At the end of my first semester of Hebrew my professor announced to the class: "You now know enough to make you dangerous."

Genesis 1 tells us what it means by "heavens" and "earth" - in v8 "God called the firmament 'Heaven'" and v10 "God called the dry land 'Earth'". Literally the phrase means "the sky and the land" - where the ancient understanding of the sky was something like a solid glass dome with water above it. The Bible isn't talking about a universe as we understand "the universe". No galaxies, no planets, and no moons orbiting other planets. If someone wants to read "heavens" as "everything outside Earth", verse 14 says that the "two great lights" (sun and moon) were IN the firmament (the thing that God called "heaven"). The text simply does not fit modern cosmology, but it fits ancient cosmogony perfectly.

Thanks for the video. It seems Ross is trying to “read into the text to fit his narrative” , not trying to learn Hebrew or understand the Bible

You may already have this planned, but I would love more of these types of videos. Calling out specific incorrect translations, especially when used to fit a specific apologetic. Keep up the good work!!

Way back when I was studying for my MS in Mathematics and learning about metric spaces for infinite dimensional space (don't ask!), Dr. Ross gave an apologetic for the trinity based on the metric space for infinite dimensional space which, sorry, was totally whacko. Not that the stuff in my textbooks wasn't wacko in its own way, LOL, but at least it was based on logic. At that time, I was trying soooooo hard to harmonize Christianity, and every single apologetic I went to for help made things WORSE.

Oh wow! Thanks so much for this rant! I just listened to several hours of Hugh Ross lectures and felt at certain points he was totally wrong based on my extensive reading of the scriptures. I’m thankful to find confirmation of my suspicions. Additionally, I’m a “world language” teacher, and poor translation is a pet peeve for me. I’d love to take up Hebrew someday, but stuck on another language for now.

"To drive" means to get the flock out of here.

Thank you, Dr. Josh! As a Hebrew nerd myself (though I would not describe my knowledge as anywhere near yours!), this kind of thing among apologists really bugs me. I appreciate everything you and Megan do with this channel. I only have a Master's degree in Biblical Languages with a concentration in Hebrew, so I still have a lot to learn. Thanks for using your training for such necessary corrections!

This was the best nerd rant I've heard in a long time :)

@Digital Hammurabi Could you please lay out what words/phrase would be used in ancient Hebrew to express "universe" in the sense we understand it today(all space, energy, time, matter)? Thanks

Basic rule: don't go to an astronomer for Hebrew understanding.

Dr Ross credibility when he joined Answers in Genesis and signed the pledge that when evidence contradicts the Bible, the evidence is wrong. Do not surprised if you get a very strong response to your criticism of his work making Genesis fit scientific fact, if he notices it.

Hello Dr. Josh, Okay, like said on your other video, I am in discussions with my Uncle about Dr. Hugh Ross. My Uncle and I have been talking about and/or debating various religious topics for the the past 2 years. Basically, it's because of his Facebook postings that claim evidence for Christianity - which tend to show up on my feed. I myself, never do any kind of ORIGINAL POSTS for my personal perspective however, I do feel compelled at times to challenge other people's perspective - especially if they contain viewpoints I used to hold. I used to be a Christian and I was somewhat of a Hugh Ross follower when I was young but, due to difficulties I had with the both of them -- and almost right away I might add - I eventually had to give up all hope of finding any valid answers there. Anyway, I then became (what I thought was) an agnostic for many years until I had a discussion with an atheist one day. He asked me several questions - I won't bore you with any of them - and he also gave me several insights that cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had about atheism - misconceptions that I now think were nothing but vestigial micro beliefs or inculcations leftover from my former Christian experience. Anyway, my Uncle told me that he is a Hugh Ross supporter and instantly, this summoned a lot of old issues that I had with Dr. Ross and his arguments. I had had a lot of suspicions about what Ross was doing with the Genesis story and I feel a bit vindicated now because your video here has confirmed a lot of what I suspected. Currently now, I am now in the process of reacquainting with Ross's excessive surplus of overreaching claims. But up until this video of yours Dr. Josh, I could only suspect what Ross was doing with certain Hebrew words in Genesis. I don't know in what way or how much you would like to help me with this project but any help would be greatly appreciated. I don't know if you just want to make a more comprehensive video that takes on Dr. Hugh Ross point by point in his interpretation of Genesis or, if you just want to correspond with me to give me some tips here and there. I do have a few questions for you Dr. Josh: 1) Is "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis (and in other places in the Bible) limited to what ONLY what the plain English rendering of it seems to indicate or can it also include all that God has created - including the Sun, Moon, and stars? 2) And, does a particular passage's context play an impinging roll in how much can be included in the meaning of that particular phrase? In other words, could it's meaning be much more generalized or broad in other places in the Bible to also include the Sun, Moon, and stars while still being very constricted in it's meaning in Genesis because of the Sun, Moon, and stars being created on day 4? *This is assuming that Ross is totally wrong pushing their actual creation back to day 1.* 3) If so, how would I definitively prove that the phrase "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis means only the sky above and the earth beneath our feet when used in Genesis and/or in other places if it's meaning is circumscribed there as well? 4) And as far as day 4, how do I refute Ross's claim that allows him to push the creation date for the Sun, Moon, and stars all the way back to verse 1? If my memory serves me correct, Ross claims that the Hebrew word for "made" can mean - but doesn't necessarily mean - created in that moment. However, he claims that it can just as well mean "made" or created a long time ago; or, in this case, that the Sun, Moon, and stars could have been created long before day 4, allowing him to push their date of origination back to day 1. All the way back to where it says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - which would, LOL, bring us full circle back to question number 1) above. Anyway, Dr. Ross says that the Hebrew words in day 4 for allow for this possibility. But is there any real justification for this? Is Ross correct on this or is he mistaken or is he just full of shit? I happen to think Ross falls down on excremental side of that last question, but call me crazy.Lol Anyway, I know that you've kind of touched on these issue some in your video but I was hoping to get some additional clarification. Also, I've already started composing something for my uncle to read but it's still in a sort of rough draft format and it's not completely finished yet. I don't know if you would be interested in reading it but if you'd like to, when I am done, I'll send it to you. We can work out how do that later, if you are interested. These are some very very brief excerpts from my responses to my uncle along with some Ross videos. Essentially, these are some other really ridiculous things that Dr. Ross claims (everything it time marked to go right to the parts I want you to see): Here is where Ross claims god created life on day 1 (watch video for about 3 minutes: it will start at 41:32): kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7R0rddpmbbHiXU.html The Bible verse that allegedly permits Ross claim life was created on day 1: Deuteronomy 32:11 : like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them aloft. **Note, to Dr Josh: Boy did I ever have a lot to say about this jaw-dropping transposition of Ross's. ____________________________________________ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZaKrbiQvp69dGQ.html Here, Ross claims that “over 1000 years ago Jewish theologians read their Bibles and saw Big Bang cosmology in the text”. Is this really what they said they saw in their Bibles or is this just another one of Ross’s, shall we say, very creative fabrications? Ross then goes on to claim that, and I quote: “The Bible says that Universe is traceable back to an actual spacetime beginning” (most would very safely assume the he means the spacetime singularity of the Big Bang). ”That the Universe is continually expanding from that spacetime beginning; it expands under constant laws of physics. Where one of those laws is a pervasive law of decay (Romans 8), which means that we live in a Universe that gets colder and colder at a highly predictive rate.” **Note, to Dr Josh: this was a consecutive quote from Ross that lead one to believe that all that he had said could be found right there in the pages of the Bible. His statements are really misleading and I really had some interesting things to say here as well. _____________________________________________ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/icyRjM6ppr-XaIU.html I don't have anything written for this one but I already kind of know what I am going to say. Ross is essentially claiming that the Bible says that we live on the surface of the tent not in or outside --- because there is no in or outside -- and this is exactly what astronomers observe when the look out at the Universe. Lmmfao, all of the passages in the Bible that talk about the heavens stretching -- which are not even talking about the expanding universe at all, but I digress -- say that he stretched out or stretches out the heavens like a tent so that we can dwell IN not ON. How does Ross not understand this??? Ross is clearly attempting to fabricate an interpretation that, I believe, the texts will just simply not allow. When I saw this it really made me think that Ross is really nothing more than a huckster for the god of the Bible. He should know better than do this; this is inexcusable. Especially with his level of education. He also commits a lot of logical fallacies when presenting his arguments. **Note, to Dr Josh: A lot more material surrounds these videos that I've personally written for my uncle so like I said, if your interested in reading it, we could work out how I can get it to you somehow. ...Just let me know

Digital Hammurabi, I'm an undergraduate theology student from Cambridge UK and I run a Biblical Creation Group here too. Thank you for this helful video! Am I right in saying you learnt the ancient Hebrew Language ? Even though I am sure Dr Ross is a very good scientist I feel he is trying to impose the big bang theory into Genesis chapter 1. Many Christians who haven't looked into the issue have started to believe Dr Ross's views on his Hebrew interpretation. Do you have any video addressing Dr Ross's specific claims regarding the Hebrew in Genesis ? Thanks.

Thanks. It's unbelievable how they read into the text things from a modern perspective...

Your comment about asking a reputable scholar is exactly what I did! I had a mild epiphany, that Ixos relates to the Hyksos, in that maybe (tenuously) a group of refugees were considered parasitic by the people of the land they'd settled on, and that people being people, attributed a stereotype (of a parasitic plant, mistletoe) that the attacked would understand. (It's no good insulting someone if they don't know what you're saying.) It might even point to where the fabled Hyksos came from. (Rhodes and Ixos, if Ialysos is anything but mythology.) I'm still waiting for a response from Dr Cline.

Reading science back into ancient texts seem to be a common practice amongst humans/religio-spiritualists. As an atheist/secular Yoga teacher I roll my eyes daily as the violence to the texts is expounded upon and propagated.

I enjoyed your video and had hoped you would have evidence to show that Dr. Ross has an incorrect interpretation since I am studying to find the truth his view. However, you made several errors. You say that you cannot use the word heavens to represent the space-time continuium. However, the original author would not have known about that. He would not have known about galaxies, planets, or anything like this. So he had to write what he understood and knew. Therefore the use of the word heavens is acceptable in place of the "the universe in which we exist." Let there be.... (I personally like "be light" better.) You state that the "be" must mean create. Why? I did a quick Bible search for the Lemma and found it used in places where it does not mean create. I then thought I better run a quick search on the manuscript word used and I come up with the same number of examples that show that this word does not have to mean create. Geneses 1:16 In verse 14 God uses the "be" again to place the lights. You then stated that God creates them in verse 16. Does he create them in verse 14 or 16. (Again see my message or error #1 and use of the let there be.) Unless the verb be has to be create and can mean nothing else these verses tell us nothing about when they were made. Psalms 104:19 and Psalms 136:5-9 These verses says nothing about when or how God created. It only reiterates that God created. These doe not help you Genesis argument as they only information that can be gained from them is that God created them. They do not show chronology. Your error here is that you are taking your knowledge and placing it back into the text.

I appreciate Dr. Bowen's objectivity. You are, along people like Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Collins, one of the most intelligent Bibel scholars in the world.

Why do we even try to argue the meanings of any sacred/holy texts? It's akin to arguing whether Santa Claus lives on the geographic north pole or the magnetic north pole. It's all rubbish.

The Hebrew word create is only used 3 times in the genesis creation account.verse 1 ,ALL physical matter(the entire universe) day 5 and 6 ,living creatures and Man.the sun moon and stars were there on day one ,but the atmosphere was to thick for light to penetrate.the text says that darkness was on the SURFACE of the waters.

You said at 6:00 that you "have a difficult time believing that he (Hugh Ross) knows Hebrew". Dr. Ross doesn't claim that he knows Hebrew, he relies on Hebrew scholars like his friend Walter Keiser for what Hebrew words he refers to. Yes, 'The Heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them is" does mean the universe including time, space matter and energy. and all your examples are incorrect. You may know Hebrew but you don't understand it. What light do you say was referred to "Let there be light" when the universe was created 9.2 billion years prior? I don't think that you have respect for Ross though you say you do.

Imagine a person in biblical times. He or she is probably just as intelligent as the average person today. This Israelite ask what are the important questions. Why do I exist? Why does the World exist? Why. do I have to work hard to survive when animals seem to have an easy life? Why does my wife have such a painful time giving birth when female animals seem to give birth effortlessly? Why are some people sinful? Why are we ashamed of nudity. How did animals get their names? What is above the sky (firmament) and below the ground? One thing they can see with their own eyes is that the land is flat and that the sky is a blue canopy stretched in a dome over the land. Genesis is an attempt to explain these questions.

Speaking of reading in as many genres as possible. Something I have found very useful is subtitles in TV shows and movies. I have learned most of my Spanish and German like that.

have you had a debate/discussion with Mike Winger? I'm interested in his thoughts on your translations versus the christian scholars he may refer to.

Great breakdown

Question, how can the stars be created after the earth when we have scientific evidence that you can see through the Hubble telescope that there are older galaxies than our own and evidence that our star needed to explode at least three times for some elements to be made that are essential for our body. How come we have evidence for the big bang before the evidence of the earth

This comment is being made years after the original video, so I don't expect a response (and rightfully so), but I think I'm being a bit dense here and I'm trying to understand the first objection. If "the heavens and the earth" means something like "all that is created," how would it not include "the universe" or "all existing reality apart from God" (or something of the like)? If all existing reality apart from God includes such things as time, space, energy, etc., I don't see how the objection applies.

Thank you for your videos! Do you have one about the names Elohim, Yahweh, etc?

Thank you SO Much for providing a Voice to counter the Obscene swell of Misinformation aimed at "Armchair Assyriologists". The _Interest_ of The Public in this Treasure Trove of Wonder is overwhelming, sure...but they Still deserve to contact the ACTUAL Content in their casual research, and NOT a Gaudy Wall thrown up IN FRONT OF that Content, to either fleece them of money or Prevent them from accessing Divinity by the means that the FIRST Literate Society did so...

There is a similar incident with the word cake and bread from a fake quotation pinned on Marie Antoinette where she was supposed to have made some quip when told that the peasants didn’t have any bread and she allegedly said: “Let them eat cake.” There is no actual evidence that she ever said that quote actually came from a much earlier time and by much earlier I mean 20 to 50 years. However, that’s not the point, the point is that the word cake was not equivalent to a confection rather at that time it simply meant white bread i.e. French bread as we in more modern times would call it, made with bleach flour. Marie Antoinette was actually well known to have a considerable amount of sympathy for the poorer people of France.

1. The general, (or 'masculine') cosmos and the special (or 'feminine') Earth (Genesis 1:1). 2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (Genesis 1:2). 3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (vs. 3-10); 4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12); 5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-22, 24-25); 6. Animal biology and its special category, human (vs. 26-28); 7. The general man and the special woman (Genesis 2:21-23). Indeed, of the exactly five things that Genesis 1 reports that God names, those things seem to be the five basic non-biological factors of the Earth's water cycle: Names 1 and 2: binary cyclically distributed thermal regulation ( v. 4-5 ); Name 3: radiologically mediative atmosphere ( vs. 6-8 ); Names 4 and 5: binary thermal surface distribution system ( vs. 9-10 )

So Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr. and Dr. Gleason Archer are wrong and you are right? Here is a YT video from 2005 with Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr. PhD Hebrew expert that contributed to the NIV and Dr. Hugh Ross PhD expert in Astrophysics on the Dr. John Ankerberg show addressing this EXACT 6 day Creation topic. It is about 1hr and 23 min long. You can watch it at 2x speed. Search: KZfaq - "Genesis and Creation Days - Hugh Ross, Walter Kaiser"

The universe. 'heavens and earth' is clearly a merismus and means the cosmos, as you've covered. But to criticize listing out the components that are entailed as we see it, is not illegitimate conceptually. Of course Ross should not imply that the Hebrew has the meaning of these components per se; but (and I'm no defender of Ross: I disagree with most of his views) I see nothing wrong with making the observation that the created world: the cosmos; a material thing, has necessary components which must therefore have been created and are necessarily entailed in it. Or did God get his sub-atomic particles and the energy field from his local Circuit City outlet along with his watch from Timex?

The first-most-profound thing to know about origins is that God created the general cosmos and the special Earth; And, at some point early in the process of preparing the Earth, the Earth lacked its ecological form, and, therefore, lacked inhabitants; But it had lots and lots of water, and this watery planet covered in dense cloud of water vapor (ex: Job 3:1-9, Job 38:9; Deuteronomy 4:11); And the mysterious spirit of God was brooding over the surface of this swaddled watery planet like a mother hen over her egg, in that this caring closeness took some significant amount of time; Until----God said, 'Let light begin to show through onto the surface of the watery deep;' And God directly witnessed the fact that this light was *especially* good for helping make the Earth habitable; And God separated this light from the proper phase of darkness, an event that could have been seen from the surface of the water due to the Earth's spinning on its axis in face of the Sun. Apostle Paul implicitly compares the 'light' of v. 3 to the spiritual enlightenment that Faith in Christ implies (2 Corinthians 4:6). The Fallen way of mind is not akin to the absolute simple absence of the source of light; Rather, that way of mind is like something that blocks the light from getting through to the needing natural recipient of that light.

Wonderfully passionate video Josh! It must be frustrating. Sometimes it's not just ignorance but deliberate manipulation. Up H.A.P.S!

Hello Digital Hammurabi, it's been a busy month for me and missed many of your videos . for that ? I apologize . on the note of Hebrew Language , it is as you know almost impossible to be translated to English . even the Hebrew is not close to Mesopotamian ( ancient Assyrian and Akkadian cuneiform ) , and then you have the oldest of all : the Sumerian pictograph . the word shmayam does mean heaven ( as of sky ) in Hebrew , the Assyrian also state shmaya as heaven ( to those who does not know Hebrew and Assyrian ? i am referring to modern Aramaic sister languages of Hebrew and Assyrian, ) now the old Assyrian and Akkadian stood from Sumerian Su^ ( spelled shu ) to mean space , the deep .but can also apply to sky . I think Dr Ross was not wrong in his translation based on the already mistranslated information he learned in the past . his mistakes I can not judge because he did not abuse anything from its true basics ( the phonics and Syllabic of Mesopotamian and Sumerian origins ) since only few in this world can read them and write them , he does not . but most of scholars are wrong about even calling my Ancestors belief systems as polytheistic , we didn't have any systems to begin with , we had Laws to bring order that was put as the law of the land . and we had workforce ( gods of their own and humans of their own ) you know this , you know the word God in Sumerian means ( that which he commands )it applies to even stars and planets that governs other heavenly bodies , Cosmology was about the following : life was commanded by earth , earth was commanded by the sun , the sun was commanded by the heavens ( the shu ) which is the universe in this case , Cosmos are the make up of the universe , we believed our life and destinies where governed by the Universe , this is why we had astronomer priests to begin with to relay the commands of the gods to humans . there is not even one text shows worshiping an Anunnaki God , there are countless of texts revering them , singing about them , poems and hymns ( mainly to thank them and admiring their lofty ways , and also praising their mighty works ) . I believe in that as my personal matter and I do not invite anyone to follow my path , I read of my ancient poems and praises of these mighty gods every Saturday , I believe our sun star is an entity of its own ( but I never worship them at all ) I read from the books of Ashurbanipal ( my Icon ) but do not follow his his personal faith in Mardukh , rather my faith lies within my works as my ancestors did before me and their gods did for us all . but still do not worship any God for that matter . this is cosmology faith : since the sun rises from the east every day ? I believe it will set on the west , if one day it rises from the west ? then i will believe it will set on the east . there are no lies there because there are no other truths , there is only one universe and there is only one truth of it , a lie is simply the mirror of the truth it only reflects its own view to project to the viewer what it wants him/her to see ( i.e: there is only one universe ,one earth and one moon I experience vs there is only one God created the universe , the moon the sun and the earth and everything within it ) . the Religious institutions where man made as political power driven forces , to control masses by steering their thinking abilities in to a driven state rather than been free thinkers . remember : a thinking person is not fit for slavery . may you and your family be blessed , and your children and their children thereafter . thank you for the great video you shared with us

Doesn’t Exo 20:11 indicate that the literal meanings of Heaven and Earth are implied: “...Yahweh made the sky, the land, and the sea.”? Making the planet *and* the sea doesn’t make sense, unless you also use a parallel for sky and land, and they didn’t

This "made the stars" means ... Organized the constellations. (pointed them out to us)

A comment on Hugh Ross's "thought processes" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/grqGa6Vym8iwpIU.html "woo" doesn't do him justice.

Genesis 1:1, the heavens and earth were the extent of the known universe. The implication is God made everything we can observe. I don't think Ross is reaching on this point, so I'm going to leave a dislike. The other religions usually imply a genesis of the gods from the matter of the universe, with a steady state universe basically. So the Bible really does get it right that the universe had a beginning, is continually undergoing decay, is not where God comes from, etc. Other religions are all reincarnation, gods who didn't create the whole world but arose naturally out of it (smacks of abiogenesis LOL) or w/e. No disrespect though. Your analogies were funny. :)

Ross never claimed that he knew Hebrew. Walter Kaiser does, Walt is a Hebrew scholar and one of the translators of the NIV Bible and a good friend of Dr. Ross, Walt (God rest his soul) wouldn't let Ross make that kind of a mistake. What do you say that Moses meant in the first 10 words in the book of Genesis? In the beginning God created what?

This week on the NonSec show! General Solo vs. Joshua: What ever did they mean by that... It's bound to happen guys. Do it! One of my all time Solo favorites: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZ5zjM2l397Oh2Q.html

HAPS, opposed only by the hapless. ;)

You are not reading correctly. It says that he made the luminaries to rule over the day and night on earth, not that he created them again. If you have contradictions, it means you are not understanding it correctly. Sudy the words because asah means much more than just make, such as to prepare; see for example Genesis 18:7. The same can be said for yehi, translated "let there be" but more properly means "there will be", and so it does not mean to create at all, even in English. Another problem is that you are not reading the whole sentence, as it says "let there be (or there will be) luminaries ... for dividing the day and the night and to act as signs and markers of seasons. So, here God is assigning function to the luminaries, by saying what they are for, not creating them.

Please accept my membership application for H.A.P.S.

Space and time are products or effects of matter. Is space a matter? No. Is time a matter? No. Space and time don’t exist without matter (in motion). So, the heavens and the earth (matter) only had to be made, and when these were made out of nothing, and in the manner in which they were made, space and time too came into existence. Hence, the universe came into existence. So, what is Dr. Josh’s problem?

Not convinced.

I sped it up to 125% and it is perfect now, I suggest you do this yourself!

you are a honest man well done

Gotta love nerd rage.

Josh, for clarification, Pastor Ross is with Reasons To Believe. You may want to research his organization. He can speak for himself very well. I listened to your attempt at discrediting Dr. Ross's Hebrew. At least, I think that's what you were trying to do. It was very weak. I expected more. I'll say this: Biblical Hebrew, at best, consists of about three thousand words disregarding cities and names, etc. Notice I said Biblical Hebrew. I didn't say modern-day Hebrew. As such, almost every word in Biblical Hebrew had multiple, literal meanings. For example, the word Yom, translated day in English, has four different, literal meanings: part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, a twenty-four hour period or a long period of time. In Biblical Hebrew, you must make your interpretations based on the contextual usage of the word, or ask how did God use a word. Some may prefer to say how is a word being used. The other issue I had with your critique is you seem to think Bara and Asah mean the same thing. Two different words, two different meanings, or usages. I wasn't convinced you have the knowledge, or background, to make these distinctions. You may want to reconsider your position, which seems to be a young earth position sometimes referred to as a straight, literal interpretation. And Josh, you can't discredit the scientific record based on your theological interpretation. We really live on a round planet called earth. Jesus walked on it. We really live in a galaxy called the milky way. The sun really is, as we see it, 8 minutes ago. God created this universe, and at its beginning, we had time, matter, space and energy. How do we know that? We have detected gravity waves from the leftover background radiation at the creation of our universe. Anything less, and you and I wouldn't be here. So, you must ask yourself if God's Word says He created this universe, how did that look. Scientists call it the Big Bang. Call it what you want. How do we know how it looked? Our telescopes can see it. In the case of our universe, we're not going by blind faith. These are astronomical facts, no matter what names astronomers give us. Josh, this doesn't take a college or theological degree to comprehend. It's very simple and from the same Biblical God. Thanks for your time.

I realized very quickly that the author of this video is very intimidated by Dr Ross so what else to do ? , show your pride .

Thank you for that.. I knew something was wrong with that guy..Ross...

So God created life the universe and everything which if intelligently designed is incredible and beyond anyone’s comprehension or ability. Then this incredible intelligent designer God gives us ‘The Bible’ which is Gods eternal written message to us where there are only copies of copies of his supposedly infallible word with no original first editions that was written by anonymous people which needs translating from ancient languages and then needs interpreted by Gods many supposedly chosen people because its’ never quite clear’ what God actually means most of the time which then creates many different bibles along with all of the many Christian denominations all believing they are the true Christians with their true bible and of course everyone else is wrong. Can you believe this is the same intelligent designer God?

PHD, So What? we have to Follow the TRUTH! Wisdom only come from our LORD! PRAISE GOD! Thank you for teaching!

Your wrong here, Dr Ross has a handful of Hebrew scholars around him. C John Collins is one of them.

All their claims to creation are moot, and based on fables. How hard they have to work to keep believers in line is the nail in their cross

good try but your YEC interpretations is obvious. what is your degree in?

Please seek deeper. His leading you to Job will fill this in for you. There was something before this creation (this age) that we have been presented with and are being taught. You have some Hebrew understanding but the meanings go much deeper. Anyone can look up a Hebrew meaning for english understanding, but it will never give the richness and fullness of the real meaning until you go deeper and even past the Modern hebrew with the vowel points. It can also have multiple meanings. Please look up the words Tohu, Bohu, and choshek, used in Genesis 1:2 for "without form and void", and "and darkness.". Be Blessed

It is kind of you to express some kind of respect for Hugh Ross as a scientist. However, you probably do not need to. If you would like to see a scientific dismantling of Hugh Ross's views have a look at scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/09/hugh-rosss-testable-scientific

"These are not errors that he makes" Do you know what the title of your video is. Ugh 😩 I pray you take this down and try again

This video seemed promising until he gave his first example, while trying to discredit Ross you are actually ripping the bible apart unless you are an atheist, Genesis 1:1 the heavens mentioned there is the same as in Psalm 19:1, if those heavens there is not the universe other than it splitting earth from the universe then the authors of the bible didn't know that there is anything above the earth other than an invisible heaven but the text clearly states the heaven is visible, you are very dishonest..

The real problem with your argument based on authority is that even The Rabis and the Jewish High priest were even wrong and Faulty on their interpretation of their scriptures and that Jesus just destroyed them thinks they are experts.. I still find Dr. Ross's and His team's of scientists and scholars, more sensible compare to your antagonistic point of views, nothing on your argument actually that sounds correcting their interpretations, you just provided an alternative point of view, but your point of view doesn't seem add up with the logic the Original Author which is the God that inspires the writers to what was written. But those who are antagonist will love this video for sure!

I have read one of Dr. Ross's books and I was not impressed. science is broken up into a great many fields and being an expert in one does not make you an expert in any of the others. Dr. Ross is doing what all religious apologists do: he is making stuff up out of whole cloth. Because he is convinced that his view is right, then there must be a way to "spin" contradictions to show how right they are, and they create more spin in the process. Foe example, there is copious literature on the battle to come at Armageddon. One one side are the forces of evil and on the other is an all-knowing, all-powerful god who can uncreate all of his opponents with a thought. How is that a battle? Well, stuff gets made up in copious amounts as to why there will be a real contest, even when there cannot be. A god who can create the earth, seas, and heavens through thought cannot be defeated by any earthly powers. Still, the Revelations-loving crowd is still pandered to ... by making stuff up.