Is the Creation Account Of Genesis Real? 

I had a 100 year old friend and I asked her "Do you believe in a young earth or old earth creation?" She said "I believe it was created.". That was it. Love it.

There is a book titled "In six days: Why 50 Scientists choose to believe in Creation." I found this book to be very helpful. It is written by scientists who have their PhDs in Physics, Botany, Genetics, Biology, Geology, etc.

I wrestled with this topic for some time and I basically came out with the approach of Mr. Wallace. If I come before Jesus and my interpretation was wrong I’m not going to lecture God on how he could have made it more distinguishable. I will be forced to do as I always do, and just marvel over his wisdom to craft something so miraculous. We are broken. It’s like trying to read instructions for baking a cake with shattered reading glasses. You might nail down a few ingredients but I’d bet my money the end result will be a little off. I’m happy to let the author of the book explain to me how it all comes together at his book signing. Nice video.

This has to be one of the best thought out and respectful responses I've ever seen on this topic. Thank you for handling this valuable subject with the insight it deserves!

This is Awesome! I came to Christ late in life. The creation account always puzzled me. I was one that first took it at face value. 6 days. We're good. Then I started to think about it more and more. Then I started to believe that a day is equal to a thousand years, so it must have taken much, much longer than 6 days. Then I finally threw my hands in the air and said to myself. It doesn't matter! What matters i that Jesus died for my sins. That we are directed to love one another. That's what matters.

What works for me: ”I believe x, but I don’t know for sure. God still created the whole thing, does it really matter exactly how He did it?”

Very much agree, this issue (though important) should not be what becomes between people especially believers. The enemy is very cunning and could use it to create division and destruction. Salvation is not determined by our understanding of creation. I've really enjoyed your podcasts, and videos!

Personally I trust the literal interpretation, six literal day

Let us suppose, for a moment, that God meant to say that He made it in seven days. How could He put it more plainly than He did in Genesis and Exodus?

I would highly recommend looking into Answers in Genesis and brining him some people from there to talk about this topic, would be great! Part of the misconception is assuming that "the science" that humans do is perfect - it isn't and is awfully bias at times. The biggest crux of this issue is that if evolution is true this means death was in creation before the fall and that is NOT what scripture CLEARLY teaches and is constant with. Death came through sin and sin through Adam and Eve, which is the entire foundation for the reason God had to become a MAN, Jesus, as the second Adam, and died was buried and resurrected. All of scripture is consistent with this, especially the New Testament, the words that Jesus says and his disciples. If evolution is true then the rest of the Bible is absolutely meaningless, Jesus died for nothing and the resurection wouldnt have happened because it wouldn't have met the qualifications of God's covenant, His laws. God has a nature, moral, RULES even. He does not lie - cannot sin because that is not who He is. He can't just do things because "He's God He can do whatever". It's either God is telling the truth about our origins and it had to happen the way he said it did or he's a liar. We cannot have an origin story that is both creation and evolution at the same time. Sure it may not necessarily matter to an individual so much but the truth is if you look at the big picture over time and generations its clear that this confused topic is taking its toll. Because we all are taught "the science says" we push God out of everything. This is what Satan wants.

I like your balanced approach to this topic.

This is the best explanation of the issue of creation I have ever heard or seen. It is well thought out and presented as well as respectful to all sides. Great job! Thank you!

I found it helpful when I pondered John’s comment at the end of his gospel account where he said that these were only some of the things Jesus did during his ministry. He actually did much more but if one were to write it all down, there wouldn’t be enough books in the world to contain it all. We can speculate from this that God has been extraordinarily busy and, therefore, while the Bible covers the entirety of history, it doesn’t actually chronicle it. God’s Word is intended for us to know Him, not necessarily everything He ever said or did. We would not be the first Christians to have some misunderstanding of the Old Testament, since even Jesus’s closest disciples were not expecting the kind of messiah he turned out to be and needed constant clarification from him.

I keep this note on my phone and add to it when I can. So we know God can perform miracles. The way it describes Adam and Eve right after creation is as if they are young adults. I see no reason God couldn't have made an earth that looked older. God created natural processes to govern the universe and so for future people to reach the stature Adam and Eve were created with, they would have to grow up normally and not be instantly created by God. Now that said I believe the Earth is the same way. If a new planet was to start to be formed it might take billions of years to do so if that's how the natural laws God set up require it to go. But at the beginning God performed miracles and made everything so it may look older than it is, but just like Adam and Eve, I believe the universe younger than it looks. Most if not all other miracles break the laws of physics so I see no reason God creating the universe would be any different. In the New Testament when Jesus heals people, did he make medice and then take them through the process of treatment and only use normal physical means to heal said people? No, he instantly healed people. I am sure if a doctor who was an unbeliever had looked at them before and then after they would try to come up with an explaination as to how they were healed and that it wasn’t instant but that is not how he was healed so while the physical "evidence" may point to the long process of medical treatment [simply by ruling out an instantaneous healing miracle would lead to this] in fact the person was just healed instantly. So why can these miracles be instantaneous but creation can't? This combined with how many Bible verses in both the Old and New Testaments talk about the lineages as if they are literal shows support for YEC. Also Jesus being able to be traced back to Adam is important. If you try to say the super old people in the lineages are given those massive age number for honorary reasons or those are just metaphical and stand for months not years, how can you split the ages into metaphical and real when the genealogies just list them all there together and it suggests they are literal? If you try to say that Adam is a metaphor for all mankind and just a representative then why does the Bible say sin came through one man i.e. Adam and then the lineages treat Adam as an individual? I would say Adam was humanity's representative but also a real individual just like modern day republic government officials are. They are elected to represent a group of people but also are individuals themselves. Also the word day I am pretty sure usually means a literal day in Genesis and even if it didn't always mean a literal day, the word day combined with the phrase "there was evening then morning, the next day" definitely suggests literal days. Not only that but the Bible tells us God made the birds before the land animals, and that just goes counter to evolution. The argument that "the sun and moon were created on the 3rd day so the word day can't mean an actual day" is very weak. There are a couple of easier options than reading millions of years into the Bible: 1) God knew how long He was going to make a day. So He just did all the work within those time periods to begin with. 2) God could have come up with the word day after making the sun and moon and before relaying Genesis to Moses. God could have decided to make the rotation of the earth and thus the days line up with the time he had already spent on the first 2 days of creation. This is like someone doing some work over consecutive time intervals that happen to be of the same length. Then later, they give that time period a name and tell others how long it took after the fact using the new time period in the retelling of the story. In either case, it seems God was not pressed on time. He finished before evening and then starts the next morning, so He was not working around the clock. God can create infinitely more than we can imagine and simultaneously because He is all powerful. The verses talking about a day being a thousand years and a thousand years being like a day to God is not meant to give us more context for Genesis. It is simply stating that God is outside time. Not only that but finding soft tissue and blood sample on creatures that supposedly died hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago is harder to believe than God made the earth and there was a global flood. We also have paintings/drawings from ancient people depicting dinosaurs. How is this possible if humans and dinosaurs didn’t live together since only somewhat recently have humans begun to dig up fossils and recognize what they are? [I have links below of this, some items may be fake but even if all were fake/misunderstood this is really only a minor point in my arguments] Behomoth's description is much closer to a sauropod dinosaur. The world's oldest trees are also younger than a YEC view of the world. This suggest that the earth is younger than millions of years old as well. [Again linked below for those curious] Are we to believe God didn't care about who knows how many barely-not-humans before he revealed Himself to Adam? I don't think so. I also don't believe that it was only human death that came through Adam but all death. Population charts also indicate its very possible to get today's population from Noah's family. I would argue they also suggest that if a global flood didn’t happen then today's population should be much higher. [Again linked below for those curious] Also people saying the earth is billions of years old: How do you know the starting conditions of the universe? While we might know the decay rates of certain materials we have no idea of the starting conditions so you can't use any of those dating methods without some blind faith that you know the starting conditions. As for the Flood. I see Genesis as suggesting it is global and not local. Here are a few points: 1) Noah's ark is extremely oversized for a local flood. He would not need that many animals just for a localized flood. 2) If it was just local Noah could have just moved away in the 120 years God gave him instead of building the ark. 3) Are we to believe all of humanity could be killed by a local flood? The whole point of the flood was to kill all of humanity except for Noah and his family because of humanity's sin. 4) The bird Noah sent out would have been able to easily find land to make a new home at with a localized flood so the bird returning because it can't find land doesn't really make sense. 5) The duration of the flood is unbelievably long for just a local flood. *I won't ever say that someone isn't saved if they believe in an older earth, I just disagree on that point www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ www.icr.org/article/why-arent-earths-oldest-trees-older creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/

This guy is right on point. "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth" As simple as that!

Amazing explanation. Thank God for you, my brother. I will be able to point my friends to this video to best explain my thoughts and feelings, but in an articulate manner. My God bless you and your family.

This is a really touchy subject. I think I mostly fall on the side of the person who wrote the letter. and I have been accused of not being saved because I don't hold to the young creationist ideals. I just wanted to say thank you very much for tackling it and I think you did a wonderful job!

Love your evidence based logical reasoning. But, I do wish you'd add a bit more graphical content too keep my eyes just as engaged as my mind.

been here since 2000 subs glad to see more people finding the truth through you! Keep going and God Bless.

Brilliant overview. Thanks.

Thank you very much. That is immensely helpful not only in dealing with other Christians, but with atheist.

For anyone interested in study, the "Let's Talk Creation Podcast" is excellent!

as a YEC, he made a very important point we tend to forget

I am a literal 6 day creationist christian. Why? Because the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis is Yom. Yom is a literal 24 hour period of time. 1 day. The same word yom is used when Jonah was in the whale. He was in the whale for 3 literal days, not 3000 years. But mostly I believe God does not lie, He is trustworthy and His word is the truth from Genesis to Revelation. John 17:17 Thy word is truth.

It is the recreation of the universe that is instantaneous.

I read the theories of Dr. Gerald Schroeder in "Genesis and the Big Bang", and other books. To me, he made a very convincing case of the "days" of Genesis being dependent on the observer's viewpoint, Creation is from God's viewpoint, so the "days" of Creation are on a different scale from earthly days. Recommend his books.

What a great take on this contentious topic. Thanks for making it.

God bless you sir!

Creation is the philosophical foundation of the Gospel, reality, and truth(cf.Revelation 14:6and 7).

Thank you. Much appreciated explanation. God Bless!

I never thought you would do a vid on this! As a Christian, who happens to be a Inerrancy Fundamentalist, which led me to knowing that God created the world in 6 literal days. He repeatedly states the evening and morning on each day. If God couldn’t create it in 6 days, maybe you’re just underestimating God’s word. Lastly, the science leads to the literal interpretation.

Excellent!! I think Mr. Wallace is holding the wise, unifying and humble position.

When I read the verse "one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day" in 2 Peter 3:8, I interpret it as God saying he lives outside our spacetime, much like a computer programmer doesn't live inside the computer. There are many credible scientists who believe we are living in simulation.

Excellent

Thank you, that helps

"7 fold doctrine of creation" by Dean Odle absolutely explains this whole subject.Just awesome.....love from Bastrop Texas,Brent

I’d say good job and well done

Here is an analogy I like to use to explain how YEC works. The universe is like a game of Monopoly. God created the universe in 6 days which was a multiple of miracles. Outside of God performing miracles the universe is governed by natural laws that God set up. God initially creating the universe is like setting up a game of Monopoly where everyone is handed out starting cash. The natural laws that govern the universe (outside of miracles) are like the rules of the game; to earn more cash you have to play the game and pass Go (among other things). Future miracles are like "house rules" that people have. House rules ignore the official rules of the game; in the same way miracles ignore the natural laws that govern the universe. Now someone who doesn't know the rules of Monopoly could come into the room right as the game starts and assume you have been playing awhile since they see the starting cash. This would be people who think the earth is super old. They are using decay rates to date the earth but fail to recognize the starting conditions of the universe. Other people who know the rules of the game and know who set up the game would recognize that the game has just started. This would be the people who think the earth is young. We recognize that God created the earth and chose to set it up with certain stating conditions.

AMEN brother!!!!!!

Science has been proven wrong more than religion has been proven wrong😂😂😂

2. A "day to God" argument can not be correct. God is timeless.

Thank you interesting topic ,I was researching my own geneology ,this lead me to Jesus's geneology and how we are related to Jesus through Adam.i came to see the years and ages of people then saw there are kind of charts you can buy this was facinating to to because you can see the overlap of lives I saw in one of your videos this chart .I've come understand this is quite important when it comes to or origins , if Jesus became a man and was the son of Adam ,as God promised we have to work in more recent times .Jesus said there are 12 hour in a day , this is true at the equator it's exactly 12 hours of sunlight.i do understand that time is sometimes referred to a bit differently in some scriptures and the use of "this "generation " in Jesus geneology it give how many generations there were ,I was speaking to an atheist at the time , they asked how long is a generation I read so and so was the farther or so and so so it means the next generation born in that line .there was a flood where I live it totally changed the landscape in one day ,so I don't believe thousand or millions of years are needed for massive change to occur.thank you , appreciate your sharing.

Just about 4 min in, but wanted to say "Answers in Genesis" give very compelling scientific evidence for a young earth. So, as much as what I agree with what you usually say, I would suggest you research this a little further. Starting with the Archeologist, Chemist, etc at Answers in Genesis

This is one of those truths that we’ll find out after Jesus returns. I honestly don’t know whether the universe is young or old, all I know is that God created it all and is keeping it going!

God created Adam as a full grown, fully mature man. Couldn't he create a universe by speaking it into existence fully matured. It would seem to be old to us but to God he just created it.

There is an additional theory that was not touched on, and that is the idea that God created order out of and already existing but disordered world. (Not gap theory). Check out dr Josh Swamidass and dr dr Michael Heiser's ideas.

Jesus said one of these 2 phrases, you guess which is the one he said: “In the beginning, He made them male and female” Or billions of years after the beginning he made them asexual and then a few more billions of years of death and suffering he let them evolve and finally sinned at the tree and then cursed all creation with a second dose of death from sin all the while he called the first billions of death “very good”

The topic of origins is a battleground. Thank you for the concise summary! One point: Science does not demand that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. On the other hand fashion certainly does require it to be very old, as does a naturalistic model of origins based on imaginary molecules-to-life evolution. A young-earth model is not unscientific. There is a growing body of research by scientists who believe in a historical Genesis account, and it is actually rather good. Are there sound reasons to dismiss Answers in Genesis or CMI as anti-science lunatics? There are certainly examples of sloppy thinking and poor use of science in the creationist fraternity (ahem, Mr K Hovind), but that is hardly justification for rejecting all of it. I'm against calling anyone who says they believe in Jesus as Lord a "heretic", and it doesn't help to be overly dogmatic about details in an origin story. Still, Genesis does appear to be a historical account. There are many awkward things in Genesis difficult to explain away as poetry (several near thousand-year lifespans, for example). Among christians, especially ones with strong ties to American higher education, there is a real sense of desperation to be taken seriously. It is not reassuring to see evolutionary dogmas (yes, dogmas as CS Lewis called them ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PNNUPN3-WeM.html) affirmed as "science" by Christians. Whether this is done to avoid rejection in an anti-christian environment is something said Christians should think about for themselves. However, I am very confident that there are no scientific (in the true sense of the word) reasons to reject a historical reading of Genesis. After all, Jesus referenced Genesis all the time and apparently believed it. As did Peter, who wrote that there would come a time when people would reject the idea that there was a flood that destroyed the world.

The "1000 years is as a day" just means that God the Lord is outside of time...after all,Jesus created time.

Some used to interpret the earth "being on pillars" as literal (or physical), now we know that the 'pillars' are figurative of synchronicity and gravitational forces. Just as it mentions in other verses people that are 'pillars' ; or the church 'as the pillar holding up the word of God' before a fallen world.

God has to square a circle here. He has to lay out why things are, without explaining how things work. You can read it literally, and it works, because it’s not a textbook of scientific discovery. That’s one of the things we can do. It does start the narrative of why things are messed up, and lays the foundation for God’s plan to fix this mess.

Genesis 1:3... evening and morning were the first day. There are scientists who do hold to a young earth. And have good reason to believe it. Evening and morning.

Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." There's your answer, straight from God's mouth to your eyes/ears.

Well for me, not gonna determine if I believe in God or not I don’t know why people take it so crazy literally and then walked away from Christianity because of it don’t think it should do that

Great job laying out the protological issues surrounding this touchy subject, Jim. As a Biblical Apologist (SES graduate), I have some great news for old creationists and new creationists. Genesis 1:2 appears to say that the earth was formless and void, but this is actually a Latin translation that was applied to the English text. Originally, it would have been translated as 'desolate and waste' in Hebrew. Why does that matter? According to Moses, the earth is old and already created, but it is uninhabitable. Using the Hebrew word 'arb' (Bara'), God is creating a new earth on top of the old one in order to make it habitable. Thus, both viewpoints are valid when viewed from a Biblical perspective.

Hebrew has no words for the days of the week. The days are numbered, so an Israeli would say to a friend "I'll meet you for coffee the third day". The Hebrew for "the third day" in Genesis 1 could equally be translated "Tuesday", and so with the others. Genesis 1 v 5 is different, where yom echad is variously translated "one day" (ASV, CJB, JPS, NASB, Douay etc), "first day" (KJV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NLT etc) or "Day One" (ISV, Literal, YLT). All three make sense. Also bear in mind Exodus 20 v 11 (aye, there's the rub): "... the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, in six days, then he rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy".

I think so. But our understanding of what is being said is what has the difficulty.

Part 1/2 Do I question someone's salvation if they have a different view? No. If you believe in Jesus's shed blood to save you, then you are saved. Here's what we miss. There are only 2 options in Scripture either the universe was created in 6 literal days or those days are 1000 years each = 6000 years total. The problem with so many Christians is that when you understand the specificity of Scripture you'll never allegorize it again. Allogorizing the Bible is the result of a lack of understanding nothing else. Are there metaphors? Yes, are there symbols? Yes. Are there different forms of writing? Yes. General allegorizing is not one of them. Second, my rule of thumb is that if you reference or trust Christians from say 400 Ad and later for correct doctrine I would question it immensely. I myself wouldn't trust a biblical reference from 1600 onward for sound doctrine. In my experience, you're more likely to adopt a heretical doctrine the closer we listen to Christians to our time. This isn't because I think they were evil or malicious or not saved in any way but we have so many early sources and commentaries today from early Christians, from the Jewish people, and from the Dead Seas Scrolls that to me there are enough there to clear a lot of our questions up. What I try to do is reference material before 400 AD. Here's what we know the early Church wrote and taught about. Does it make it correct? No. But I'd rather see what they wrote rather than others because these were the disciples of the Apostles. Barnabas, AD First Century “Therefore, children, in six days, or in six thousand years, all the prophecies will be fulfilled. Then it says, ‘He rested on the seventh day.’ This signifies at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus, He will destroy the Antichrist, judge the ungodly, and change the sun, moon, and stars. Then He will truly rest during the Millennial reign, which is the seventh day.” Epistle of Barnabas 15:7-9 Commodianus, AD 240 “We will be immortal when the six thousand years are completed.” Against the Gods of the Heathens 35 “Resurrection of the body will be when six thousand years are completed, and after the one thousand years, the world will come to an end.” Against the Gods of the Heathens 80 Victorinus, AD 240 “Satan will be bound until the thousand years are finished; that is, after the sixth day.” Commentary on Revelation 20.1-3 Methodius, AD 290 “In the seventh millennium we will be immortal and truly celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.” Ten Virgins 9.1 Now immediately I can see some areas of confusion. I have studied and taught Eschatology (the end times) for over 30 years and without getting into it I can see these two references aren't talking about the same event. “Therefore, children, in six days, or in six thousand years, all the prophecies will be fulfilled. Then it says, ‘He rested on the seventh day.’ This signifies at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus, He will destroy the Antichrist, judge the ungodly, and change the sun, moon, and stars. Then He will truly rest during the Millennial reign, which is the seventh day.” Epistle of Barnabas 15:7-9 Commodianus, AD 240 “We will be immortal when the six thousand years are completed.” Against the Gods of the Heathens 35 “Resurrection of the body will be when six thousand years are completed, and after the one thousand years, the world will come to an end.” Against the Gods of the Heathens 80 The first one is about the Second Coming and the second is about the Rapture of the Church, 2 separate events. However, when over the scope of 2000 years we're talking about a decade say between these 2 events so I won't debate this too much. What it shows us is that they believed that the 6 days + 1 day of rest not only applied to Creation, and the days of the week, but also applied to the biblical timeline. This is where we can apply 2 Peter 3: 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The 1 day is as 1000 years is directly related to the time that the LORD will allow to unfold to give all a chance to come to repentance. In Scripture, we see the Judgment Day in Revelation 20 where the Lake of Fire, aka Eternal Hell aka the 2nd Death is sentenced for all humanity. Judgment Day comes after the 1000-year reign of Jesus which by these early Church fathers believed comes after the 6 days or 6000 years of human history. This also shows us from an Eschatological standpoint that these disciples of the Apostles believed in what we today call "Premillennialism". Let's assume for a second, that this view of 6000 biblical years is correct as far as our history. I'll come back to this. As far as Creation I have an imperfect explanation. In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Notice this says both were created. However, verse 2 specifically talks about earth 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. In Job 38 we read 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? If you do a study the "sons of God" are the angelic host. We also see this in Job 1 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” So what if in the beginning, God created both the Heavens and the material for the earth. Set up Heaven with the angelic host and then they were there to witness the LORD come back in Genesis 1:2 to organize the earth which was formless and void into our current universe. Still taking 6 literal days to organize it but the material that would be organized existed since the "beginning"?? Now, why this is imperfect, is because Exodus 20 says: 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. This passage here plus in Genesis both speak to a literal 24-hour day for the creation. What we might not consider is that in that 24-hour period, God could speed up time. As in plant a seed and time elapse in a 24-hour period to have mature trees, plants, and animals by the 6th day. Just some thoughts. However, what I am interested is what year are we in, in relation to the 6000th year if that is supposed to be significant either with the Rapture of the Church or the 2nd Coming of Jesus. I'm more of a forward-looker than a backward-looker. (Continued in Part 2).

I don’t like how people fight over something that doesn’t really matter.

Amen✝️❤️🙏

None of the old-earth people can tell me how they interpret Exodus 20:11. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." How can it mean anything other than 6 literal days??!! Please help me understand.

The creation of the universe (heavens and earth) in Gen 1:1 comes before creation week. Creation week begins in Gen 1:3.

Thanks for the video. The Bible is inspired by God, contains lots of history, much philosophy, and superb guidance about virtually everything in life. The Bible is truth, but is often not literal, and is mostly not a science book.

Watch pastor Allen Nolan at cornerstone fellowship community Church tahlequah Oklahoma he explains time, space and matter formula in his teachings of the book of Genesis.

What helped me was reading Exodus 31, God gave Moses two tablets of stone, written with the *finger of God*. 'It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in "six days" the Lord made the heavens and the earth.' Everywhere else in the Bible we know what 'day' means except Genesis 1? Seems odd and inconsistent. Jesus also references 'from the beginning', He made from male and female. Natural observed science cannot provide a timescale as it assumes natural process's have been and are a constant which shows our finite and flawed state. Peter is referring to God's patience and longsuffering (verse 9) with the Lord one day is like a thousand years. The key is 'With the Lord' or 'To the Lord' referring to that God is outside of time hence using that it's 'like' or 'as'.

When Peter said that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years it had nothing to do with Genesis. The Genesis account is very specifically marked by numbers and the world "day" to show that these are 24 hour days. You can look it up on Answers in Genesis for the explanation if you want a thorough explanation, but what Peter was referring to was about the end times and the time it may take for Christ to come back. So, if Christ were raised up in 3 days, and a day is like a thousand years, then two days have passed since Christ left (almost) and He is likely to come in the third day, or after 2033, or about that time, give or take, since we don't know the exact date and also Jewish (and God's) calendars are different than our secular calendars. There are a lot of theological arguments on that but that's the takeaway as far as I'm concerned. The main point is, that we HAVE to take the Genesis account of creation literally, or we get in trouble theologically, because that would mean that death came before Adam and Eve sinned and if that was true then it totally nullifies the need for the death and resurrection of Jesus. If you don't understand the complete ramifications I suggest you go to Answers in Genesis videos on the subject so you can understand because it's pretty basic and vital. God could have created everything at once, in a split second. But He didn't. He used seven days to show us something. Many people believe that it is representative of how long this earth will be around, approximately 6000 years for man (because 6 is the number of man in the gematria) then a thousand year reign of Christ, making 7000, and then the new heaven and earth will be created and this old one of sin will be destroyed. But the way you tell what the author meant when he was writing out Genesis is to ask a Messianic Jew. They will tell you the days are 24 hour days and WHY specifically, they know that fact. As for science, science has been desperately trying to catch up to the Bible for centuries. I've studied many of the sciences as well as the Bible and numerous subjects involved with the Bible and I can tell you, science hasn't reached the top of the mountain yet, but they are beginning to see the clouds with things like DNA and how many times the Bible has been correct and science has been wrong and one day they will reach the peak of the mountain and look over at the other side and find God waiting there for them. This belief has nothing to do with salvation, but it does matter if you want to take any other part of the Bible seriously, because of the pointless incarnation, death and resurrection contradiction you get if you make the days long periods of time that I mentioned earlier. Also, many plants and animals had to be created within a day of each other because they rely on each other to survive. Here is a link to one of the shorter Answers in Genesis explanations of the days in Genesis. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aFjgW9UBG9E.html

A very good argument!

Was there death before sin ?? That answers the question to old or young earth.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth". 'Nuff said.

Yes

Something I find interesting is the fact that alternate translation of 'In the beginning' is 'When'.

In seminary, my professors believed God created through evolution. I couldn't agree with them.

Its interesting that the only time people debate the meaning of day (or time) is with creation. Nobody claims the Isrealites walked around Jericho for 7,000 years (instead of 7 days), that the Isrealites wondered in the desert for 40 ×365 × 1000 years, or that Jesus was in the tomb for 3,000 years instead of 3 days. If Adam was made on Day 6, then on Day 7, he was already 1000 years old, or maybe he was an metaphoric amount of time old + a day... We can't take God at His Word, because we dont want to (Romans 1:18-20), not because He didnt clearly speak it - Ex 20:1,11.

Seems to me that God knew Genesis would be questioned as supernatural an event it was, so He seems to go out of His way mentioning “and there was morning and there was evening the fourth day” etc. (ie: 6 consecutive earth rotations), clearly showing it happened in six 24hr literal days.

Thank you so much! I might even agree with you 100% (..and I don't usually agree with myself that much...🙄) I will say, I sort of go to the younger earth side, but I do understand one of the greatest arguments against it (the only one I really see) is the starlight; from so far away - equals millions of years, etc. However, if you look at Russell Humphrey's book Starlight And Time, he has a cosmology which solves not only the distant star problem for "young earthers", but the problem for "long agers" seen in the far reaches of the universe: all the galaxies completely formed, as opposed to in their infancy (I guess not a problem for a long age believers though hahaha!). And at the risk of going too long, another thing Dr. Humphries did, is predict the magnetic fields of the planets. He did this based on the Earth being 6,000 years old. He was dead on several planets when one of our satellites passed by and measured these readings . Evolutionary predictions were off by several orders of magnitude...

I like to assume that as the universe expands, time gets slower. like how the days on earth are getting 2.3 milliseconds slower every century. From the point of the big bang, time and light would be extremely close and fast. only as the universe expanded did time and light would stretch, and lengthen.

When God created everything, I think he created it with "built in" age. Meaning he created everything in a fully mature form instead of everything being little seeds and babies.

I agree that the Creation Account is a hybrid of the varied interpretations. A space of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 and then creation 'days' of unspecified time spans to get ultimately to the creation of Mankind which is where Moses takes us as readers of God's 'story'. Because I do no think that Adam and Eve sinned at the first opportunity. There may have been many prior encounters with the 'serpent' before the official one that spanned possibly a hundred years, who knows, but Moses only focuses on the encounter that mattered in getting to his (God's) point of the sacrifice element -the Lamb slain before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) "He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." So the 2 Authors, Moses and Peter agree with, and express that 'creation' was about the Redeemer, not limited to the dictates of time in the sense that our known timelines define God's capabilities.

I was an old earth theistic evolutionist. But then somebody pointed out to me that would put death before sin. While I can see no problem with saying the earth is X number of years, I can see how it would be a big problem to say things were dying before man came. Because man brought sin into the world and sin brought death into the world. Romans 5:12. I have heard some try to explain this by saying it was just human death that happened after sin or even that early humans weren't made in the image of God so their deaths didn't count. But in Romans 8 it says that creation fell because of sin. This word "creation" cannot mean humans because it says the creation will share in the future glory with the children of God. In the New Testament, children of God refer to those who belong to God. Which means "creation" refers to animals or it's teaching that every single human will go to Heaven whether they are the children of God or not because they will share in the future glory with the children of God. Since Jesus said not every human will be saved, creation must mean animals. I hear some say, "What about plant death? We know Adam and Eve and the animals ate plants in the garden of Eden before sin. Well, plants don't meet the biblical definition of life and therefore (biblically speaking) they were never alive and cannot die. In the Garden of Eden, plants are described as food for living things not living things themselves. Genesis 1:29-30. And they have no breath or life or lifeblood. In the Bible, there are approved plant-based free willing offerings. But they are not atonement for sin offerings because they have no life blood and it takes the shedding of blood to pay for sins. Apparently, sap doesn't count. There are no verses that say don't drink/eat the sap because the life is in the sap. I agree with him that this is not a salvation issue. But I disagree with what he said about people who believe in a young earth having to explain the science. You can believe the Bible without having an answer for every skeptic. I have studied the science much since converting to a young earth creationist. But I didn't have to learn all that before I believed the Bible.

I've never understood this issue. When God made Adam and Eve, they were adults, not infants. When he made trees they were fully grown, not seeds. The earth was old when God made it. We are talking about God, the one who created the sun. This is a non-issue.

If you don't believe the first chapter in the Bible, then the Bible is errant and imperfect. If the Bible is not true and not God-inspired, then Christ is false and following him is for fools.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Shouldn’t we be using this verse to help us understand the literary style of Genesis 1?

I look at scripture and read in John 2 that Jesus turned water into wine not just any wine but the best wine that would have to be aged wine and when he fed the 5000 it wasn’t with bread dough and raw fish but baked bread and cooked or dried fish so I don’t think that it’s out of the realm of possibility that He could have created the universe having some things young and others older. Just a thought.

The most important thing to understand is God created the universe but we don't (of course can't) know how old the earth is exactly, it's just speculation.

I agree that it's not an essential that affects salvation. However, when we interpret the Bible we have to take into consideration the context of the passage. Neither Psalm 90 or 2 Peter 3 are talking about creation. They are talking about our lifespan in comparison to the eternality of God and His plan. When interpreting "yom" in the creation account we need to look at that context and other contexts that mention it, such as the 4th commandment concerning the Sabbath. We also need to be careful about saying "science says" when the scientific data is being interpreted based on human assumptions. No one was there to see what happened. Which brings me to the problem with the analogy you gave. You implied that we have to wait until we get to heaven to see what God says about this. As far as the details, sure, but as far as how long it took, He's already told us. The question is, who more consistently interprets what He said.

I have a question, If the universe could be much older than the biblical account we see, how should we interpret the existence of humans: Did we evolve from other species of animals, or were we popped into existence somewhere in the timeline from formed clay/dirt by God? And if we evolved from animals over an extended period of time, does that mean death existed before the original sin (animals dying out/eating each other)?

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Thanks for those thoughts! Understood and agreed. Being united in the essentials is the important thing. I get it that in your business - the apologetics side of things, this can be a very distracting and difficult issue to deal with - IF a straightforward reading of the text is adopted. But that does not mean this is not a very important issue. Although it is not essential for salvation, if there was no original Adam, no original sin, no historical fall, etc., we have a problem, because this doctrine explains the need for the cross. So this issue could have a far reaching effect ON the essentials if we get it wrong. In your message you say that the killer did not tell us HOW He did it, but in the Bible, it seems pretty clear. God DID tell us how He did it - at least to a certain extent. He spoke the world into existence. Yes, He did it incrementally, but the young earth “incrementally” is a far cry from the “incremental” idea of the long age folk. And God tells us very clearly WHY He did it this way in Ex. 20:11-12 - to give us a pattern for our 7 day week. Although the word “day” CAN have various meanings, that does not mean that we are free to pick and choose from those meanings. 1) The context is important. 2) Other Scriptures are important (ie Ex. 20) and 3) how others in the Bible interpreted the passages. For instance, in Mark 10, Jesus Himself said that He created them male and female AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION, but if the long age view is correct, this would be an outright lie. Because humans only came onto the scene towards the very very end of “creation” in that view. In order to avoid this problem, some have even gone so far as to say that Jesus was speaking as a man - He was mistaken! Didn't God COMPLETE creation on the 6th day and rest on Day 7? Even after Day 7 was finished, because His creative work was complete, He would still be resting from that kind of work even today, although He now has a different work that He is involved in. Long agers seem to think God has been creating for a very very long time. One very important thing for us to keep in mind when it comes to “SCIENCE” is that SCIENCE, as practiced currently, WILL NEVER AGREE with the Bible. It cannot because before they even try to solve the problem of the origin of the universe, life, and humans, they say eliminate God along with any supernatural cause as a possible hypothesis. I understand the reasoning for this in normal science where you can use the scientific method to verify your hypotheses, but when doing origins science, it's dangerous to determine ahead of time what can and can not be put forth as an answer. What if you go into a crime scene and say, “We can consider any suspect except for Joe. Joe cannot be named as a suspect.” OK, fine, but IF Joe is the guilty party, no matter what well thought out clever explanation you come up with, it will be wrong. So scientists come up with an answer, but it will always be wrong because it leaves God out of the picture. And as a result, no matter what they come up with, it will not agree with the Bible because God IS the Creator. So, take the Big Bang, for instance. Many Christians like it because it supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, but that does not make it true. The Big Bang is simply an attempt by scientists to explain the universe in their naturalistic paradigm which ASSUMES it had a totally natural cause. All of science is based on this ASSUMPTION! The Big Bang has many problems and scientists have been forced to come up with a bunch of supporting hypotheses to add to it in order to keep it from being falsified by the data. And even now, the Jamese Webb telescope keeps finding things that seem to require a whole lot of tweaking their atheistic model of the origin of the universe. The point is that the science on this is NOT settled. It keeps changing. So to use IT to inform our interpretation of Genesis seems highly questionable to say the least. Origins science involves a LOT of interpretation. Scientists place their data into their atheistic framework that assumes all natural causes and as a result it is bound to have lots of problems, BUT the Scripture gives us the right paradigm in which to plug in the data to get the right interpretation. The biblical answer is not "SCIENTIFIC" because it allows for God as a cause, but again, the scientific explanation will always be wrong because of it’s faulty assumption and approach. Do we trust man’s word and ideas that are based on unprovable assumptions and that keep on changing year by year, and probably will continue to change? Or, do we trust God’s Word that does not change? Both sides still have questions and issues to work out, but it seems to me that one side has the Word of the Creator on which to base it’s interpretation of the natural world. Scientists may ridicule it as pseudoscientific or whatever, but that does not mean it is wrong. Origins science is extremely difficult because we can’t do experiments to check our hypotheses. It’s much more like forensic science where interpretation plays a huge role. I appreciate your videos and your approach to apologetics. It has been very helpful to me. Thanks. Sorry this got so long.

Disappointed that Jim didn’t reveal where he lands. Is the universe young or old Jim ?

Old age universe design. Look at Job wow he really gave it to him

I think that there's reasonable evidence on both sides for the age of the Earth. But I also think that because Genesis wasn't an eye-witness account, it's not necessarily completely accurate. I agree the Bible is inspired by God but I don't think that means every single word was God-given (though, I do think the crazy patterns in the Bible were given by Him since it seems impossible for a human to create without a computer or a LOT of time on their hands). However, anything that was told as an eye-witness account, I believe is true. Not because I think people can't lie, but because their accounts have overtime been proven by evidence.

Watch “Is Genesis History”. Scientific review of this question.

I agree they are my brothers and sisters as well. But placing death and destruction prior to the fall of man into sin means man did not introduce death into the world. This view is completely antithetical to the Bible. I agree that we need to look into science, but it must be good science and if the theory fails like the theory of evolution, it should not be considered viable. Answers in Genesis is a wonderful ministry that has done so much work to articulate this. They employ a slew of discerning scientists as well who care deeply about credible science. As Christians we ought to love the beauty of the order God made more than any other group. We need more Godly people doing honest science! Encourage your kids and grandkids into stem degrees! ❤

I think they are more people concerned to accommodate Genesis into the atheist worldview on natural processes times, that what the verses on Genesis said: God created on 6 days and rest in the 7th day.

Small addition, but a critical one: What did Jesus reference as truth? There are many aspects of early Genesis that Jesus referenced as historical fact: Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham. I'm willing to hear differening opinion up until they contradict Jesus' account and then i know they are false. He was there at creation and i refuse to believe he would lie about these accounts. So, check your theory against the Savoir's word. Does it match? If not, re-think your stance.

I don't know if there is a god or not, but I know the universe is old, that's for sure. I don't understand why some people think the universe is only thousands of years old. I don't understand how people can think that everything in the universe, all the galaxies, stars, planets, etc, were all created at the same time, when astrophysicists and astronomers observe galaxies of different ages and in different stages of formation, and new stars and planets are still forming in the universe today, so obviously everything wasn't created all at once. The observable universe has a long, deep history that can be traced back through time using several different techniques. So, it isn't merely the fact that the universe *looks* old; there are so many ways that scientists working in different fields can trace things back through time. The universe and nature have a long history.

"Are there not 12 hours of daylight?" --The Author.

I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS SO MUCH❤ I LEARN SO MUCH FROM YOU❤ THANK YOU JAY❤

The following is my understanding of it ... Some details on the Creation Days. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. >> God is proclaiming himself to be the creator. There are no details mentioned. Just the creation as a fact ... 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. >> God knew that the earth wasn't suitable for life and subsequently he prepared the earth for human habitation. No timeline ... 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. >> The universe is already in existence. (see verse one) Life on earth cannot exist without the sun, which had been obscured. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. >> The moon. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. >> Is it possible for God to do so! I think so, as everything had already been in place. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. >> Atmosphere, oxygen ect. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. >> Clouds and weather 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. >> We all know what heaven is, when we look up and see the birds flying around in it. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. >> the oceans were gathered into one place. I guess that the moon came in handy... 👇 Please note, the earth is already in existence,(Gen 1:1) including all the planets and the sun, although obscured. Now consider, a meteor had hit the planet and caused the extinction of the dinosaur 🦕 and the earth was in chaos because of it. (Gen 1:2) 🦕 Evidence suggests an asteroid impact was the main culprit which caused the extinction of the dinosaur 🦕Volcanic eruptions that caused large-scale climate change may also have been involved, together with more gradual changes to Earth's climate that happened over millions of years. The facts remain; it caused the earth to be in chaos. All the lifeforms we know now, came into existence after the extinction of the dinosaur 🦕 (About 65-66 million years ago?) I find it interesting to think that dinosaur 🦖🦕 had been the first life on this planet. We humans are not really the first creation. It should give us pause to think. Who brought the dinosaur into existence? Have they evolved into one big happy family from a fish or a bird ? ... 😳 All or much of the lifeforms we know now, came into existence after the extinction of the dinosaur 🦕 This timeframe is hardly long enough for life to have evolved, even if it could, for molecules don't care about life and it takes two of the same sort to re-create the same kind. Even in the case of 🐔🐓 God made the earth suitable for life. The bible tells us that this happened within six days. He practically removed the chaos within this timeframe, and he "' set in motion'" all lifeforms we know today. This reconstruction of our planet also affirms the seasons and the days of the week. God established the Sabbath, on the seventh day he rested. On a side note, people didn't have clocks in those days, when you consider this, it becomes apparent, how important this notion of seasonal and weekly structure must have been in ancient times. The story carries on with Adam and Eve being placed within a special garden called Eden. Again we don't know how long they have been there, (even if speaking metaphorically) but we do know the timeframe after the fall, after they had to leave that garden, about 6000 years ago or more, when incidentally, consciousness had entered their mind and lives. (While in the garden, although set apart for God's purpose, they were more like big children, not being aware of right or wrong.) From that point in time in human history, civilization had started and the generations of people have been remembered, and have been written down in the book of Genesis. The story of Cain reveals that other subjects existed in this world. Gen 4:15-17 The purpose of the book of Genesis reveals the Creator and his interactions with humans, created in his image and with inherent creativity. It is a timeless story and it's message applies to us today. I find this story much more plausible than to think that everything just evolved from a brainless chemical soup, with the sudden appearance of fish swimming out of this soup, then turning into birds to fly all over the world to evolve into dinosaurs, which we know have been in extinction millions of years ago.

What do you think about Covenant Eschatology? This view says Genesis is not speaking about material creation; it's speaking about the beginning of a covenant. I've been trying to learn more about it recently.