn't need a human explanation. Life span is determined by the terpenes in our cells, God could simply of made them longer..
Remember Pharoah asks how old Jacob(Israael) was and he said that his fathers were much older even than he. This suggests a rapid drop in age after the flood.
Thank you so much for taking the time to make this video. To have someone interpret the text in it’s original context to explore the meaning is invaluable. Plus it’s actually presented in an engaging way. Love your channel
Gen 12: 4 says that Abram was 75 *when he left Harran*, not when Terah died. There is no connection between that event and Terah's death. The implication is that Terah simply stayed behind in Harran, where he died 60 years later (Terah's age at Abram's birth is given as 70 in Gen 11: 26, well below 100).
@@Ohsnapitzben you realize we can carbon date rocks to extremely old ages right? Science is objective truth, just as christ taught metaphysical objective truth
If God wanted us to be more precise about the beginning Adam and Eve he certainly could have been more precise with the different ages of the Patriarchs.
there is no convincing some people even with the evidence right in front of them they will claim any scholar or scientist who says otherwise is trying to undermine gods word because apparently english is the way god is communicative to people even though it was Hebrews who he talked to first therefore their culture and way of life should be considered when interpreting the word of god but apparently that goes out the window for some reason i don`t why YEC`s think considering the historical and cultural context of a book when interpreting the word of god is "twisting the word of god and calling him a lair" when actually historical and cultural context gives you greater understanding of the intent why is this simple concept so hard to understand for some i do not know
they are to fixated on this idea that the world was perfect when it was created when in actuality there was death they don`t stop to think about a perfect immortal world and the problems that would create is was not until this genesis video series that i was convinced evolution and the bible go together one thing they never explain is how would over population be controlled if nothing ever dies also there is the fact that god points out the fact that he had to prevent adam and eve from eating from the tree of life otherwise they would never die IMPLYING THAT THERE WAS DEATH AND LIFE FINITE YEC`s never explain that i once emailed CMI (creation ministries international) YEC`s ministry about the over population problem when i was 14-15 years old and the answer i got back was " i don`t know im sure God would work something in his infinite wisdom" THE HECK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!! the only thing god could do is create more earths for entirety we both jolly well know thats not gonna happen so i shelved young earth issue in my mind for a few years and not its been put to rest now
Reuben Lyimo Speaking of over population, the current population of earth is about 7.7 billion. The human population has experienced exponential growth since recorded history. If we accept the narrative of modern human beings existing for hundreds of thousands of years, we should have reached 7.7 billion people over a hundred thousand years ago. Do you know what data does fit with our current population? If we take Genesis literally and start the population at 8 people about 4500 years ago, we would have no problem reaching 7.7 billion people factoring in diseases, war, etc. Population genetics has determined the human genome mutation rate to be about 100 mutations per generation. Each generation we become more and more mutated. Contrary to what evolution proposes, these mutations have not provided a mechanism that is contributing to a healthier, stronger and more intelligent population. Quite the opposite is demonstrably true.The number of mutation related cancers, disorders and diseases are steadily increasing the more mutated we become. The observed mutation rate would not be sustainable for hundreds of thousands of years.We would have gone extinct a hundred times over if we existed for that long. If we take Genesis literally and we assume that humanity started with no mutations about 6000 years ago, it fits the observed mutation rates perfectly. How does the mainstream evolutionary narrative deal with this fact? They do what they always do, they assume evolution is true and create genetic clocks based upon assumed common ancestry, instead of using the observable rates. In doing so, they have to make additional assumptions that the mutation rates were drastically slower in the past. What’s the evidence for this? None, but but it must be assumed to maintain their assumption of evolution. I just wanted to share a couple reasons why I think YEC is closer to the truth than the evolutionary narrative.I could go on with evidence, but my goal is not to convince or argue with you.My goal is to show you that I not only have a valid scriptural basis for my beliefs, but I have scientific data that is consistent with my beliefs.I don’t base anyone’s morality, Christianity, intentions or intelligence based upon their interpretation of Genesis.I am open to all interpretations of scripture and judge that interpretation based upon the evidence for or against it.I can even accept some of IP’s interpretation of Genesis and still have a YEC view. It’s the things that IP assumes that are compatible with scripture like theistic evolution is what I reject and Not because I am stubborn or I lack the historical context, it’s because after learning a variety of views, from atheism to theistic evolution, to day age theory, to the assigning of functionality, to the gap theory and many other interpretations, I have come to the conclusion that YEC is the best explanation of history and the most consistent with scripture.You are welcome to disagree, but don’t accuse me of not thinking about it or lacking historical context. To address your question about overpopulation because of the tree of life, I don’t personally don’t think there is a problem.First of all, it’s a completely hypothetical issue that never happened. That being said, I assume that you as a Christian, doesn’t think that life ends at death anyway, correct? As I already explained the exponential growth rate of the population is a problem for the earth even if we die. If the population growth remains steady, what do you think the population will be in 10,000 years how about 100,000 years? Don’t you believe that God is coming back to create a new heaven and new earth? Personally, I think people were intended to live on earth, not heaven. Why even create an earth if we are supposed to be in heaven? I hope that makes sense to you because it makes a lot of sense to me.So if we are destined to live forever on the new earth, did you stop to think about your self proclaimed population problem? Personally I don’t think you really thought the question through and maybe were looking for a reason to reject YEC. I do applaud you for asking CMI and I am sorry that they didn’t have an answer for you, but in some sense either do I. Maybe the new earth will be endless, maybe multidimensional, maybe.... Either way there is gonna be a lot of people and as a Christian I hope it’s trillions and trillions. I’ll would let God take care of where they are gonna fit.I know it won’t be an issue for God and I don’t think you really do either. I do wonder how this video series convinced you that evolution and the Bible go together? What I got from this video series is that you can interpret Genesis as having nothing to do with the creation of anything and that although it is called Genesis which means the origin, it doesn’t mean the physical origin, but the origin of function.That interpretation demands that you believe that all the kinds of life existed without function.It demands that they didn’t have the function of reproducing after their kind before Genesis.Personally I don’t think that’s an issue for me because I believe that they were created at the time God assigned function to them.I do on the other hand think believing they existed for millions of years before God assigned a function is difficult to imagine to say the least.I don’t understand where God separating the water from the land and the earth bringing forth all the trees and plants in the same day so that God could assign their function in 1 day fits, anywhere and anyway whatsoever with evolution. How could the land animals evolve if days before there wasn’t any land for them? The only way to reconcile the two is to call God separating the land from the water a metaphor. You would have to call God assigning functions to the animals metaphorical. God placing the stars in the sky a metaphor unless we believe that the stars were somewhere different than the sky before they were created. Believing that God created a functionless universe for millions of years rather than creating everything with a function and purpose from its genesis, seems awfully rash just to appease the current scientific consensus. The same consensus that is used to promote atheism, anti theism, that denies miracles, rejects the historicity of the Bible, and is used as the number one reasoning for rejecting God.It is not as if it is only YEC’s that contest John Walton’s views.His view of Genesis is widely rejected among scholars for obvious reasons, some of which I have already stated.It seems less likely that supporting Walton’s views is about cultural context and is more likely about easing your worries about science contradicting scripture.I think that easing people’s worries about their beliefs in modern scientific dogma being contrary to scripture is one of IP’s goals of this channel.The obvious problem with this is that scripture is full of things that contradict modern scientific dogma. I think it’s clear that the culture context of the Biblical authors had nothing to do with modern scientific dogma and they had no problems whatsoever accepting the supernatural. You are entitled to your beliefs and if they strengthen your relationship with God, then so be it.Neither you or I can prove our beliefs about creation and as long as we both agree that the God did it and Christianity is true, I see it as a disagreement among brethren.God bless.
@@danpaulisbitski when i asked the the question about overpopulation i was genuinely looking for answer the reason we have 7.7 billion people on the earth is not because of consistent growth rate since 4500 years ago but because of modern technology allowing humans to grow at such a rapid rate could you provide some sources of where you got this population data from?
Hear a lot of speculation, with no real attempt made to understand Young Earth Creationist theology. Start with the reason for the average age decrease post-Noah's Flood. This video has been an excellent example of mathematical speculation based on extra-Biblical sources.
If these large numbers for ages are simply symbolic of something, then why are they no longer used after a certain point? And why is there a pattern of the numbers gradually decreasing?
I'm not saying that the ages aren't symbolic, but I think we tend to think we know more about history than we actually do. I have no problem thinking that a part of mankind's fall was a degradation of our longevity over time. Seeing as how mutation actually harms more than it helps and that mutation is common in low-population environments, I don't rule out the possibility that humans were much longer-lived before recorded history and degraded over time at a slower and slower rate due to greater genetic diversity and we have only now begun to fight aging with our advancements in technology in healthcare. Recorded history goes back only 6,000 years, and the further back you go, the less information you actually have and the more you rely on assumptions and speculations. Our past is a very mysterious time. Who really knows if the first men were somehow long-lived? We just reject it because it sounds ridiculous and we have no empirical reason to think it's possible other than ancient manuscripts that contradict our intuition. I simply choose to accept my ignorance about such things and resign to the fact that any beliefs I form on the matter are entirely speculative.
Very interesting. I live in Asia and spend some time in Thailand. There they celebrate cycle birthdays. 1 cycle is 12 years, the time it takes for you to cycle back into your zodiac sign. (Chinese zodiac that is) So traditionally people would celebrate your cycles as important. For example, if you are 3 cycles old, everyone would know you mean 3x12 (36) This whole system is also imbedded in a 60 year cycle where you repeat 5 cycles to work through the yin/yang and the 5 elements. So on you 5th cycle you would be in the 5th element of your sign. For example: If you are the Rat born in the year of Yang Wood. Your 1st cycle will be Year of the Rat in Yang Fire and so on till you reach Yang Water. From here they even give numbers of times of birth that would be the best time to be born. (Down to day and hour) They even look at the solar longitude as it correlates to months and lunar months. There is so much there in the numbers. I could say I am 36 or 3 cycles in the year of the Metal Rooster. That says a lot about who you are and what kind of person you are in some cultures. Long story, but I wonder how astrological knowledge would have figured into this system? It seems strange at times trying to wrap your head around this way of counting and thinking, yet in cultures where cycles and symbols is a regular part of counting and convening meaning it makes sense. Thanks for sharing. :)
So, it seems that the ancient records of ages were more a tradition of describing *quality* of the subject's years, rather than the *quantity* of years?
he Genesis genealogies also give specific ages for when these people had the sons that were next on the list. The text would never do that if the long goes were just symbolism meant to honor these people.
Another theory is that humans were closer to perfection and could live longer. Or, after the great flood, the expanse that was shielding humans from the sun was no more, thus causing humans to die sooner from the affects of the sun's radiation...just a thought
@@davidt51 The sun has very little to do with human lifespans, at least in the sense that slightly more sun wouldn't kill you faster, if the sun reached lethal levels of radiation you'd just die very soon.
@@Iamwrongbut how so? Gen 12 does not say anything about Terah's age. It's not a contradiction inside the old testament because the only place having that info is in Gen 11. Michael is pointing rather a wrong information given by IP.
@@lclyd the problem comes from Acts 7:4 which says that Abraham leaves Haran after his father died. Genesis 12:4 says Abraham was 75 years old at the time, and Terah died at 205 (Gen 11:32). So 205-75 is 130, which according to Acts is the earliest Terah could have begat Abram. But Genesis 11:26 says Terah was 70 when Abram was born, which is where the problem occurs.
to be fair ... unless the sons of Terah were triplets, Abram could have been birthed any time after Terah was 70. Maybe a scribe with glaucoma put down 205 instead of 145? i dont know ...
Your work is incredible man! It's absolutely inspiring for me. Thanks to you I've learned how to balance what I've learned in my animation/ game art classes with what to show in what I learn in my readings of apologetics. You truly have the truth of God flowing from you, even if you course correct along the way. Thank you so much for everything, personally. Keep doing your work in making this important study interesting and comprehensive, I love it all!
Help me out here. At 8:40 I heard: "no doubt the number 12 denotes time, since there were always 12 months in a year." I thought ancient Calendars had 10 months plus 60-61 days of winter. I thought the first month in ancient times was March, followed by April, May, June, QUINtillus (meaning 5th month), SEXtillus (meaning sixth month), SEPtember (7th month), OCTober (OCT as in 8 sides to an Octagon, this was the eighth month), NOVember and DECember, followed by 60-61 days of winter. This was the case until about 455 B.C. or so. Did the Egyptians speciffically always use 12 months?
I watched most of this with an open mind. Can’t say this is your best work for the kingdom, brother. There were ways to connect these numbers to people without having to lie about their age. Yes numbers do have theological value, but they’re not used dishonestly.
Years ago, my genetics professor told the class that man cannot live passed the age of about 120 years since neural connections begin to fail with increasing significance after 80 years. Mind you, that was what I was told. I do not know how true that is. Just thought I'd throw that in.
I've also heard that even if names are mentioned, they could reference the progenitor of families, not one person's life span. For example, Jared is listed, but could be 10 generations of people in that family line, before a new progenitor Enoch is established.
Joseph, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, certainly seemed convinced that the ages were literal when he spoke to the pharaoh: Genesis 47:7-10 HCSB "Joseph then brought his father Jacob and presented him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. Then Pharaoh said to Jacob, “How many years have you lived? ” Jacob said to Pharaoh, “My pilgrimage has lasted 130 years. My years have been few and hard, and they have not surpassed the years of my fathers during their pilgrimages.” So Jacob blessed Pharaoh and departed from Pharaoh’s presence."
Because in 2019 the Bible makes no sense scientifically or theologically from a literal framework. He doesn’t want to let go of his religious construct so they keep inventing new ways of interpretation to continue to be able to logically hold their positions.
@@Actuary1776 Could it be that the majority of the guys behind science don't have a clue about who God is, and this reflects in every area of their works making it appear like science is contrary to God of the Bible,instead of Science explains God and his work??? You are what you belief, directly or indirectly, in other words ...your beliefs usher your direction in life.
seed farmer No. If God exists science is a tool given to us to complement reason and logic. More science, less religious books written 4,000 years ago.
I was speaking with a sister of mine and she came to the conclusion that Adam would literally have to live long, because of the glory of GOD he was exposed to
"I'll be there in 5 minutes." Yes, I expect you to arrive within 5 minutes. This branch of reasoning to dismiss the possibility of the ages in the bible as being literal is an extreme reach.
Nupuqi Om-Re Khonectics Chamber 63 Plus Degree Gen. 5: 1 This is an EL Bio QIran of the Gene Rael ( General ) Meso, Aeon, Thermos, Helios ( Math ) Ta Ion of the Atom (Adam). When ( God , Glue Ghost , Glucose , Composite , Khumu phix) of Demons (sub particles of elements [ pi re illi ] that in mathematics we call denominators ) created Humans ( Humid atomic neutrons ) in his image. Gen. 5: 2 ( God , Glue Ghost , Glucose , Composite , Khumu phix) composed both Electrons and Protons (male and female, Zakhar and Nekevah ); and blessed them, and called their name Atoms (Adam ) , in the day (yom) when they were created. Gen 5: 3 Adam ( A denominator , atomic molecule is an Atom ) lived one hundred and thirty years ( Xenon , Exos phi -re ), and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth ( Sphere elements Thermos , Etheric realm ). Gen. 5: 4 After he begot Seth ( Sphere elements Thermos), the days of Atom (1) were eight hundred years (.008 ) ( Hydrogen constituting roughly 75% of all baryonic mass); and he had ( Ionosphere {where matter comes together} bonding ) sons and daughters ( Ma sons [ mesons ] and Son of Lions [Baryons] ). For the Sons of Lions 3 ( PROTONS or NEUTRONS ) = Miat (Maat , Lib Ra ) For Ma sons 2 ( Pions ) = I Good 1 Evil . Gen. 5: 5 So all the days that Atom lived were nine hundred and thirty years ( Argon 0.934% of Atom’s phi re) ; and he died
@@IshtarLinqu perhaps you should reply with relevant information instead of throwing a bunch of gibberish without explanation? That is what your reply adds up to, intellectual-sounding garbage with only the hint of reason within.
It’s not a reach. Generally speaking, when someone says I’ll be there in five minutes or give me a minute, they’re saying they’ll be there soon. That’s just an idiomatic expression that we use
@@betheladiele4684 The saying itself is not a reach but the conclusion reached using that assumption is quite a reach. Comparing “I’ll be there soon” to “he was this age” is grasping, quite frankly
Genesis 11:26 says that "When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran." So that is the age I generally notice for Terah at the birth of his sons. I hadn't done the math for Abram specifically based on 11:32 and 12:4. 11:6 just means that the *oldest* of the sons would have been born when Terah was 70, but the other verses would indeed make him 130 when Abram was born, if taken literally. This point really helped me with this issue. A literal reading doesn't work given Abram and Sarai's reaction when God promises them descendants. We can then safely assume that a literal reading is not what the original human authors (and God) intended, and that is what matters.
Of course this doesn't discredit the whole argument or anything. But if I remember correctly the Writers of the OT would have gone off of the lunar calendar which did not have 12 months. So to say that 12 is representing a full circle of time seems like a modern day reading in our understanding of time. Maybe I am wrong about the lunar calendar being how they told time in ancient Israel. But I thought that was a pretty certain belief.
Michael, great video as always. I am trying to reconcile the different ages of the traditions in Genesis with the idea that Moses wrote Genesis. Why would he switch from a base 60 system to ideal numbers if he wrote the book in his one lifetime? I'd imagine Moses will stick to one numbering system for the entirety of his writings.
Sorry, I will take it as literally. Pre-Flood earth was way different. The fossilized insects that theyve found especially a giant dragonfly baffled Scientists. A giant dragonfly would only be able to live in an oxygen-rich environment. Never would a giant dragonfly be able to in our current state of environment. My point is that those people who lived during before the flood really lived in a better enviroment.
IP has produced some high-quality content, but I’m starting get the impression that he’s moving gradually toward higher criticism. Will he soon be saying that the Christ figure represents God’s (our inner, higher versions’) good will toward us, and is not meant to be taken literally? No doubt symbolism exists in the Bible (and figures of speech that can be understood easily, via common rhetoric of the period, not to be taken literally). But “not likely to be coincidental” doesn’t obligately mean therefore that it’s not literal. Molecules inside cells working together as finely-crafted machines are not likely to be coincidental, but they are literal. When dealing with an infinite God, symbolism and unlikely patterns can be painted directly onto physical reality. IP warns us of the slippery slope in assigning non-literal meanings to scriptures that don’t call for it, but I would caution him likewise. The farther one runs afield of plain reading of scripture, the more speculative things become, and at some point we could just be making it up as we go along. Like the so-called higher critics. These are interesting discussions, but a firm predilection toward biblical literalism can keep us grounded from blowing away in the winds of strange doctrines.
Amen agreed One could find Anything in the Bible can be taken as allegory then. I’ve heard people say the second coming won’t be literal event but has already happened in our minds and hearts and that’s that. Just by getting a couple text they use could make it sound good but then other verses contradict that very greatly. So I put my trust in the word of god and let scripture interpret itself rather than mainly relying on other ancient religions and scholars since many scholars disagree on biblical interpretations of various issues
Abraham's father was 70 not 130 when Abraham was born. People lived 900 years in the past and each generation lived less years than the previous generation because of the fall of man so there is no conflict
Advice to believers if you can take a text in the bible literal take it literal don’t tap dance around scriptures to try to fit modern day philosophies, theories and supposed science of a society that has a clear agenda against God and is dominated by the god of this world. Take God at His word it may seem improbable unintellectual or even impossible but that is the God that we serve, He uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. And in the wisdom of this world you will not find or know God.
Flavio Oliveira you are correct for the most part. While some is allegorical, the majority is literal. Either take it for what it is or don’t, that is the crossroads every person must take about God, whether they ever have access to scripture or not. God says the world around us is evidence enough for man to understand, question how it is possible. And God leaves his fingerprints on all of nature
Seems like if you open the door to being judge of what is literal or not then don’t we make the word arbitrary ? By that reasoning none of the Bible was literaly written to any one of us .. was it meant for any of us or only the men who lived it
In Hebrew breath and spirit are the same word. With Genesis 3 fresh in mind, that verse is clearly talking about longetivity. Yet Abraham lives to 170....
@@michaelflores9220 Can God not add and take give life span? He did add 15 years to King Hezekiah when he was going to die of sickness because of his faith. Adding years to the faithful followers is not that weird. His plan was to Adam and Eve was for them to live forever while He walking with them and their children. He added years to Abraham because of his faithfulness , same with Job. Since God made DNA I sure He can tweak the life spans for the pre flood world to live that long and to decrees it after words.
@@camcan1243 You actually believe tha tflood story? How old are you? Check out darkmatter2525's video on the flood myth, which is copied form "The Epic of Gilgamesh". Also DNA research shows the total human population has never dropped below the tens of thousands.
I guess the main problem I have with your argument is that Moses had the benefit of hindsight. So, when it says that Abraham died at the ripe old age... It's almost like God is saying, "Yes, the ancestors lived for an impossibly long time but in reality a hundred and seventy five is long enough." It's also not hard to imagine that Abraham and Sarah were trying to have kids and even though Abraham's ancestors lived a long time it would seem to me that Abraham recognized that people were dying younger and younger and that something wasn't quite right.x The people had to have known that something was up.
