No, the Six Days of Creation Were NOT Millions of Years Long 

I used to believe all that as a student of natural sciences … but since being born again through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ when I see that millions of years stuff now I just tune it out. I know it’s nonsense that’s being regurgitated. It was amazing visiting the Grand Canyon a couple of years ago with my kids and knowing the Biblical account while seeing all these park service signs talking about how many billions of years ago each layer is from and all. It was pretty ridiculous seeing all that but I was glad my kids saw through that nonsense too.

Amen Friend..

@@richardbarry04553: Do you know that Christian scientist Dr. Andrew Snelling of ICR already confirmed the presence of more than 500 million years of nuclear decay in the Grand Canyon that you visited? They’ve known this for the last 19 years.

@@richardbarry04553 : Do you know that Christian scientist Dr. Andrew Snelling of ICR already confirmed the presence of more than 500 million years of nuclear decay in the Grand Canyon that you visited? They've known this for the last 19 years.

@@richardbarry04553 : Do you know that Christian scientists already confirmed the presence of more than 500 million years of nuclear decay in the Grand Canyon you visited. They've known this for 19 years.

***for God there are no time as for a SPIRIT time has no meaning, is irrelevant, reason why the writers not knowing it wrote that way, we have to know how to read in any language past or present language, even so you must go to school to learn the language you speak, read or write in order to be able to communicate.***

@@adelinomorte7421 The Bible is God's word, the writers of scripture were guided by Holy Spirit when writing the scriptures. Genesis is about creation on Earth so the days being 24 hrs long is correct.

@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd ***some one told you that, but how can you be sure? yes you can be sure, meditate, dig for the truth, study the atributs of God, let God speak to you to inspire you, only God can do it no body else, for me it was a life time search, but wen you get it, there are not anymore doubts , you know by yourself .***

Then you believe incorrectly...common around here. Understand that this is not a discussion, it's like discussing whether "2+2=4". There is no "authority" in scripture when it comes to science. You should marvel at all we have learned from science over the past 2k years. Imagine what we'll have learned if we're around another billion years...

That’s degrading, just as calling 1 1st AllMightY Pure Living Spirit manually he or she is.

As a pastor you should know that the Hebrew word for day is defined as a period of time with a set beginning and a set end. Day and days are the same Hebrew word. Prove me wrong.

@@oldsalty8562 And the evening and morning were the ________ day

​@@hongotedesco8931 What do you base your belief on?

***beestoe993 finnaly "the Creation scientists reach the conclusion that those 6000 years was a fabrication and got everything straight that Creation of the earth was billions years ago and life after that, my congratulations for their discovery of the truth.***

Ok, it's all fantasy. God did not create anything, because we have zero evidence for god.

Yes, that is an especially relevant consideration in the realm of starlight already being visible on earth for the majority of the stars in the universe, if one assumes that interpreting rainbows from an astral mass spectrometer delivers dependable distance conclusions for millions and billions of light years. I'm not at all persuaded of such color interpretations given that they cannot be confirmed by any other means of determination in deep space. Not to mention the incongruent discrepancies in assumed distance results that can occur between two or more stars of the same galaxy, which should instead put them in galaxy of far different distances. There is also the hypothetical possibility that before emitted light reflects off of a mirror its speed from source to whatever material it reaches is instant. Because the only way the speed of light has ever been measured is via reflective mechanized processes. So all that to say, despite there being no such thing as a newborn star ever observed as newborn, it may not be in fact necessary for God to have dragged forth billions of light years of emitted starlight travel to make those we can see now visible to us from the beginning. There are abundant reasons not to consider astral spectrometry a settled dependable science.

That's more than a fair statement- it actually contends that God, if likened to an artist is using a brush that paints matter and space-time!

@Feraeond while I personally don't buy into the theory of instant light reflection, there are a slew of other possible natural reasons why the light would be here outside of its expected age. There are a lot of forces that could account for the starlight, and when physicists look back, they can point to a time and place (essentially) when matter exploded into existence (through God's actions). Who is to say that God didn't create the stars close to earth, and they continued to cascade light backwards as they accelerated away? Or that the passage of time was different for these other parts of the universe than the earths, since space and time are relative? These are just some of my personal musings, I don't have enough of a science background to know whether that is possible or not, but frankly there are plenty of alternative possibilities out there.

@aaronadamson7463 Amen, brother. Openness to what God reveals and letting it remain an unknown for whatever cannot thus far be established as fact is the key to understanding science properly. By the way, even experiments supposedly proving time relative are making assumptions when their molecular clocks sent through the supercollider alter electron exchange rates based on how fast they are going. That could just as easily be a response of molecular activity to speed like the excitement of molecules under heat. It doesn't necessarily mean time flows differently for faster matter than slower matter. Throughout history mankind has presented alternative myths about universal origins and cause/effect concepts. In every era our arrogance thought we reached the correct conclusions compared to predecessors. But the only religio-historical doctrine that has surpassed any conflicting claims that arose to discredit its truth was the scriptures of the Bible. Which is why you don't see atheists so ardently railing against any other opposing doctrine. This is the only one that knows better.

But do you follow it 100 percent?

Then you find genocide moral? Misogyny? Child sacrifice? Slavery? All actions that the god of the bible commands, condones and/or commits.

Now that's a darn shame...

@@hongotedesco8931Get behind us satan.

Me too.

@hongotedesco8931 Why do you consider that a shame? People who don't believe the Bible would miss out on such a reliable sense of meaning in life if there were no Bible adherents to bash.

I do as well. But I won't study Genesis the same way I do the Psalms or Revelation or the Gospels. Different genres require different interpretations. But all Scripture is God breathed. (2 Timothy 3:16).

I rest on Jesus Christ, who also happened to break the sabbath (John 5:5-18)!

Mark 2:27: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”

Do you ever go out of your place on the Sabbath? Ever read Exodus 16?

Too bad many people are over when the Sabbath was whether it was Saturday or Sunday. To me, I just say WHO CARES?! If someone only has Tuesday off in the week, let them find a way to fellowship with other believers on Tuesday. That is your Sabbath. Sheesh, I hate it when everyone gets caught up on when is the Sabbath rather than the why do we have a Sabbath?

For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given as a result all who believe in him are made right with God Romans 10 for New Living Translation

Or, instead of accepting that the parting of the read sea was miracle, we can just say it was a made up story?

​@@hongotedesco8931 Correct. As I have stated, we either believe it through faith or reject it as a fable.😊

Or a sane person could read it as metaphor and allegory....

​@@byrondickens Now that you mention it, I just love the following metaphor: ‭Matthew 13:30 KJV‬ Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. ## I wonder how an insane person would interpret this?

*** so ! beleiving that way you never need to compromise right? oh!!! yes much easier that way hein!!! ***

I like that, God Bless Friend.

You can be passionate about anything....and still be dead wrong. That's what Ham is, dead wrong. None of what he's saying is true. It's really shameful.

chachadodds5860 ***God is a Spirit, do you accept it? do you know what a spirit is? Well, I assume you know, for a spirit the time and space has no meaning, so it can be anywhere and at anytime even inside of us. You as a human being know the battles we endure due to our soul where the Spirit of God may reside and our material body accept or reject. That acceptance or rejection is what religions are all about, a believe is a personal affair in between any individual and his creator, GOD. Different religions can dialog, cooperate and join, at mutual consent but not impose as it is trespassing, we all have to be aware of our individual rights, our freedom to accept or reject the spirit of God, wen It is within us, it is harmonic with our creator, it is very good.***

@@adelinomorte7421 Adelino, you're just inventing the notion of "spirit". Nobody has really seen anything of the sort. And if you say "well, it's a personal affair", then you're not adding anything interesting to the conversation. All you're saying is "we're free to make up whatever we want...so there". Pointless.

John 1:18 [18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

@@Feraeond Yeah, I don't think anybody is going to see any kind of god (or son) any time soon...You have a better chance of seeing Harvey, a 6ft white rabbit.

Although all the evidence says it is.

You yourself fail to explain why we know God wouldn't first make the earth void, to be fair.

@@Feraeond I didn't explain why because the answer is obvious if you understand God's attributes. God is absolutely perfect, which would mean he would not ever create anything that is imperfect. Whatever comes for from the hand of God is going to perform exactly what God created it to perform. No where in Scripture does the Bible ever suggest that God created anything with flaws....hence the statements later on in Genesis where the Bible says God created this and that and "It was good"... Anyone who would believe that a perfect God would create something that is imperfect only means you don't understand the nature of who he is.

@dorahngarman3188 If you are referring to the Creator as the Bible describes Him, there is no jump to be made from the fact that God is perfect to the idea that He would never make something imperfect. Perfection is not synonymous with flawlessness scripturally, but rather something more akin to completeness in a process. For example, the king of Tyre, presumably Satan, is described as the signet of perfection until unrighteousness was found in him, but Jesus is described as made perfect through suffering. Paul encourages the Philippians that he is sure He who began a good work in them will be faithful to perfect it until the day of His appearing. So just because God is complete from eternity doesn't automatically entail that what He makes will also be that way in finite space. But the major snuck premise of your claim is that the newly formed earth was flawed while a void ball of water and whatever else it may have contained upon first materializing. By whose definition of flawed? God did not call the formless earth good at the time, but does that mean it was flawed or can we still allow that God had it at precisely the state He wanted at that point in its process? What about the delineation between good and very good in later creation? If it was all perfect because it was all from His hand then how could any of it be more good than good? Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me, brother. I trust we both love God with a great fervor and are doing our best to understand Him more perfectly with every day He has given us to grow. Blessings and peace to you always. Ezekiel 28:12 [12] “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Hebrews 2:10 [10] For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. Philippians 1:6 [6] For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

This appears to be a sane and logical argument. GOOD LUCK WITH GETTING AN ANSWER FROM KEN. I wonder how much money this guy has made from his platforms.

Why are there dinosaur bones and other evidence of the earth being millions/billions of years old if God made EVERYTHING in 6 days 6 thousand years ago?? So why did God put those million year old bones there 6 thousand years ago?That is dishonest and deceitful but God is perfect and CANNOT deceive us as Ham might have us believe. I have actuallly heard a minister try to explain this away by claiming that God was testing our faith. So he tests our faith by lying to us and deceiving us? Then according to Ham, you have to believe this deceit to be a Christian? Really? Not done by my perfect God! Remember, the Bible was translated from ancient writings by English scholars, not Americans. In 1644, Day and age would mean someting different in old England . Look up apologetics Christian teachings.

As regards YOM, it seems you did not even listen to what he said. He explains about YOM very clearly. Which part did you not understand?

Yom is contextually defined as evening to morning.

Evening to morning is not 24s it’s just night. Also the sun was not there till later in creation history. So what is a day? My comment on creation clearly implies that the power of God is boundless. The whole of scripture, hangs or falls on the very first verse, which could be considered a chapter title “in the begging God created the Heavens and the Earth”. So what is your complaint.

​@@robertjohnsontaylor3187Which Bible translation are you quoting these exact three words from: "evening to morning"?

@@robertjohnsontaylor3187 It isn't evening to morning, it is evening and morning. "Evening and Morning" is a colloquialism for the 24hr day. You can appeal to the miraculous, at the expense of what the Bible clearly says. Popular science always acts like it was there when the earth began to exist. But whatever they affirm contradict what the Bible plainly says. We accept the Bible or live in dillusion. BTW, the text doesn't necessarily say the sun wasn't there before the earth was created though. The word used there is "asah" which can also mean assign. In a sense, the sun's light wasn't used until the 4th day. That's where I differ from Ken Ham.

You mean the thief to whom Jesus said, “I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise” ?

I heard this somewhere by Voddie Bauchman. The way the Jews measured days back then was basically if the sun had not dipped below the horizon, it still counts as 1 day. Any length of time between dusk and dawn was 1 night. It could be 4 AM to us and still be considered night because the sun hadn't come up yet. Basically, we today measure days by 24 hour periods. The Jews back then looked up at the sun and said "yep, still day time."

Where does it say 3 days and 3 nights?

It’s not even until day 4 that the sun moon and stars are NOW designated to serve as time markers to mark days seasons and years . And if you look at the text closely you will see that the greater light that separates day from night also was what separated light from darkness on day 1.

How about William Lane Craig, Sean Mcdowell, James White, Michael Brown, Ray Comfort, Mike Winger, John Macarthur, and Frank Turek just name a few. (Romans 12:6-8) "We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us ect...teaching, serving, prophesying, encouraging, leading." The purpose of Genesis answers the existential questions of life. Is there a God? Who created the universe? Who created mankind? What is sin? Doctrines of justification, atonement, depravity, wrath, grace and sovereignty are also addressed. The Israelites coming out of Egypt to whom Genesis was written to were not trying to figure out the age of the earth. They wanted to know is Yahweh true the God. No offense to Ken Ham. The Gospel saves. It is the foundation of Christianity. (1 Corinthians 15:17)

@Disciple793 sure, but if you can say that one part of the scripture is wrong, why should we trust any of it? If God indeed lied about how he created the earth in the very beginning, then why are we to believe Him when He says this is how you approach me, through my Son? It is paramount that we trust the Bible fully. But this shouldn't just be a blind faith either. Ken is equipping us to defend the faith against those who would subtly chip away at it.

@Disciple793 Aside from the observable sciences pointing to millions of years being the least likely of all historical posits, as of that alone is not enough reason to dismiss such unbiblical claims, the fundamentals of theology must also be reinterpreted regarding death and suffering. Romans 5:12-14 Death in Adam, Life in Christ [12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. If there were millions of years of death and suffering before Adam brought sin into the world and death through sin, then Jesus no longer deals with physical death as a negative consequence, only spiritual death. Ok then. Try telling anyone who lost a son or daughter to cancer that it is a natural aspect of what God called good in creating everything. And if the chaotic, tortured nature of evolutionary processes are all so good, why should we look forward to an afterlife which will not have any more physical death and suffering? Everyone knows in their soul that physical death and suffering are part of the curse, not part of what God called good from the start. So is it any wonder that atheists who start from an evolutionary position of origin scoff at the idea of a good God? I don't disagree that people who ignore or even accept evolutionary precepts can still believe and espouse the work of Jesus Christ. They just miss a significant aspect of what it is for and adulterate their faith just as Israel often did with Baal. A bonus consideration to challenge you with. Would Jesus have said God made Adam and Eve in the beginning if it is true that all of human history has been a sliver of time compared to all else that transpired since the actual beginning? Matthew 19:4-5 [4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Romans 5:12-14 Death in Adam, Life in Christ [12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. If billions of years of death and suffering before sin was in the world is not controverting fundamental theology of scripture, then what would qualify in your book?

I would like to challenge you to separate yourself from the sayings of liberal theologians inventing claims about literary styles in order to tell you what is true or not in scripture. Also examine that abundance of evidence for evolution you claim exists for yourself, not just because the labcoat consensus cult says it exists. Look into the radiometric dating assumptions using superposition and relative age theory as their baselines that were already decided back in the 1800's before any of these dating theories had the technology to test them. It is all smoke and mirrors to persuade you that they know better than you ever could and therefore you should just take their word for it. That is what any cult of falsehood relies upon to keep its following.

​@@Feraeondots a letter. He is using language that they will understand

These are more educated Christian’s who understand the science and realise it’s undeniable.

Or they are true Christians and they just interpret it differently than fallible Ken Ham.

YES AGREED but that is the whole point of what Ken was trying to say for example there are parts of scripture that are meant to be taken literally and also parts that were not but I don't believe there is anything in the early chapters of Genesis that is not meant to be taken literally

@@jameslowry1 : The creation narrative is literal in the sense that Moses' intention was to provide a model for the work-week. He didn't write it that way so we can extrapolate earth's age. Do you believe a serpent literally spoke to Eve? That's what Moses literally wrote.

It was not a serpent but the Devil that was speaking to eve although what the serpent looked like and whether or not it had the power of speech pre fall we are not told because it could have been and YES I do take the scripture literally most of the time and make no apology for that even if you think I am a fool for doing so because the only parts of scripture I don't take literally are the parts that are clear from the context that are not meant to be taken literally and I don't have a problem with that approach even if you do?

It makes sense either way. If God is all powerful then He should be able to make things in whatever time frame He chooses. He’s the Creator, so it’s His choice. I speculate that He chose 24 hour periods so He could intimately observe His creation as He brought it to life.

Why isn't it consistent with logic or observation, sir?

I’m Christian & believe all modern science ( as fundamentalists would say ‘ secular’ theories.

I think you have it backward. One of our days is like 1000 years to God. So 6,000 of our years is actually 2,190,000 God-years. :P

In six days God renewed the Earth after Lucifer rebelled with his fallen angels and hurled asteroids throughout all the universe including a massive asteroid towards Earth that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. “And darkest was on the face of the deep.”

We see with our eyes. My car has over 90,000 miles on it. But my car isn't 90,000 years old.

​@@phaxad How is that related at all? What kind of analogy is that? I think his point is that because galaxies are billions of light years away, they are billions of years old, meaning the universe must obviously be at least billions of years old.

There are a couple of theories but the question is really irrelevant since we weren't there. Nowhere does it say that GOD is limited by space, time and matter. Why not just accept that when it says He created the stars they were created with visible light from earth? The problem with Christians today is that they have no foundation of the framework of Scripture. For example, in Genesis 1-2 the Bible creates a biblical worldview whether we fully understand it or not isn't as important as understanding it exists. Creation was a literal 24 hours we see this in Exodus 20 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. Second, even if the day was a longer period of time the maximum would be 1 day =1000 years. See in Genesis 2 it says 15 Then the Lord God took [d]the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Now we know Adam ate, so did he die in the subsequent 24 hour period? No. So was GOD a liar? No. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Adam never lived to the next "day" past year 1000 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. So from year 1- year 930 Adam lived (almost to the end of Day 1) Abraham lived about year 2000 (end of Day 2), David year 3000 (end of Day 3). The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (70 AD year 4000 end of Day 4) the year 2070-2075 (depending on who you talk to) year 6000 (end of Day 6) +1000 years the reign of Jesus, aka the Messianic age, aka the Millennial Kingdom. Early Christian writings: 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 We have biblical calendars found in the Dead Se Scroll caves. See my study here which is made for skeptics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3oCU2eQAJ0c.html We even see Jews with Judiaism from the Old Testament see the biblical framework as 6000 year + 1000 years. www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/607585/jewish/Significance-of-the-year-6000.htm So we are in the biblical year 5,949 or so give or take 4 years. Now either 2020 was the last Jubilee before the end of the age or 2025 is the last Jubilee. Either way we are entering the last section of time on the biblical calendar. Now Jesus reduces the timeframe of His return in Matthew 24, to about 2050 AD at the latest because if He waits to the year 2075AD or year 6000 we would have already caused our own self-extinction. Matthew 24:21-22. Now in this last section of time (2024-2050) there are over 500 prophecies predicted to come to pass. We are seeing many already on the horix\zon. So by understanding the biblical framework and that these prophesies are on the horizon at the specific time in history they were to occur, it allows us to see the truth of the past, even if we can't understand everything about it. At least we can have a framework in how it might have happened. I hope this helps. Take care.

@@phaxad This comment wins the Charles Darwin Internet of the Day Award!

@@mbfrommb3699 How do you know the bible is correct, you weren't there when it was written. How do you know God exists, you've never seen him. How do you know the world existed 100 years ago? You weren't there. See how idiotic that argument is? Hearing Ken say "How do you know, you weren't there" in a video, among a lot of other crazy ideas is what proved to me that Christianity is nothing more than a fairy tale like Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Couldn’t have hovered long enough for the star’s light to reach the Earth? Are the stars parts of the heavens? Seems like stars could mean heavens. People don’t go to this heaven, or that heaven, or that heaven. That particular heaven, with God, the father seems like it would be singular.

@@PLSpinalthe text clearly specifies where the darkness is. It is on the face of the waters,not the entire universe. The atmosphere was too thick for light to penetrate to the surface. Job 38:4-11 tells us when God laid the foundations of the earth it was wrapped in thick clouds.

Explain why you say it never happened

The Hebrew word for "die" there more literally translates as "dying die" in English. Just as Adam died spiritually as soon as he had disobeyed, yet the physical death was delayed, so anyone accepting Christ's redemption from that curse is made alive immediately in their spirit but with delay in the redemption of the body. John 5:24 [24] Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Romans 8:23 [23] And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 1 Corinthians 15:22 [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:53-55 [53] For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. [54] When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” [55] “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”

And " day" also doesn't always mean day. I can't understand how you justify reinterpreting die but not day. Seems arbitrary.

There are two Hebrew words for death used in a row for the occasion of Genesis 2:17. "Mowd tamut" more literally translates to "dying die" or "assuredly die" depending on different translation takes. So that is where the notion of an immediate spiritual death and gradual physical death is sourced.

I'm sorry, I can't read Hebrew. Is that usage consistent throughout the old testament?

This is not a hill (of doctrine) to fight and die on. Your salvation depends on Jesus, not Moses' metaphors used to tell pre-scientific people the story of creation.

Fossils and other real things are about reality. Genesis was written by some primitive people, who swore with their hand on the phallus and it reflects their level of understanding. At that time people had no idea about the fact that the Sun gives us light, they didn't know what the stars were, they didn't know what the Sun and the Moon were... Let's stop pretending that we are idiots....

There are no fossils that can date older than a theoretical 100k years due to the half-life cycle of carbon dating reaching an undetectable depletion level.

@@Feraeond the oldest fossils dates to 3.5 billion years, Cyanobacteria.

@ancataut7891 They didn't know the sun gives light? That's awfully presumptuous to denigrate the intellectual potential of humans possessing far fresher genes than the mutated and depleted pool of the current time. The only advantage we have over them is the technological and psychological advancements made thanks to a progression of record-keeping and passed on knowledge from what was discovered prior. A simple glance at the effects of inbreeding on mental deficiency and disease prevalence indicates a far more capable time of faculties for the human species prior to gene pool depletion.

Good point. It’s because Moses didn’t write the creation account to be a scientific statement, but a model for the week.

To help you out, Genesis 2:4 is the first verse of the second creation story.

@@Moist._Robot : Yes I know and Moses is summarizing what he wrote in chapter 1 in Gen. 2:4.

The usage of day in Genesis 2, "...in the day that..." is actually confirming contrast to its different usage in chapter one. Chapter 2's usage is an indeterminate amount of time like "in my grandmother's day" and chapter one's usage is a literal day just like wherever used similarly in the rest of the Bible. Moses knew how to specify a literal day as well as a nonliteral day.

@@scienceandbibleresearch Lol. Moses didn’t exist. These two creation myths are by the Priestly source and the Jahwest source. Feel free to google it and you’ll see that I’m right.

Real working brain: it can't be six days because scientists say BILLIONS of years 🙄.

@@christopheespic god cant be wrong, confusing, or a liar, all of which man can be and often are, so id rather trust god ❤

@@swamprat22 I'm not telling you that God is wrong, just that you don't NEED to stick to a litteral interpretation of Genesis! God didn't say in Genesis "take this description as litteral".

​@@christopheespic Scientists also said the sun circles the earth.

@@jacob.tudragens.... And learned from their mistakes. Everyone can and should.

Before the beginning, there was God

@@WakeUp_333 Turn off the snooze and you will connect two days.

Sure, but to be correct, you'd say "a 13.8B year old looking universe" since that's what we observe. Or you could also say "god created everything 5 seconds ago: humans of every age with fake memories, fake fossils, etc". See where that gets you? Nowhere...

The James Webb telescope by the same logic of observation now suggests the universe being four times that old. Similar to how DNA sequencing of humans and their supposed closest ancestor now shows only about 85% similarity, not 98%. And by current evolutionary models the assumed time required to make that random leap would be about 69 billion years. Gotta keep up with the science as it develops, not stick with dogmatic numbers!

@@Feraeond And? That's just science at work. We change/correct things as we get new data/evidence. Although I don't know what you're referring to when you say "that random leap".