Agreed. The stories are told in a way that's they hold deep symbolic truths that are usually pointing to key aspects of the faith. Muh like Jesus parables. Example: in Gen 6 Noah is instructed to build an Ark with Gopher wood and Pitch. Does that matter ? Pitch is essentially Tar and was used by ancient ship builders to water proof boats. It has a lot of symbology here as it's the substance that "covers" and seals the boat and protects the inhabitants from the judgement waters of the flood. But it gets more interesting when you look at the the original Hebrew word translated into english as Pitch which is "Kopher". That word has multiple meanings in Hebrew. It also means - Atonement/payment for sin/restitution/bribe. So when God instructs Noah to cover the boat in pitch / Kopher in the Hebrew it's also saying ..... Perform acts of atonement to protect and pardon you and your family from my judgement against sin. The same purpose the animal sacrifices served in the tabernacle and the Eucharist serves today. In Exodus and Leviticus the name of the mercy seat in the tabernacle Moses builds is the Kopher'et. The animals sacrifices are called - Kopher or Kapher. Same word as Noah is instructed to cover his boat with. The connections in the original language between Noahs Ark and the function and purpose of the tabernacle/church are very obvious and clear but often obscured to modern English readers. So the question I have after reading Genesis 6 isn't was Noah a real person and did the flood really happen. Its did Noah actually build a boat for a physical flood ..... or was he actually the first priest who built a tabernacle which is being symbolized poetically in this story in the same manner as Matt 7:25 to protect his family against a "spiritual" flood.

@@David-_-_-just because the words have different meanings in different contexts doesn’t mean the stories are completely allegorical . There is far too much evidence for a global flood + and mentioning in the Bible of a rebellion of angels onto the earth which caused the flood in the first place .

Beautiful ❤️❤️❤️....This is exactly how Jesus taught us to view and read the Scriptures! The scripture that got me to open my mind was the one about the disciples huddled up talking about not having bread. Do you still not understand? How is it you do not know I am not talking about bread? Yet, most conversations I hear today about the bible are people huddled up discussing "bread". Thank you for sharing that! ❤

Not only names. The NT writers also infer a real historicity to the Genesis accounts.

He failed to mention that the names of Cain's lineage are a near descendant by descendant match of those of Seth's. Divine coincidence, surely. And were presented in entirely different writing styles in successive chapters. Moses was as busy impersonating multiple writers as he was writing.

In the casual sense, a theory isn't objective. But it has a different meaning in science. In science, theories are concepts that have been confirmed to be the most true over other hypotheticals and speculations. Therefore biological evolution is the most agreed upon origin of the species. That being said, there's nothing in the Bible that says beings can't evolve into a different species.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gravity is a theory as well. Also based on assumptions

which is completely false, and this poor christian is terribly ignorant. Happily nuclear decay is a known physical law and we have nuclear energy thanks to it. If it wasn't true then nuclear plants, bombs, radiation sources to heal cancer, etc would not work. this fellow is quite a fraud.

@@bro_izzy We witness speciation in the present and the past. Just as science and scripture predicted. We do not however witness kinds or Families (taxonomically speaking) changing. Kinds bring forth kinds. Science agrees with scripture.

@@PrisonMichael I would have to say that on the surface of our planet we should agree that gravity is a law. You get consistent readings every experiment. Outer solar system or inside the earth where we cannot take readings I agree it as a theory. If you are trying to measure the past, where we weren't there to get the beginning of the experiment you must assume starting conditions. The society has been brainwashed by uniformitarianistism to the point that they have trouble being open minded to a single catastrophic global flood described in Genesis, which wipes away the old earth theories

Mitch Chase is the man! Check out his Biblical Theology blog, super solid.

@@kamalkhalil9090 If you are right, he would be rare

I’m glad you clicked even though you were scared. I wasn’t scared but my expectations were the same but I am in the opposite camp. I don’t think it’s historical and I certainly thought he would agree that it’s allegorical. I definitely think the people in the New Testament believed it to be historical, but they don’t have the geological background we have today. If only they knew about radiometric isotopes and how to measure them, maybe the new testament writers would have taken a different stance, ya know?

@@ThomasO2 shouldn’t say such a thing. Revelation is a part of the bible. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. We shouldn’t even speak such things. That’s very dangerous

You don’t know. You have only been convinced by people peddling books and new ideas. Do you honestly believe God would let his word be corrupted for 2000 years with the whole book of Revelation waiting for German textual criticism doubting every jot and tittle to have revealed errors? I really can’t believe people are really falling for these peddlers of new ideas. Kind of scary how fast people except these new age ideas.

I wouldn't deny that there is some level of editing happening. However, the refutation of changes that shift the narrative is: We don't see much of an evolution from the documents we have. If this was happening, there would be an obvious evolution of the narrative and names throughout the existent documentation. So, we would simply ask the detractor to show his specific evidence for clear changes in meaning. A supporting counter argument for purposeful and meaningful changes being made repeatedly throughout history is that there is no tradition of allowing such revisions inside Judaism or Christianity. Both have had a relatively closed canon for 2000+ years. Changes would easily be noticed, and confronted, by Rabbis and Priests and there would be evidence of their contentions as well. And, I don't think you are going in this direction, but just for clarity, I think if we go too much beyond "slow changes through time based on cultural drift" towards "a secret cabal making insidious changes, then meticulously destroyed the true scriptures and its adherents removing all traces of the conspiracy from the record", then we should also consider the possibility of a hollow earth and what its reptilian inhabitants might be up to. 🙂

@@stanleybarret990 So, the questions still stands, if outside the bible there is little to no archaeological evidence that any of the people before the flood existed, how can they be considered historical?, if that is not the case, what standard then is used to discredit stories written down about Mesopotamia, and other ancient accounts? It's not so much about if it's true are not, its the fact that unless you go to seminary, the average christian reading the bible are not told that there is some editing. (How did Moses record is own death?) Ask that to the average Christian, and see how they answer it. Even the new testament writers used some old testament text out of context to make to their new testament points. It does not matter how small the edit is, or if it changes the overall meaning. The fact there is little talk about there was editing in the bible, some things were added and some where subtracted, should be a little concerning. This leaves many christian off guard when they encounter those that are opposed to the believe that the bible is inerrant. If a little change does not really matter, why does it matter in the case other christian doctrines,(without naming names), that change a word here and there? We should not assume every christian understands this issue. But without this understanding, are we giving the full truth, so believers can speak with conviction?

How much literary logic do you need? Writers separated by 1500 years confirm each other over and over again.

Why and how? Unless you are all-knowing I don't see how that is possible.

@@2wheelz3504 you treat it like history, any other historical document. It’s not about arriving at complete certainty, history is rarely completely certain, but it is about finding out what could be true or likely to be true. We do know that this is a long oral tradition and the genesis is an accumulation of these stories, ancient theology. It’s hard to say how original all these stories are or how they have changed of course, unless you believe as many do that this is perfectly preserved word of God, but then I don’t think you are interested in history at all. If I was to give my opinion I think the stories are meant to be very literal, the authors likely believed the events happened as it is written.

#1 I do believe the account was divinely given by God. #2 Therefore it is history. Jesus referred to it as having been written by Moses and not a group of random priestly authors during the captivity. I am an all or nothing kind of guy. I have never heard an apologist adequately reconcile how Gen. 1-11 can be myth and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ be cold stone true. I have heard it all and their logic is not logical. If a book begins with, "Once upon a time," everything that follows is suspect.

Satan’s really working overtime to crank out all those academic peer-reviewed papers promoting crazy ideas like radiometric dating and plate tectonics.

If the timescale is sometimes written from God’s perspective, which is possible, there is no contradiction…

What is the relationship between this transition of the subject of mythologization and a subversion of conventions (i.e. competing explanations/stories/worldviews)?

@@strangelaw6384 yeah this is a great question, and not one that anyone can answer with certainty. I must admit that the idea is not my own, I borrowed it from Alan F. Segal’s ‘Life After Death’ in which he examines the formulation and evolution of afterlife theologies in a variety of western religions across time. Principally, the cultural transition away from mythologizing nature and toward mythologizing history coincides with another transition whereby polytheism is abandoned in favor of henotheism by the group of semitic tribes who would go on to become the Israelites. It’s a tremendously fascinating area of study, and Segal is incredibly readable and relevant still today.

@@paulallenscards Interesting. I'm only asking because I have a hypothesis: the act of mythologization stood out to me as the result of man's innate ability to form narratives. To more precisely worded, it is the ability to identify narremes. In addition, I think that the paradigm shift in the subject of mythologization AND the transition from favoring polytheism to favoring henotheism have a common purpose, and this purpose is cohesion of a community, made relevant by the improvement of living conditions and resources.

For clarification : I do believe that Adam lived. And that the flood etc happened.

Science is pretty much a religion, the Laws of Nature are facts. God created the Laws of Nature, man creates ridiculous theories trying to explain away God, like the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution, it is all a rebranding of Genesis 1. If the earth was a spinning ball entirely under your feet wherever you are, how could it be casting a shadow on the moon when you regularly see a crescent 🌙 moon and the sun both well above the horizon? If we are whizzing through space at astronomical speeds, how can the stars return to the exact same position 365 days later since recorded history? I’ll take God’s word for it all, I know Man lies all of the time.

Old Earth Creationism was the dominant historic Christian view for the past several thousand years! One can believe that Genesis IS historical, that Adam & Eve WERE the first humans, and that God created everything as it says in Genesis. The only difference is that God created things over 7 long periods of time (which the Hebrew word for days that is used in Genesis can mean), which means you can accept the science that creation is several millions or billions of years old! The primary difference between Young Earth Creationism & Old Earth Creationism is, as I said prior, the reading of the word "day" in the Hebrew. Does it mean literal 24 hour day or a period of time? The Hebrew is ambiguous and could go both ways. However, Scripture would suggest that it is a period of time. Why? Because in Hebrews 4:10-11 & Hebrews 4:3-5 we are told that we, humanity, is still in the 7th day. Thus, it follows that if the 7th day is at least over 24 hours, as demonstrated from Scripture, that the other days must also be at least over 24 hours. You should definitely read the Church Fathers (who learned from the Apostles & those who learned from the Apostles) rather than allowing loud Young Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists cloud your view! One thing we can all agree on is that God created everything and that Jesus Christ is Lord, died for our sins, rose again on the 3rd day, and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. Also, I am a Protestant Christian God bless!

​​@@soupeverywhere9565 The book of 1 Enoch has a parable of the 70 generations until the 2nd coming of Messiah, where he prophecies accurately on major events before and after the israélites. A period of 7.000 years. This confirms the Hebrew verse you quoted, in Enoch's perspective a generation IS 100 years. Peter tells us a day to the Lord IS like 1000 years to man. 7days, converted 7 millenias to the generations of the sons of Adam until the 2nd coming is still obeing this idea of a millenal Sabbath since creation. This is the correct biblical paradigm. We're coming close to the end of that time period certainly. In this case the old earth idea is inaccurate. Genesis is so adamant about a day = a period of 12 hours of darkness+12 hours of light. God's creations are made perfect, mature and ready, no time for trial and error, for evolution to kick in. Evolution needs tremendous amount of time to make sense, the Eternal God has infinite Time and wisdom to imagin and create out of nothing.

Unfortunately, for Christians, uniformitarianism was left behind long ago by geologists. Your reliance on lies and ignorance always shows just how worthless your cult is. We know that catastrophic events occur occasionally. That doesn't mean your god exists or the idiotic magic flood happened. if it did, we'd see one massive layer with everything in it sorted by its hydraulic characteristics. We don't see that at all. We see many seperate layers, each sorted within itself and fossils are found by complexity. It's a shame creationist are such poor liars. They can't even agree amongst themselves whose baseless nonsense is true.

No geologists agree with the position that a global flood catastrophy occurred within the past ten thousand years. There is evidence for several large scale localized flood events in the levant over that time period, but that would of course be insufficient for the overly literal interpreter of Genesis 6-8.

​@@paulallenscardsNo geologists?? Check out Rob Sheldon, The Long Descent, William Ryan, Walter Pittman, Andrew Snelling to name a few

@@paulallenscards Curious how christians can't agree on how to interpret Genesis or any other part of the bible. It shows that it is simply made up. They want to claim that the inconvenient and ridiculous bits are metaphor, exaggeration, etc, but their ridiculous claims about a magic resurrection have to be claimed as literal or the cult ends.

You can say that again

Uh, no.

🤣😂🤣😅🤣😁🙃

If Genesis is 100 percent literal then God literally got sleepy after all that work on the seventh day and took a rest. Idioms, analogies, and parables aren't bad or lies. They are their own thing and help to progress a bigger narrative.

@@GTMGunTotinMinnesotanGod doesn’t rest because he’s tired. He rested because he was finished working. Why it’s the parallel Moses and God speak on in exodus with the 10 commandments and the sabbath day. Thinking “God was tired” is never stated and a very poor understanding of God

so you just pick and choose.

@@velkyn1 No, it's called interpreting an ancient text within its literary genre. The very description of Eve proceeding from the side (like literally the entire half of his body) of Adam was more of a visionary experience not that God used divine anesthesia and performed surgery. It was teaching the equality of the woman with the man.

@@axderka According to you it's unlikely to make another being out one's rib than to create the original from scrath, from dust? The process God used in both cases is unknown to us, it says He did it, why applying our limited scope of vision to choose which one we accept?

@@axderka AS usual, christians can't agree on what genre the various books of the bible are, which really harms your attempts to lie about those books. It's hilarious how you guys can't agree on what is literal, metaphor, exaggeration, etc. The ridculous bits are always claimed as "metaphor" since some christians are at least that smart, but nothing in the book says that is what the writer meant. And gee, your ignorant garbage about a magic resurrection just has to be true since the cult would die without it. The first story of creation has an equal man and woman, both created by god at the same time. Your false claims about the rib woman myth fail to show that equality.

@@bbl5499 yep, you christians do love to disagree on the basic nonsense in your cult. Just like you are all making it up.

Indeed.

@@bbl5499 well, not in Genesis 2

Only one day .. that's not a problem :) And Genesis 2 simply gives us more info about the creation of Adam and Eve (and the garden of Eden). It's not a new creation account.

@@krisv001 why aren’t there any plants then?

Genesis 2:5 is not a comment on the whole world, but only on the location where the garden of Eden was going to be created/planted. That place was still barren (nothing there yet). Also notice that God mentions specifically plants and herbs of the field in Genesis 2:5 (food for Adam and Eve basically). God wanted to create Adam first on day 6 before He created and planted the garden of Eden, so that Adam could witness what God was going to do there.

No doubt about it

Lol

Lol

I find it's the other way around. "And the evening and the morning was the second day" Old Earther: It can't possibly be an actual day, because the evolution record!

I find it is helpful to remember that the same God who made Fractals, is the one who made the days, and the creation. Ergo, it's both literal, historical, AND allegorical.

Read six verses further: “This *figure of speech* Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.” The Genesis account is given as a historical account. Nowhere in Scripture is there any indication otherwise- in fact, quite the opposite, with every reference back to the creation account, both in the Old and New Testament, treating it as literal history.

So Adam wasn't the first man and didn't live for hundreds of years?

I’m just curious if you still have both hands and both eyes ;p Mt. 18.8; 1 Jn. 1.8-10

@ColeM440 Yes I do and both ears. Thanks for being concerned about me.

@@jebbthetrainkid1281 You’re welcome Brother.

That's what you think. But Genesis is clearly only edited by Moses. It contains sections headed by "These are the generations of...." clearly showing this.

@@russellholmes8742 ??? By the time Moses wrote Genesis many of the events that he described were already ancient history in his own time. It's almost certain He did not have access to the Sumerian texts and instead relied on oral tradition. Which is why Genesis reads like it does. Because of that there's a lot that it naturally leaves out. That's why you read the Sumerian texts in addition to Genesis.

@@russellholmes8742you might benefit from a cursory understanding of the documentary hypothesis. Whether you choose to agree with it or not, it will move the needle in your understanding of who might have written what.

@paulallenscards I am very aware of the documentary hypothesis. It is simply rubbish. Just because I don't believe something doesn't mean I am ignorant of it. It is simply wild and ultra sceptical speculation of people professing to be wise and becoming fools. Their evolutionary assumptions and hostility to the Bible blind them.

​@@russellholmes8742No where in the Bible it says that Moses wrote anything in the Bible

He wrote a book for you that explains it all, because He thought of you.

@@sleepyavii9307 what book?

@@JuanManuel-ep8do The Bible. It’s His love letter to you essentially. You’ll find every answer to your questions, you’ll recognize that your ache and discontent for or towards God is not abnormal. Even God’s people struggle. With both people and understanding God. We see that in Psalms, Job, almost every other book in the Bible. If you have any questions please feel free to ask, I used to be an atheist and hate God until I tried to seek Him for myself and He’s since become an undeniable presence in my life. He is so living and present that even I can’t comprehend it. He listens to every single prayer, He makes note of every single tear. This sounds absurd at a glance, but I’m a living testimony and even I can’t explain it. He answers as soon as you call.

@sleepyavii9307 you sound like a 12 year old. The book is not about love, the book is about hate, revenge, about mythical creatures and human fantasy, your god is one of thousands of gods, all created by humans

@@JuanManuel-ep8do Corinthians 13 1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. The Bible is not a book of hatred or any of those things. . Instead it’s faith, hope, and love. Point out to me those specific Scriptures you find hateful, or described in any manner such as that I can explain them to you. I would genuinely love to because as I said I felt the same way until my eyes were opened. A lot of people have a twisted view of Scripture because they’ve never read it. If you’d like to contact me somewhere else please ask. I love you, and I pray for you, regardless.

I suspect the Flood put paid to that.

@@Metempiric7 😁 gotcha... So just an extinguished spinning sword.

@@drkfish no. I think the landscape of the world, including Eden was largely destroyed in the flood. No one was ever going to back there because it didn’t exist anymore.

We usually don't see forces, just their effects on things.

​@@Metempiric7 A destroyed garden of Eden, the one housing the tree of life, proptected by surnatural forces, (those heavenly flaming swords, what would they look like ?), not withstanding the flood ? Hard to believe.

Genesis 3:2-3 [2] And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, [3] but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” (ESV)

LOL 😂

What precisely in the video are you objecting to? I understood Dr. Chase to say that Genesis is a straightforward historical account which matches with what you are saying.

​@@nerdyyouthpastor8368they are one of those that love to open their mouths to try and show how smart they are. 😅😅😅 Tons of jabronis just comment without watching the videos or reading the text.

@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 There will always be people who not only disagree, but can't argue their claim and only make insults. It doesn't take a "degree" to understand the Bible nor learn about outside evidence and how say Ancient Hebrew was tranglated into English, Russian, etc. Many can't undersand something so simple so a clarification needs to be made.

Including revelation?

@@ninjason57 Especially Revelation. Anyone, John, you, me, etc. if we experienced something so supernatural (above/other than natural) then your mind would be overwhelmed. You'd likely be at a loss for words and only after the fact could you give some level of what happened. You would make statements that seem "ridiculous" but are beyond true comprehension. Have you ever had such an experience?