I am on your side in all of this, I think, but if you can stand correction, I might have picked up on something you missed. Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. I am a Gnostic Christian and see both an evil God and a good God in the bible. I like to show what the good God wrote. Christians do not seem to know that one and thing the genocidal P is good.
Why would the "tree of life" need to exist if there was no death before the fall? Even in the Bible, the Bible admits death itself exists before the fall.
The Tree of Life is there to show how we are to choose knowledge over a life without it. ---- TLDR---- Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God. It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. This indicates that Jesus had no choice. If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate? God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan. This then begs the question. What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to? Only an insane and immoral God. That’s who. The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality. One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men. ------------------------ Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”. That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy." But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem. If all sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong. Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility. Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution. Consider. First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Evil then is only human to human. As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times. Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct. This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well. Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition. ----------------------- Evolutionary theology. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XXOvYn1OAL0.html
This was very interesting. Over 30 minutes twisting himself in knots trying not to see that he is literally explaining that Christianity is a house of cards. The mental gymnastics are truly astounding.
For your sake, i really hope you're wrong! Otherwise, Christianity is in a very tight spot with evolution. There's a reason that creationism isn't regarded as science, and it's not because scientists are biased, it's because creationist models require huge suspensions of physical laws without any mechanisms, and things like baraminology have been debunked with parsimony analysis vs. universal common ancestry. Also, endogenous retroviruses make negative sense given creationism. Good luck.
I'd love to learn more. What is your scientific evidence for this claim against baraminology. Have there been successful hybrids found between incompatible kinds? And are you saying parsimony analysis was the means of debunking baraminology or was it also debunked? It is unclear based on your grammar.
@@gamerpip493 consider that evolution and predict hybridization, but I'm not sure we would on baraminology. I'll add also that junk DNA and ERVs are both very solid evidence supporting universal common ancestry, and for the parsimony analysis, honestly I don't remember the details well but the hypothesis of genetic diversity being the result of universal common ancestry vs approximately family level creation (not precisely the claim of baraminology, but pretty close) and they found it was way more likely that universal common ancestry was true.
@@gamerpip493 for a more coherent breakdown, gutsick gibbon is essentially my source, but it's likely that Dan from creation myths or Jackson wheat also have videos about it.
I'm not a biologist. I'm not a physicists. I assume you're not either. I've taken college chemistry, biology, and calculus 1-3. I'll assume your education is similar. All of evolution - micro and macro - is heavily reliant on theories. The evolution of the universe is reliant on the theories of gravity. I was just listening to a physicist today try to explain why the big-bang theory is still possible even with the recent James Web discoveries. One of the gravitational theories actually suggests gravity doesn't behave the same way at extreme speeds, which would allow distant galaxies to form far faster than originally assumed. To those denying God, that allows them to fit the age of the universe into their model time scale. To the creationist, it gives more scientific credibility to the time scale God has given us. As for "extra" or "unused" DNA... We're constantly learning about the world God created for us. What we think is useless may have impacts we just don't know about yet. Perhaps we find that it's a built-in checksum or used to align genomes. We may never know, but don't be too quick to discard something just because we don't understand it yet.
@@BenReese the thing is micro and macro observations aren’t based on just theories, they’re based on observable evidence. We can see the emergence of new species and genetic changes in existing ones. If the choice is between faith in a book 2000 years old or my own eyes and thousands of scientists with vast knowledge on the subjects, I know which one I am choosing.
It was this kind of motivated reasoning that formed the thin end of the wedge that split me from faith. Its absurd in this day to deny that evolution happens, or to suggest that genesis is at all literal, including creation, the flood, or babel.
Hey bro, don't fall for a fallacy fallacy, just because something is poorly reasoned for doesn't mean it's not true. Christianity in its history has been very intellectual and it's only been a recent movement pushed by fundamentalist evangelicals which sprang out as a reaction to modernism who want to deny everything accepted by science. Many scientists were Christian and many universities such has Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were started by Christians. If you want to see the more intellectual Christianity, check out historic Protestantism (not modern) such as Presbyterianism or Lutheranism; after all it was the protestant reformation which lead to the enlightenment.
@@kingarth0ryeah, I'm not. I wanted to keep the faith, but the more I looked, the worse I found the evidence to be. The authorship of most of the bible is contested, and no original manuscripts survive. There aren't even any contemporary with their authors. The prophecies have no value. No test for whether the spirit is working in someone's life yields results. Christians can't make any claims that can't be made by other religions. The bible has been changed since it was written. The canon is not well established. Miracles don't happen. The church is divided. Two thousand years of doomsayers have lived and died and we're still here. The church fails to be a generally positive influence on society. God is nowhere to be seen. I can't believe because there is no evidence. I was told I could have a personal relationship with God. That if I sincerely asked him for wisdom, he would give me all I needed. I asked him to do anything to show that he loved me and I got... Nothing. I was willing to sacrifice myself in ways a cishet person couldn't imagine, but all I got was silence. So if he is real, then he doesn't love me enough to do the most basic part of a relationship and talk to me, but given all the other things, it seems more likely he isn't real. My pronouns are she/her, bro. I'm happy to be myself, in service to no god and devoted only to the causes I choose.
@@Mya-Scene "I can't believe because there is no evidence." Sounds like you have approached religion with the wrong lens friend, " I was willing to sacrifice myself in ways a cishet person couldn't imagine" It sounds like you are more interested in your victimhood than religion
@@Mya-SceneI will be praying that God reveals Himself to you soon. You are being molded, and the strength that comes from what you have endured will have great purpose. Someone needs you and you alone. God loves you and I love you. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. This truth is absolute, like gravity. It exists because we exist. A response to our presence.
@@zeektm1762 how do you expect someone to believe something if there is no good convincing evidence? Blind faith? If so then what makes one religion uniquely stand out compared to thousands of other religions? If this all powerful, all knowing, all loving god wants a relationship with me, he knows what would convince me and will provide it to keep me from eternal torment.
Well structured, insightful, and very helpful in building one's skill/ability to respond to Evangelicals who are wavering (due to societal pressure) or departing (due to a rejection of the authority of Scripture) on the historicity of Genesis 1-11. Thanks
Dr. Roach my name is Ben Summers and I would like to thank you for taking a stand on the Word or God. It is so encouraging to see people affirming Scripture and warning others of the dangers that can come from Seminary professors. I am currently a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and I am seeing these heresies taught as answers and it sickens me. I could use your prayers as I am planning to speak with Dr. Aiken. Continue the good work my brother. God bless you.
Hey Ben - It encourages me to read your comment here. I’ve known Bill for years. We are very close friends. He has always stood unashamedly on the Word of God despite the many attacks, slander, and general nonsense that comes your way when you take such a stand. Stay the course yourself. Our “tribe” is not as small as the evangelical elites would have us believe. 👍🏻
Calling Christians who deny biblical inerrancy heretics is almost blasphemic against the holy spirit because you are denying the capability of salvation of those who may accept Jesus as Lord but may not accept the Bible as inerrant.
I’m a Protestant Christian, but I clearly read the Bible very differently than you, and a big reason is that I’m not an Evangelical. This strict literalistic interpretation of Scripture simply makes no sense to me. Why is the creation story in Genesis so important relative to a belief in God? Why must I read it as a linear narrative and not an allegory? Why can’t the creation account in Genesis be a source of great theological and philosophical truths? Why must it be thrust into the natural world and be treated as some scientific explanation for creation? I guess my biggest problem with this is that you don’t find this literalism in the early church prior to the 18th Century, which coincides with the rise of modernity and in response to the rise of the sciences. In many ways, it’s almost a deification of Scripture and that you must “believe” in Scripture in much the same way you “believe” in God or Christ. My belief in God and Christ is not contingent on the Bible being literally true in every regard. It’s based on deep theological and philosophical truths found throughout the Bible. When Jesus refers to himself as the vine in John 15:5, I do not take him literally that he is a vine; it’s symbolism, it’s metaphor. When he comments about bearing “much fruit,” again, he’s not talking about literal fruit; it’s symbolism and metaphor. I read the creation story in Genesis in the same light; it’s a creation myth and not in the sense that it’s not true theologically or philosophically because it is. God created everything, but I don’t read it as a literal, linear narrative of creation. In other words, I don’t leave logic, reason, and objective reality at the church door before entering the church, nor do I dismiss them before reading the Bible.
@DrBillRoach, so, at your behest, I watched the full video, and while you do address the objections I made. The argument you make essentially asks me to check objective reality at the door, so to speak, when I read Genesis. Admittedly, I don’t have the theological or philosophical training required to properly debate you on this topic, but I also didn’t just crawl from under a rock either. You said in the video that people are moving away from evangelicalism; well, they are also moving away from Christianity in general, and one of the big reasons is that they are consistently asked to check logic, reason, and objective reality at the church door. You are asking people to reject at least a dozen different fields of science and instead believe the words written in a book that’s thousands of years old…think about that! All of that aside, the God you ask me to worship seems confined to a book, i.e., the Bible. The God I worship, while told about in the same book, is a God where creation speaks to his glory, and his great creative intelligence is on full display as we learn the what and how of his creation. Did God create everything? Absolutely! Did it happen as the Bible says it did? No, and more to it, the Bible is not a science book, and most people are not going to look to the Bible to tell them about the what or the how of creation. I know what the fossil record and genetics tell me about human evolution because that’s where my education lies, but I’m also a Bible-believing Christian, and I have no problem reconciling the science of anthropology with my faith. How do I reconcile them? It’s rather simple: science deals with the natural world, and my faith deals with the spiritual or metaphysical world. If I want to understand the human/divine nature of Christ, I will look to the Bible. If I want to understand how gene flow affects a population, I will look to biological anthropology. It's not important to me that Adam and Eve were real in a literal sense because the science I study shows me so much more of God’s great creative intelligence than the Bible could possibly ever show me. A DNA strand, if unwound, stretches some six feet, yet it’s contained in a cell, which is between one micrometer and hundreds of micrometers in diameter. That cell brings me closer to God than any holy book ever could! You ask that I believe the creation account in Genesis as a literal account of creation. Why? The real creation story locked up inside that one cell is far more revealing of God and his great creative intelligence, and when you consider the entire universe in that same light…no, the creation story in Genesis starts to look rather anachronistic. I want to see God’s full glory, not be confined to only what a book tells me, and by studying his creation, I get to witness his full glory and great creative intelligence in ways the Bible simply doesn’t allow for.
To piggy back on this a bit. It seems quite odd to me that as believers we claim to believe in a God that throughout his ministry on Earth used parables and stories to teach and yet Genesis _has_ to be a literal account of the origins of life or it _somehow_ undermines God's existence entirely. One can read Genesis as literal or as a story and arrive at the same moral lessons regarding sin, death, and God's ultimate plan for the world. The Scriptures are human books written by humans with divine inspiration. That _does not_ mean that it is a perfect book with no flaws that has been perfectly preserved as it was written for thousands of years. It has been changed and added to, entire books have been discarded and passages have been invented whole cloth long after books were supposedly written. Belief in the Life, Death, and Resurrection is not dependent on a belief in Creationism. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy only serves to distract us from the actual message found in the Scriptures.
what do you mean by "protestant"? Do you believe that God is Creator or not? What was the "original sin"? What is the "fruit of the tree"? Why did the Creator have to be slaughtered by His own Creation?
@@psalm2764, do you not understand the differences between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity? From a strictly historical perspective, the Catholic Church dates back to the 1st Century; reference Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 AD. The Orthodox church split from the Catholic Church in the Schism of 1054 AD, better known as the East-West Schism. Then you have the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. In the United States alone, there are over 200 different and distinct Protestant denominations, all with their own doctrines, traditions, and beliefs. Do I believe God is the creator of all things? Yes! Do I believe God created everything as described in the childishly simple, linear manner in Genesis? Absolutely not! The creation story in Genesis makes God seem small, but when you read it allegorically and mix it with what science has discovered, you begin to see God’s great creative intelligence, and that is when you cannot help but stand in awe of the mind of God. I don’t believe in the doctrine of original sin. Why? Simply put, it’s a contradiction! Think about it rationally. God is the creator of all things; God knows everything that was, is, and will be. How can he not? He’s God! God created the heavens and the earth, God created Adam and Eve, and God also created good and evil and the serpent. Everything is according to God’s plan, is it not? Therefore, God knew the Serpent would tempt Eve; he knew she and Adam would eat the fruit, and to argue otherwise means God is not the all-knowing God we make him out to be. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory meant to show that we are, by nature, sinful, imperfect, and fall short of the Glory of God. Your last question of why God sacrificed his only son is a question I can’t answer, nor do I believe anyone can. We know what Scripture tells us, but even that is a bit facile. Go back to Noah and the flood. God destroyed the world due to sin, but he still left eight flawed and sinful people on the planet; why? That’s like removing only part of a cancerous tumor and leaving the rest in the hopes it will somehow heal itself; it makes no sense. God is God, so God has the power to wipe away everything and start afresh; why didn’t he? In many ways, we are far more sinful now than we were then, Christ’s death and resurrection notwithstanding. Why all the sacrifice for a creation he knows will never change and is flawed and sinful? More to it, God created us to be like we are, so rationally, none of it makes sense. For me, all I can do is go back to Isaiah 55:8, where God says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."
I am someone who grew up in church but became a non-believer over time and this rise of Theistic Evolution belief among Christians is one of the most baffling things I have ever seen. The entire core of Salvation, the most fundamental part of Christianity, is built on the early Genesis story being literal historical events. If there was no literal Adam and Eve who all humans have descended from then there was no Original Sin, if there was no Original Sin then there was no fall, if there was no fall then what did Jesus die for? Christians who have a belief in Theistic Evolution seem to be trying to affirm science whilst keeping their faith in the same way I attempted, but as I realised you cannot have it both ways. Theistic Evolution undermines the entire Christian theological structure completely.
Then they instead run into issues with the very science that they're trying to reconcile their beliefs with, because DNA will show you that the entire human race did not descend from one couple.
Didn't Jesus die for OUR sins ? And if you think about it, if Genesis is literal history, then God set Adam and Eve up to fall. How is that our fault ?
@@tezzerii Christian Theology holds that Sin didn't exist before Adam and Eve. Their actions are what brought it into the world and that we (everyone) as their descendants inherited that sinful nature, which is why Jesus then had to come and atone for humanity because of Adams deeds through his death. If the story is not literal then the Christian theological concepts about the nature of Sin, Salvation and the role of Jesus get thrown into disarray. Also you are correct, the doctrine does basically lay blame on all us for something that we did not do, which is one of the other reasons why I stopped being a believer.
@@Goetze10 ok, that's "mainstream" Christian doctrine. And they of the mainstream will say if you don't accept that, you're not a Christian. But by what authority ? The Bible, they say. But they all have different views on what the Bible teaches, and there are those outside the mainstream who don't agree with this doctrine. You can find Bible verses to support it, but there is also sufficient to oppose it, and still support the idea of a saviour.
Research question: Should you have a literal interpretation of Genesis, or should you accept that Genesis is a metaphor for a guided evolutionary process? Your 37 minutes video: You should go for a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is more literal. We know that if we consider the Genesis as a metaphor many things in the book are not _literally_ true, that is what a metaphor is. Yes, you have to accept that Adam was not made out of dust. Yes, you have to accept that there were animals that were _almost_ humans before Adam (there are also today btw, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps). Do you think that any proponent of Theistic evolution does not know that? That is _the point_ of Theistic evolution. What is missing is _why_ we should believe that the bible should be interpreted literally and not as a metaphor. To claim that a literal interpretation is more literal is baffling.
Exactly, and I'd rather see a Christian who is honest with the evidence and willing to try to accept the fact of evolution and their religious beliefs, rather than someone who dogmatically ignores all of the evidence dishonestly.
I love how so many people pour so much time into such worthless activities. It's both entertaining and incredibly sad. I am infinitely grateful that I was able to separate myself from this ridiculousness before it consumed my life like it has consumed so many others. Christians look at the world with judgement and pity, while it is them who should be pitied above all others.
Great critique! I totally agree with every point. I would add, that when Grudem and others, critiquing evolution, point to the argument that according to theistic evolution, thorns a thistels would have to be before the fall, as well as all diseases, cancer, parasites and predatory behavior, they have the same problem because they compromise on the age of the earth, so it is a little inconsistent on their part to point out to that problem with theistic evolution, when they have the same problem too. There is a good scholarly article posted on 2022 on AiG website, that argues how progressive creation undermines inerrancy of the Bible. Article titled "How Old-Earth Inerrantists Are Unintentionally Undermining Inerrancy" by Liz Abrams. That way age of the earth position is an achiness heel of Chicago statement, because many of it siners were compromising on that issue and with their stance undermine their own position. What do you think on it Dr. Roach?
i find it weird that we're fixing all these diseases and that god and jesus can only do one patient at a time when we cured ALL of leprosy and polio and mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough - all the way to dentistry and fractures, god is crap even when he "helps"
How many more centuries do you think the conflict between science and religion will continue in the West and around the world? Will there be some sort of religious revolution, with greater emphasis on alignment with science?
@DrBillRoach unless you take it all as metaphor then there is very much a conflict 1. We know that Adam and Eve weren't really 2. We know the flood wasn't real 3. We know the exodus didn't happen That is just things in the OT, and there are many more that we know not only didn't happen but couldn't happen. So you either accept science and view the Bible as metaphor or you believe the Bible is literal and reject science but it can't be both
@@nathanmckenzie904sounds like a lot of presupposition on your part. To say that you’re unconvinced of such stories is one thing. To say that “we know they weren’t real” is just intellectually dishonest.
@adamenochs9416 nope. I use to be a YEC, I believed in Adam and Wve the flood.. all of it. I know longer believe any of it, we have fossils that are millions of years old and humans have been around for about 100k years. If I believe in truth why would I allow people to propagate something that isn't? I hold only 1 presupposition and that is reality is real?
@@psalm2764 The order of "creation" is wrong. For example, plants don't predate the sun. Hell, the earth doesn't predate the Sun. That's not how planets form.
@@shanewilson7994 God cannot be wrong, but you, who are dust, can and are. The issue with rebellion is that it blinds the eyes from seeing. The sun is not needed, because God gives the breath of life, in Him all things exist and have their being. At the end of time, there will be no sun. God is the sun. If you want to understand the Bible, the whole counsel of God must be taken into consideration. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, they're a little. How do you know how "planets" form? Do they exist? Doubtful.
should I give up on Christianity then? I mean the facts for evolution are huge...especially errors in design, which a intelligent designer never would have done..
If genesis is literal history, why is Abraham astonished that God has said he will give him a son at 90? Abraham should not only find this normal, but also a bit early. Especially since his great great great or so grandfather is still alive and like 800 years old.
Good question. "X at my age?", is a very common expression even to this day. And it's not saying the same thing as "X could not happen at my age." The real miracle was not Abraham having a child, but his wife who was barren and past metap. I hope this helps
@@dokidokibibleclub no actually Genesis says: ”Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to a man a hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth to a child?”“ Genesis 17:17 ”Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have become old, am I to have pleasure, my Lord being old also?”“ Genesis 18:11-12 NASB2020 So clearly Abraham’s issue was age. Also, if that’s your argument, my point still stands. If Sarah was past menopause by 90, then the other patriarchs wives would have been too. And the Bible clearly states that Abraham also thought he himself was to old, not just his wife. So the real miracle was Abraham and Sarah having a child. Hope this helps.
@lucas____________ Thank you for replying, and what you said helps. It seems you're not convinced that Sarah was barren or passed menopause because I didn't include scripture previously. Abraham has already bore a son at the age of 86 relatively recent to his exclamation in Gen 17:17. See Genesis 16 for the birth if Ishmael. Sarah at age 75 gave Hagar the servant to bare the child because Sarah was barren. If she wasn't barren then she wouldn't have made her servant do this deed. Genesis 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. Genesis 16:1 "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children..." Notice here in Genesis 21, the credit of the miracle is solely on Sarah. Not on Abraham or both. Men produce reproductive germ cells all their life. And don't forget Abraham had already bore a child recently. Genesis 21:6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 21:7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. Here is Hebrews 11 further cements that the miracle is placed on Sarah and proving she was past menopause, "past the age", or "she was past age". Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. To summarize, scripture clearly shows the miracle of pregnancy at hers and Abraham's age was her miracle. God overcome her barreness and menopause. Men can produce children all their life and Abraham had already fathered a child recently to the Gen 17:17 exclamation, which is a common saying even in use today. Your ideas about a blanket assessment accross the other patriarchs are speculation as you have no means to prove what you asserted. There's no reason to doubt the Bible as real history including the ages in the patriarchs. In fact the decline of ages after the flood follows the expected decay rate in ages according to mathematical models (See Patriarchal Drive by Dr. Carter & Dr. Sanford). Y chromosome mutation rates go back 4,500 years to Noah, and Mitochondria Eve traces back 6,000 years back to Eve. The Bible is true and real history, my friend.
@@dokidokibibleclub again, the issue was ‘age.’ Which is my entire point. The miracle was that she could have children as old as she was. Which, if the previously mentioned ages of the patriarch were literal, would not be miraculous.
Also, the Bible is inerrant in faith and morals. God didn’t write every word, he inspired them. He let the writers worldviews, culture, and scientific knowledge, or lack thereof, color the writing.
@@bbl361 Understanding the history and context. Who is writing Genesis, and for what purpose. There are a few ways we get Genesis. Fundamentalists often say that God just told Moses all the literal history and he wrote it down, but I'm not aware of any evidence of this being the case. Otherwise, Genesis either makes it to Moses through oral tradition, which is known to use poetic devices, or a vision, which are consistently non-literal. What the writers are trying to get across in the creation account is that God created the Heavens and the Earth, God created Man, Man rebelled, and is now fallen, but God has not abandoned Man.
Even before you get to evolution, the Genesis account has so many other problems with the narrative. Red flags, about how God treats humans, why, to many, it looks like God baited mankind and what happened, "the fall", was always going to happen. 1. Why didn't God restart the garden of eden when Adam sinned? 2. Why did Adam disobey God if Adam was perfect? 3. Why was the snake in the garden? 4. Why was Satan cast down to earth and given dominion over it? 5. God had preknowledge, and yet did nothing, or was unable to If Adam/Eve did not sin, would we still have gotten the fall if one of their children sinned?
@@psalm2764Why not be a little more helpful to answer some of the questions I posed? I'm sorry if you think I am on a high horse. I occasionally respond to those who I think are on high horses, those who think they have the truth already, and that everyone else must be wrong. Are you such a person? "Why did God create men who would not believe in Him, like you?" I don't know. Why don't you tell me? And also tell me why God would create anything at all if it is a self sustaining being. Was it fulfilling a need? A desire?
@@JohnCamacho Man does not create himself, he does not give himself the breath of life. He sees order in Creation and attributes that to himself as he denies his Creator. Because you deny God, you misunderstand. God is not beholden to you, on the contrary.
@@psalm2764 "attributes that to himself as he denies his Creator." No he doesn't. He doesn't say he created the universe. "God is not beholden to you, on the contrary" Well that's a shame, for a being that claims to love me, can't make the time to communicate with me. And again you cannot answer the questions I posed.
@@JohnCamacho your questions are based in rebellion and stupid. God created man to worship Him, not the other way around. Only He is holy and reverend. Mankind, like satan, always puts himself above his Creator, to his own detriment and downfall. If you don't understand, that is your responsibility. It is up to you to seek God and find Him. However, God did come in the form of a man, he healed the blind and lepers, raised the dead and resurrected Himself. He does speak to us - the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His Handiwork, day after day uttereth speech and night after night showeth knowledge, there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. If you cannot see, nor hear, perhaps He has already given you up and darkened your mind. Sure seems like it.
The Fall, was not thought of as a fall. It was considered the elevation of humankind. Evidenced by Christians singing of Adam's sin as a happy fault and necessary to God's plan. Jews simply label the so called Fall, not as Original sin but Original Virtue. Humanity wins by knowing good from evil. ----TLDR -- Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God. It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. This indicates that Jesus had no choice. If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate? God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan. This then begs the question. What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to? Only an insane and immoral God. That’s who. The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality. One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men. ------------------------ Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”. That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy." But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem. If all sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong. Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility. Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution. Consider. First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Evil then is only human to human. As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times. Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct. This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well. Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition. ----------------------- Evolutionary theology. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XXOvYn1OAL0.html
Amazing that he should put such trust in a book, and I dare say a translation of a book, that was selected and codified by a religious tradition he rejects entirely. Elevating the Bible to an object of worship, or near worship is blasphemous. Inerrancy of scripture is based on the same flawed premise as inerrancy of the Papacy.
God is the Word. He speaks to all men in their language. God is not "religion". Religion is the science of the deranged prince of this world. No Christian "elevates the Bible to an object of worship", God transcends the written page and only He is worthy to be worshipped. You profess to be wise, but are a fool. The papacy is satanic, in opposition to God.
@@kingarth0r other than the Tanakh, exactly what was David referring to? You have the same problem with Paul in 2Timothy, neither delineated what they considered scripture or being inspired by God, Paul could include the Talmud very possibly. David was not inerrant either, for that matter, and his son Solomon really wasn't very holy. I prefer to approach scripture like C.S. Lewis did.
I agree with basically every argument in this video, and I also believe that evolution is one of best supported theories biology has ever produced. I think evolutionary science is incompatible with scripture, as do you, but I think this negates the scripture, not the science haha
@@StavroginNikolay The bible says how the world is created, and it certainly doesn’t mention evolution. If you’re not a fundamentalist and don’t believe the bible to be literal then that’s fine, but then why take it as literal that Jesus rose from the dead? Or why believe his teachings as holy when he clearly believes the old testament to be literal?
The "sons of god" were the watchers or fallen angels who renounced heaven alongside the satan, giving birth to the gigantic nephilim. They are there in Job as well when satan is meeting with God. God created the heavens first where these mysterious beings live. Their nature would be foreign to us and supernatural. Christ is uniquely the trinitarian Son of God of which there is only one.
wow okay so "bUt tHe bIbLe sAyS tHiS" versus hundreds of years of scientific research? maybe address the actual science instead of crying about how this doesn't fit into your worldview
In short. Adam and Eve are archetypes for you and I. adam, the correct spelling, means society or tribe. "created we man and woman and called them adam". The moral of this story is that we are to put education and knowledge above an eternal life of being stupid. Note that Eve did the right thing in telling Yahweh where to shove his stupid command to have us all stay stupid. Satan; What a sweetheart. No wonder she is called a bringer of light. Are you ready to step up and be enlightened by one who sees the great value in evil, and what pleasure God get's in creating it?
Good teaching! Informative, persuasive and undeniable! Degrade inerrancy at your own peril. What do we even have if the Word of God is not clear and true.
But when you defend a book as inerrant which has obvious, undeniable errors and contradictions, you look foolish, at best. The bible is not even internally consistent - a book which contradicts itself cannot, by definition, be inerrant.
@petercollins7730 The fundamental claim of biblical inerrancy is that Scripture is without error in its original autographs. Incidentally, the process of decentralized transmission has destroyed the originals and what remains is a vast collection of slightly varying handwritten copies. Indeed Human-beings are flawed and capable of making mistakes but God is flawless and does not err. So one can claim that any particular manuscript contains errors but this does not prove that the original contained errors. Furthermore, the Bible that we possess today is a “critical text”, meaning that many manuscripts have been compared and their textual variants have been accounted for and scientifically resolved. This allows us to say that the integrity of the Bible we have today is stronger than any other text written in all of antiquity by a long shot. A believing Christian seeks to understand the Bible as a whole text that has been revealed by the perfect God in such a manner that maintains complete continuity throughout. Before you claim you have found a contradiction you must recognize your own limitations and ask God to impart understanding in spite of your shortcomings, that includes pride and arrogance. He is faithful, humbling the proud and providing us with all that we need. “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.”” 1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Lol If you want to believe in evolution do that. Why do they need try and make the bible say what it doesn't. If you believe the bible teaches an old earth, than look up what year it is according to the Hebrew calender. 😬☝️
@juanduenas1943 The hebrew calendar's "year 1" is based on an arbitrary calculation by Mamonides in the 12th century "AD", which makes a number of assumptions. You might as well say the earth is 2023 years old.
If your religion directly contradicts one of the corroborated theories science has, then maybe your religion is just wrong. (by theory I mean an actual scientific theory, not a hypothesis as the term is most commonly used in speech. There's a huge difference and y'all sound like flat earthers when you say "oH ItS JuSt A tHeOrY." I can go into more detail if needed.
This is a fallacy fallacy. Christianity doesn't fall apart because of evolution. Christianity is Christ centered. If you want to disprove Christianity. You need to disprove Christ. Christianity is not Bible centered. If you can show the Bible has some errors or inconsistencies, you haven't disproven Christianity.
@@kingarth0r But the only evidence for Christ being anything other than a normal dude is in the bible, so if some of the bible contradicts reality then how can we know that any of it is real? For example, if you were reading an article and it repeatedly said that the sky is metallic silver and that cows can live in space, would you trust what the rest of that article says?
@@kingarth0r "If you want to disprove Christianity. You need to disprove Christ." The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. First you need to prove Christ. Nobody should have to disprove something that has yet to be proven.
@@psalm2764 Now consider that it was a man who came up with that concept in the first place, then wonder if it reflects reality or simply encourages ignorance. Those who simply accept what they are told without comprehending how the information is derived are doomed to willful blindness.
@@psalm2764"I have never simply accepted anything that I have been told. But you have!" - Evidence is to the contrary. When was the last time you questioned the Bible rather than quoted from it? A problem inherent to the Christian faith is that it instills a belief that serious questions and skepticism have an ulterior motive or nefarious purpose. That to question certain dogmas is to be "led astray by the devil" and that an "armor of God" is required, both of which are excuses for willful ignorance and sycophancy. What is actually true is that people such as myself simply would like to see more personal introspection, less ignorance and intellectual cowardice. This does not require a rejection of faith in a deity, but it would certainly be nice to have intellectual and academic peers to discuss the topic seriously. So far such conversations are rare. In short: it is truly difficult to find people worthy of a real discussion. Instead what is found are the masses, quick to take offence and lacking personal insight.
Another literalist who has to sacrifice facts and reason on the altar of fundamentalist thinking. What a waste of time and effort. Seek beauty, truth and love. That's the best we can do. Set yourself free.
i always thought it was pretty silly that according to the "crazy book" god supposedly made adam from the earth but later has to "ghost rape" a young woman to create his son! another serious inconsistency!
