CSLewis Quote: "This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.” Source:“The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (1952)

C.S. Lewis was speaking of pagan Christ's being a flawed expression of the True Christ, and that we should expect that. C.S. Lewis was not saying that Scripture is a Pagan myth. If I remember right C.S. Lewis was inclined toward evolution; maybe I'm totally wrong on that though. Point being, C.S. Lewis was an excellent writer and philosopher but he was not a good theologian; He inherited some good theology and philosophised on it very effectivly. He himself insisted he was no theologian at all, but I think that dodges his responsibility as a teacher of theology. I'm not insulting Lewis, but Christ Crucified is the only authority. In His authority, Christ promoted the Scriptures as fact and warned vehemently against letting men be your teachers. In His authority He promised that the Spirit Of Truth will lead us into all Truth. I have followed that authority, and repeatedly and without fail The Spirit proves to be right. Now, I don't jump yo conclusions and justify such by the Spirit; rather I test the spirits and in that testing God has repeatedly assured and affirmed that The Spirit has been true and gracious to and through me.The Holy Spirit Of All Truth is the only One that can be trusted to offer the correct interpretation. Every other interpretation must be put through the fire to see if it survives, to see if the Holy Spirit affirms the interpretation. Studying deeply into the Satan's academia is absolutely unnecessary, if one's trust is put in academia then that one does not believe Christ, so the Spirit is not going to be heard much. Academia is a valuable tool, a worthless school, and to trust in it is absolute blasphemy. The School Of God is the only valuable school; everything else must be brought into that classroom for study and testing. May Christ set the fire loose in you, unto all these modern interpretations, and let only Truth survive.

Bloominati... I don't know what you meant in quoting Lewis, whether one thing or it's opposite. You put the quote but said nothing of what it suggests to you. By your name, Bloominati, you speak of the so called "Illuminati" blooming. There is no light in that Black Star! It's very telling how many Satanistic Luciferians put in their two cents to help affirm these false teachings. In fact, the closest thing I find to Christianity here is philosophy; and philosophy is patently not Christianity. This video is peddling wares of Babylon. Such foolishness is very apparent and, for us in The Spirit, this is assurance of the guidance we are given. The context of this quote is focusing on Christ Crucified, but the factuality of the quote stands tall: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where the wise? where the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." They rejected the Creator and made an image of false creation likened to decaying man, and birds, and foufooted beasts, and creeping things. How did Paul know about micro-organisms and the theory of evolution? (if there is another interpretation tell it to me) At this time the substance of our hope is confidence in Christ; that confidence is called faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, because by faith the elders obtained accurate report. Paul prophecied, Paul is one of our elders, his ability to know by faith proves his ability is God given; it is evidence of the unseen God. Also notice that the elders recieved true report; not truth expressed in lies, not myth but report! Bloominati, if your eye is evil your whole body is full of darkness. The eye of Lucifer is evil, the blooming of the so called "Illuminati" is evil. Much love. Truly trust in Christ

@Nate Beck It seems you have misunderstood and equated myth to only mean something that is untrue. There is a sense in which it can be used that way, even more commonly, but not in the quote. The quote was a reminder of the confidence we have in Christ even among stories of secular gods, since they strengthen our apologetic about THE greatest story.

@@nicholas3354 Your interpretation of my username is slanderous and shallow but I forgive you. In Christ

Beastinvader ad encourage you to stop has Its bullshit

Why would you want to vade into the beast, the beast is a territory not worth conquering. Why would Ben want the approval of men rather than of God? If Ben did research why did He say pachad means testicle? Research shows that to be nonsense. Pachad means fear/dread/terror, 75 times and this is what it means every time. Some men say that one time in Job, it still literally means fear, but "fear" is a euphemism for "testicles" because the behemoth is afraid of being embarrassed if his testicles are seen. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, not figuratively stupidest or one of the stupidest but it is literally the one stupidest thing I've ever heard. I see now! Your name exoterically means you battle against the beast, but this is both a lie and doesn't even fit the word "invade". The esoteric meaning of your name is that you are of the beast and invading us; and that is the Truth of this matter. How many Luciferians will I run into here? And do any Luciferians have the stones to attempt to argue against a true man of God? Or are their supposed stones really fear? Yes, Lucifer is as a dog that I come to slay him with sticks and stones. "Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of Yehovah of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will Yehovah deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that Yehovah saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle Yehovah's and he will give you into our hands!" Much love to you invader. Your master is, yet is not, and shall never be. There will be no funeral durge for him!

Totally agree.

Luther was after all a mere human he got some things right AND most things wrong

@@asamanthinketh5944 what are these things he got so wrong? Please don't tell me you're a Catholic.

For one, he was dreadfully antisemitic (I'm Lutheran)

Theistic Evolustionists avoid the historical (Patristic) interpation of Genesis. If your interpatation doesn't come from a Church Father then I don't care.

@@major5554 What about the Jews of the time of Christ and the Apostles?

Check out Jeff Daughtery The Christian Whistle-blower

cs lewis was a long winded foolish troll for satan.

@@rosewhite--- why insult PotA? That movie is a classic allegory of man's hubris and constant need for control through militarism and dogmatic control of higher education. 🐒

HistoryNET God point The Christian Scholars were the ones to translate it and teach that the relationship of the two accounts may be from a common source. And began teaching it in seminaries. Whether Myth, Local flood or a literal modern english reading is not for the scholar to decide. . Any of the people claiming to be experts in One of the science should know the most important rule is to present the information without their opinion or basis attached. Easy to say hard to do . The information must speak . Then the opinion presented. The relationship between the two stories has made the bible more reliable to some and strongly misrepresents and undermines the bible to others. . funny ? .

The 1998 Movie Pleasantville (very anti-Christian), parallels the sinful human motives of why the Sumerians would have twisted the garden of Eden in such a way to say Enki (God) created humanity to have them serve as slaves so Enkidu (Satan) freed them. The Pleasantville movie is about two teens who get sent into a picturesque 1950s sitcom where everything is perfect and orderly, like they would have seemed growing up in the 50s. The teens corrupt the townfolk, introducing mindless sexual fidelity and them to start living life as they please, to the detriment of the fathers who want to try keep order. Throughout the movie there is imagery of eating apples to show, that what is taking place is meant to mimic the garden of Eden except the fall is portrayed as good and liberating. Now the movie's creators were children growing up in the 1950s, they had the privilege of growing up in what would have seemed like a paradise, with a structured happy family being the norm of the days. They grew up, and over the years through different social movements they either participated in or enabled saw that paradise they grew up in vanished, and became corrupted beyond repair. Now instead of living with that guilt of destroying something perfect, they forged an ideology that condemns the paradise as evil (sexist,racist,homophobic) and the Pleasantville movie is a portrayal of that idealogy, forged to hide the guilt. The authors of the Sumerian account could have felt the same way, in order to justify the Fall of Man and not feel guilt, they had to paint the Garden of Eden as a terrible place, and God as oppressive, and the fall as their liberation.

@@Thetruebrain Yes. But let's not forget that GOD confused everyone's language after The Flood so all stories would have to be translated between different langauges over the years and become very distorted - and maybe Satan ensured a few twists in the tale too? Try explain Pleasantville to a Korean with drawings and signlanguage then have the Korean explain it to an Eskimo and him to a pygmy and him to a Swede...then have someone translate the Swede's grasp of the story nto English - we'd get Planet of Apes meets Godzilla!

Citation needed

Samaritan pentateuch also sides with LXX

www.academia.edu/837451/The_Text_of_Genesis_1_11_Textual_Studies_and_Critical_Edition Skip to chapter 4 (Also note that he abbreviates Septuagint as G rather than LXX)

yes it explains how 8 people turned into millions of people within a few generations 😂😂

And you're just going to ignore the Ugaritic parallels

Ya but in the end of the book what was Leviathan symbolic of as related to the story ? That is the important part.. In other words the story was not written to prove dinosaurs existed. But mythological creatures were used to illustrate a point . In a few words what was the point of Leviathan as used by the author. ? I am asking partly because of the rhetoric we are discussing. If you can't answer this it is OK > I just want to expose the obvious. Just to test to see if we are not being absorbed in a distraction from the intended meaning. As long as we know that speculation is sometimes fun and interesting but means nothing as far as the spirit of wisdom trying to be relaid from a story. The whole point of the Story of Job is difficult and intense. Many today argue the existence of Dinosaurs from reading this Narrative.. Do you understand how ridiculous that is. Regardless of Dinosaurs existing with humans or not ! Out of the people that claim this is some kind of prof that dinosaurs existed at the time Job was written i have never heard a one discuss the content of the story. On little thing is the beginning of the Book . Where Satan comes with the sons of God and challenges God ... That does not fit with the rest of the bible.... That tells us right away this is not a Historical lesson, But a Hebraic legion, The source may be one of the oldest as was most likely passed down through story telling long before the pen. That makes it ineradicable . And real in a much deeper way.

I was going to say the same. Good point. There are plenty of surrounding issues like this he needs to interact with to make a convincing argument.

No there isn't

Simply saying there aren't doesn't make your statement any more true. The Horizon Problem, the decay rate of blue stars, spiral galaxies and comets all limit the age of the universe to much less than 14 billion years.

Why doesn't the scientific consensus accept this then?

First of all there is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". Science is an abstract concept. It can't form a consensus on something. That's a reification fallacy. There are *people* who practice science who say things about it. And what do you mean by "consensus"? Do you mean unanimous consent or majority consent? Because obviously it's not unanimous. But even if it were, whether it's unanimous or majority has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. This is of course a bandwagon fallacy. Have you ever considered the possibility that every scientist has the same reasoning as you? Everyone assumes someone else brought the blue bag to the picnic and when you go down the list you realize no one brought it. Fear and wanting to fit in are very powerful forces. They might see the evidence but there the fear of going against the norm is much stronger than reason and logic. In the same way that by analyzing the evidence presented in this video, you're not afraid to go against the conventional interpretation of Genesis, why not also apply the same rigor and scrutiny to the conventional secular interpretation of the age of the earth? One could argue there is a scientific consensus that people don't rise from the dead, there was no exodus out of Egypt, Jonah was never swallowed by a fish, there is no life after death, etc. Would any of those "consensuses" cause you to reinterpret the Bible in order to make it fit with the so-called consensus? Would you be willing to say there was no Exodus because it primarily has theological significance so the authors of Exodus were only trying to communicate the theology of God's redemption, not that actual plagues and such took place?

There is a reason why virtually all astronomers accept an old universe and virtually all biologists accept evolution. It's an argument from authority, but the authority is overwhelming. In order for 'all' of these scientists to be wrong there would have to be a conspiracy of sorts.

Jason Hill Leviathan in his depictions look like they're from Final Fantasy (particularly 8)

The light is clearly 'daylight', which we know comes fro the sun, but people in the ANE did not make this connection.

Ya but the Genesis says morning and evening day 1, 2, 3, Then on day four it says two great lights govern days and nights. So how could their be a morning and evening before the sun ? Genesis 1;12.And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13.*And the evening and the morning were the third day.( Light is one thing but morning and evening is another) Plants before the sun ? Genesis 1;14.And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to* divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15.And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so. 16.And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to *give light on the earth, 18.And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19.And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (*divide day and night yet they were already dived according to the first three days having a morning and evening) Also 17. God set them over the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth. Day four.. Another explanation is the downgrading of the Sun due to the pagans worshiping the Sun. This would have flabbergasted them.. The Sun was the Almighty God .. Not designated to day four. The main thing is the One and only God created order and set up the seven day cycle by the institution of the Sabbath This is what is meant by the Priestly author.(P) Not creation from nothing but order from Chaos. The careful reading of Hebrew and Greek commentary on this subject is available for us laymen.

While it might seem like they are gutting the texts, perhaps Christians shouldn't be protected from their own scriptures. However, good point about maybe explaining why the creator is a believer.

Don't get me wrong, Mike Heiser, in his books, is doing much the same as Ben (pixels and papyrus) is and that was a faith building experience. Nothing about what he talks about invalidates the Biblical story, it just shows how, iconographically, it was all depicted. Number 5 on this list however, did give me pause.

I would appreciate this. I'm comfortable admitting these things exist, but when you think about it, the Hebrew religion is just the version of ancient Canaanite religion that survived. If it isn't true, it joins the ranks of Hinduism and other ancient faiths that date back thousands of years. I've been studying in the New Testament how many of the prophecies concerning the Second Coming didn't happen the way they should have. The most came from Jesus himself strongly insinuating that his return would be quick, even before most of his followers died. I hold to a YEC position because I have to see evolutionism as a competing mythology. If it is simply true then I don't see how the Bible has any place. It was just a religion invented by a culture that has evolved into something very different today. But if evolution and old-earth cosmology are false, then I can accept the mythology in the Bible as being just a part of history that secularism denies because of a disdain for the supernatural. In other words, I either must embrace this mythology or embrace my secularist doubt.

@@imagomonkei I concur with your assessment. As for the second paragraph Jesus could have been referring to when he resurrected and visited the diciples and saw others. Not the second coming of the end of the age.

I’m skeptical of many elements of the D hypothesis. I believe Gen 1 had a Mesopotamian redaction because it’s full of Mesopotamianisms (like its choice of opening syntax) that you wouldn’t find in an author on the west side of the ANE. It also seems internationally erudite similar to exilic authors like Ezekiel.

There are some areas where I think the parallels are greater with Egypt (such as the wind of Elohim/Amun moving over the Tehom/Nun). I agree though that certain elements are mesopotamian. perhaps the Hebrews absorbed Egyptian elements whilst in Palestine (like with the Seraphim) and carried these ideas on to Mesopotamia.

I agree that Gen 1 seems to contain Egyptian polemic. This seems plausible given that other exilic priestly authors like Ezekiel share knowledge of Egyptian ideas.

I personally believe the Mesopotamian stuff in Genesis was written in the patriarchal era, or by the Amurru, who transmitted it to their Hebrew descendents. Genesis 11 has very strong links to a Sumerian story which was not transmitted after the Mid 2nd millenium BC. I don't see how an exilic author could have written about this.

Reginald O'Donoghue Of course they would sound the same, they have the same ancestor who told them the creation story. After the tower of babel and the confusion of language, the story of creation handed down to the next generation would differ and have been corrupted.

The order wasn't important to the writer.

Manu don't believe everything in the bible.

The biblical writer was using symbolism. If you add up the ages of all the people from Adam to Moses, you get EXACTLY 12,600. This number was special to the ancient Jewish people, and the ages should not be taken literally (the bible wasn’t LYING, it was just being SYMBOLLIC). Hope that helps!

By the way, the viewpoint I am advancing here is relegated to footnote 4 on page 57 of Robert Holmstedt's article "The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1" (Vetus Testamentum 58 [2008]: 56-67) www.academia.edu/676458/The_Restrictive_Syntax_of_Genesis_i_1. Holmstedt states that this option, though viable, has no adherents, so he will only discuss the other options. Maybe I should publish my work so that there are some adherents!

Rhinoceros Unicornis and Rhinoceros Bicornis

Still a mistranslation though.

I do certainly think it is a Rhino. We do have modern genus's that have one and two horns though, so there is no reason to say it is pliestocene. I do think Rhino's are discussed more in the Bible than modern translators say, largely because we are anthropomorphizing the modern ecology of the region onto the ancient near east.

I wouldn't matter because the Hebrew points to a local flood.

This is so poetic it inspires me to wrote a song. though Jesus Christ released us from our bondage to sin, we will remain flawed until the end .

Well if you experienced it’s venom in your eyes 👀 they would feel like they were on fire 🔥 like acid. Phospholipase Plus very fast reflex ~ flying

@P.H.888 oh, that's what they're were referring to, venom and speed.

yes job is oldest

What if the Spirit is leading Ben to the conclusions he reached?

Of course he is , knowledge puffs up.. But where did we hear anything spiritual or uplifting or godly in all this ?

@@peregrinegrace8570 knowledge puffs up..Ignorance is bliss.

Ya i love studying this stuff.

@Martin G It answers the tough questions.

I'm not impressed by any of it So much supposition and slight of hand Trying to be learned , often throwing the baby out with the bathwater, misquoting, halfquoting And the end result : the bible is pagan , doubtful and weak . There is nothing good here , its mockery . It's the wrong answers to the wrong questions And Christian's are lapping it up because its fancy and slick.. God help us

@@peregrinegrace8570 It makes the bible real . You should read it.

@@truethinker221 That was my point I have been reading my bible for 30 years. And attempting to DO what jesus asks of us What I objected to was the disasembling of scripture by lumping it in with other texts from pagan religions and civilisations . This video and its teaching is a lesson in disbelief, pride and foolishness. It starts with something wonderful and ends with a broken mess. I was pointing out that Christian's are eager to follow anyone who gives them something fancy , without first examining what the person is saying. Christian's who need to be led or entertained by any old trixter .. Do not confuse worldly knowledge with righteousness Only The Holy Spirit can translate and confirm scripture And only God knows the beginning from the end.. God bless you

@@peregrinegrace8570 The video explains a common method for translating the bible in context. It is one way to understand the difficult parts that don't fit a civilized moral ethical modern view of society, science if law and order. If you have never struggled with some of the things attributed to the God of the Hebrews then you would not be expected to want to know this system . Some of us do struggle with the wars, world view, severity of the punishment for breaking the Torah. Mass killings. stuff like that.

@@truethinker221 Listen to the video again The speaker says over and over that the scriptures are doubtful , not true and wrong. And that science, popular opinion and old pagan writings are a more reliable medium for arriving at truth. BUT LISTEN , it is The Holy Spirit who teaches us the truth , not man, not men . The commandment is "do not be called teacher, for you shall all be taught by God " If you don't understand a scripture, ask God to reveal it to you..

It goes back at least as far as Rashi.

Rabbi Rashi from 1080 AD? I'm just trying to see when I learned it, I was wondering if I learned it way back in college in the 80's and forgot it. I remember discussing in philosophy or logic that Genesis 1:1 wasn't the beginning and God may not have created the earth from nothing. I don't remember that rule in Hebrew, but my Prof. was a linguist with 23 dialects so he would have known it. It just sounded like you had said it was discovered recently.

The temple imagery in Genesis 1-2 is too much to be mere coincidence

I didn't say it was a coincidence. I don't think you understood my point.

It very clearly isn't literally true, in light of modern science.

truethinker 1 second ago Ya but the Genesis says morning and evening day 1, 2, 3, Then on day four it says two great lights govern days and nights. So how could their be a morning and evening before the sun ? Genesis 1;12.And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13.*And the evening and the morning were the third day.( Light is one thing but morning and evening is another) Plants before the sun ? Genesis 1;14.And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to* divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15.And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so. 16.And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to *give light on the earth, 18.And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19.And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (*divide day and night yet they were already dived according to the first three days having a morning and evening) Also 17. God set them over the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth. Day four.. Another explanation is the downgrading of the Sun due to the pagans worshiping the Sun. This would have flabbergasted them.. The Sun was the Almighty God .. Not designated to day four. The main thing is the One and only God created order and set up the seven day cycle by the institution of the Sabbath This is what is meant by the Priestly author.(P) Not creation from nothing but order from Chaos. The careful reading of Hebrew and Greek commentary on this subject is available for us laymen.

alephtav777 I'm so tempted to do that haha

Sometimes you've got to shake things up.

alephtav777 Do it. Anti-theist and young-earther propaganda needs pushing back

I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner but (if you haven't already) check out the group Answers to Answers In Genesis. Lots of great people who would be willing to help you handle the fallout

It makes it less likely

Read Hosea 13:4-7, Revelation 13 Look into the tefillin also revelation 13 Black cube worship Revelation 21 Moses came down from mt Sinai having 2 horns on his head and his face shown like a goat he was also a prophet, revelation 13 the false prophet has two horns. Its no coincidence, Yahweh is the beast, moses is the false prophet, jesus is the Antichrist. Check out Jeff Daughtery The Christian Whistle-blower

He's not a flat earther. 💀

Covenantal

Better read your bible. The sun came on day four..

You do realize the Big Bang was first proposed by a devout Roman Catholic, right?

Where are these passgaes?

Psalm 92:10 speaks of only one horn. Two-horned rhinos have a larger horn and a smaller horn. This fits with Deut 33:17 which compares the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh to the horns of a 'reim' with Ephraim being much larger than Manasseh.

1) It says it has a horn, doesn't say it only has 'a' horn. 2)You are ignoring Akkadian cognates.

In common speech you don't normally only mention one horn of an animal that has two prominent horns of equal size. The only reason someone would only mention one is because they animal is either missing one, has one that is larger or more prominent that the other, or that it only has one.

During the age the bible was written that is what the people thought So god didn't try to change yet . They wouldn't have understood . So He used the known cosmology at that time. What the pillars sitting on ?

@Martin Luther How would the pillars hold up the earth table if they are sitting on a bottomless pit ? At least acknowledge my point. Do you study other things in the bible ? Why was the kingdom of Judah and Israel divided after Solomon's Death ?

Wouldn't it be light everywhere if the earth was flat ? The time zones make it seem round. Like right now i am in california if i call my friend it hawaii it is still dark. Why or how does that work. Have you heard the term radicalization ? There are forces out there attempting to radicalize people . That is a real conspiracy that we have seen the results; Please be cautious.

@Martin Luther Whatt about the question i asked about Solomon . do you study anything in the Bible ? What makes you think it is God's Word A word is a thing spoken needing air to pass over vocal chords not a book. How could a crazy religions nut think a book is a word.

@Martin Luther The bible is no more a word than the earth is round. You can't be literal in one thing and then make an allegorical claim about another. See the bible is not God's Word The bible is A little book full of a bunch of smaller books. Same as the earth it is not a spinning ball it is a pancake. Oh no i mean a flat piece of clay. And i would be willing to bet you are biblically illiterate,

Name me a better euphemism then?

The church was formed long after the loss of ANE knowledge

@Martin Luther I was responding to Eternity in our hearts, who used the term 'church'

Yeah that is the most problematic for this presentation. You have to view the Scriptures the same way it always was viewed. It is a major critique Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have against Protestants.

Are you saying that God didn't instantly create, but needed 24 hours (1440 minutes) to create each day? Also, you show yourself to be a bad steward of your reason and intellect if you throw up your hands at compelling evidence and say "my subjective opinion is right and EXACTLY how God created no matter how much evidence presented by gifted and called scientist Christians who are putting years of study into learning and discovering how God did things." You think you're defending God, but you're not even putting the least bit of study in, then you criticize those who do. Be less like a flat earther and more like a Berean.

@@BradBer thank you for your rebuke. I wrote a 23 page paper on this subject, and one of the ideas I argued was the concept of God working over six days because he wanted to set the example to the Israelites of how to work. The 6+1 formula. Going back to evidence, as you call it, carbon dating has not been as reliable as we like to think. The average fossil we get in the ground are small pieces of an animal which scientists will then "fill in the gaps" for. Then you get these skeletons in the Smithsonian that are more than half plaster bones and the rest the actual bones found in the dirt. God absolutely could have created instantly, and St. Augustine argued as much, but what we see in the Bible is God choosing to create in a particular way to deliver a particular message. Work six days, rest one. Hope this helps to explain my "subjective opinion" GBWY.

@@aisforamerica2185 tells alot about your world if you use the word 'rebuke' in normal conversation-especially when asked a question and given salient points to address. But like the type of idealogue that uses the word rebuke and doesn't answer the question (instead choosing do deflect and act like writing a paper means people should listen to you) you just make assertions and repeat YEC talking points that show no understand of modern science and the fossil record. List some of the sources in your paper, what degree it was for, which school and your scientific education. Also If Egypt and others had the concept of 'sabbath' and 7 day weeks before Genesis was written, will that change your opinion?

@@BradBer let me ask you this, should the discoveries of science (which is constantly changing and constantly expanding) attempt to explain supernatural and unchanging matters? Why should science be the measure of what the Bible says? We can't just read the Bible until we don't agree with something and then change our interpretation based on what science says for the moment. I know of no other cultures before the Hebrew culture which had a day of rest. If the day of rest existed before Moses' writings, that doesn't discount how God chose to reveal Himself through Moses' inspired words. I suppose that would assume you buy into inspiration and inerrancy and all that, so that's something I would have to consider when answering you. And yeah, I use weird words like "rebuke" because it's an effective word. I use many words that aren't necessarily "en vogue." I use words that I know people don't use because language is beautiful, and speaking like someone from the inner-city in a colloquial fashion isn't as interesting to me. But if we're done addressing me and my choices, yes, you're right. Just because I wrote a paper doesn't mean I'm the expert and it doesn't mean people should listen to me, but If I reviewed this multiple times with my OEC professor and my OEC classmates and wrote things in the paper that challenged their viewpoint, then maybe there is a point to be made about YEC. And yes, I agree. I shouldn't argue like a flat earther. I don't think it's quite fair to say I have no understanding of modern science and the fossil record. One does not need to go to school for four years and major in something to have basic understandings of something. I can make an argument against the trustworthiness of carbon dating if I have read articles from trusted sources on it. I can discuss these things if I have given ear to this worldview and have considered the truthfulness of it. What I see is that man attempts to interpret the Bible based on what science says, and I don't think that's what we ought to be doing if we believe the Bible to be what it is. We don't want to be imposing our own worldview on the text either, and I would tell you that I do not impose my view on Genesis. I read what it says, consider the original audience, the original historical context, and I consider how 20 centuries of a Christendom has interpreted it, and then I formulate an educated analysis of what the text is saying, trying to say, or is implying to say. If any of my comments have come off as rude or arrogant to you, then I do apologize. I am merely asserting what I believe and doing my best to explain why.

@@BradBer I do think like a Berean. I search the scriptures to see whether something is true or not. I believe in YEC because it is what the Bible affirms.

@N/A But the genealogies cover from the supposed first person to Jesus (or at least to the Babylonian Exile, in the Hebrew Bible. There are no gaps. So the Bible implies an age of about 6,000 years. That is already awkward. The Flood would have accursed approximately 2,400 BCE, but there are records of peoples existing before and after that date with no interruption. The Bible is wrong on the age of the Earth the occurrence of Noah’s Flood.

@N/A No, Genesis goes by name in the begats. Adam begat Seth. No gap there. Seth begat, etc etc. If you have counter evidence, provide it. I have verse by verse. Other interpretations arbitrarily pretend words can mean what the interpreter wants them to. Those people don’t respect the text enough to read it for what it says.

@N/A King Jehoram is after David, who is maybe the earliest historic character^ in the Bible, although I suspect Deborah was. So all the begats, etc, up to David put the story into history - around 1,000 BCE. Any gaps after that are irrelevant to the implied age of the Earth. If you want to say for example that Genesis 5:32 does not mean that Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem, Ham and Japheth, then you’ll have to provide strong evidence. ^I think there was an important leader named David, but the stories about David in the Bible were written later and may have very little resemblance to the original.

@N/A To clarify, I don’t believe in the Bible or it’s ages. I am arguing that the simplest interpretation of what the authors meant is the literal ages. I understand that it is possible that the authors didn’t believe what hey were writing. But it doesn’t make sense to say that since we have science about the age of the Earth, then the authors couldn’t have meant something drastically different. They were as ignorant of future discoveries as we are of discoveries that haven’t happened yet. Sheol? How is that relevant? The issue is what the authors believed. Most seem to have believed that Sheol existed. The author of Ecclesiastes did not. What about it? People did believe that there were windows in the “skies” and there was a solid dome. They made drawings that show that. I don’t understand how you could care about Matthew’s discrepancies. Just read the earliest texts available, which are about 700 years older than Matthew. Why bring later re-writes into it?

@N/A 5 - yes, another reason not to believe the Bible. But the authors thought their god liked numerology - or at least they wanted their readers to think so, so the authors didn’t have a problem with unlikely number combinations.