Beautifully said

I’m in the same position, Amy!

I'm glad disagreements on this important topic can be discussed affably!

Well done, mom!

Very nicely stated! May God grant you wisdom as you educate your children.

Evolution is the mechanism through which God created complex life. Denying reality only makes Christians look silly and uneducated. God bless

Ken Ham has a lot at stake if he’s wrong in his interpretation so he’s going to double down on his position. Quite frankly he has to.

Refreshing to see young earth creationists in the comments that are comfortable to "agree to disagree"! I think this is very healthy for the body of Christ, at least in these secondary matters.

You nailed it! Ken Ham has always come off to me as a name-caller!

Ken Ham has the superior argument, playing by run-of-the-mill Protestant rules. I'm a devout Protestant, but, I'm not wholly onboard with "each day of creation being truly 24 hours", though perhaps its true. And I think this particular issue should just be argued in Christian charity. This is not about the historicity of God Himself, salvation, or good and evil. I do think that using this argument primarily to shove in Evolution is wrong. Don't pretend to care about this argument, if what you really care about is peddling Evolution. With that said, I don't think Ken Ham has to act like hyperbole isn't anywhere in his Bible; I also don't think Ham just has to act conceited against Ortlund, since Ham's argument is better. Its hard to imagine Ortlund is some kind of dishonest actor, or heretic.

A beautiful display of imaging Christ. I'm very thankful for this example

He's still wrong though....

@@ameliacoburn4787 about?

I couldn’t agree more! Such evidence of a heart that is more concerned with following Jesus and loving others than “owning” his opponents.

Yes, it is a stain in the Body of Christ, a modern slam of others brought about in the 1960s and fed too often today.

Evolution = buncha death before fall, orthodoxy theology for centuries= death after fall. Nothing thats not black and white about it. It’s impossible for you to even find a sound exegesis that harmonizes evolution and Genesis, no one’s buying it.

The problem isn’t that there’s black-and-white thinking. The problem is the choice of issues to which to apply that kind of thinking. There are issues that require such thinking, particularly the nature of God and how we must approach Him.

Great comment!

As a yec, the agonizing part is how accusatory and paranoid many of my fellow yec brothers are. I’ve come to really appreciate the careful study many oec do and humility it takes to just admit we don’t know. I for one advocate for this approach. Grace and Christian discussion rather than yelling compromise at the first hint of disagreement

😂

Well stated.

My heart is IFB, but my education and intellect always put me at odds with those around me. Outside that movement, there’s too much tolerance for heterodox teaching. I look forward to heaven because I can’t feel at home in any of the churches in my area.

Is it "anti-intellectualism" that is a strong component of many ministries and denominations, or a rejection of the secular humanist worldview which dominates the public academy and from which its scholarship and conclusions are directly derived?

@@williamjpellas0314 Both. Calling a fundamentalist pastor an intellectual will get you either a dirty look or a laugh with a request not to insult him. For example, look at the faith-based arguments of the KJV-Onlyists who think the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek. Outside fundamentalism, look at the deplorable hermeneutics of Progressives and of Pentecostal variants such as Word-Faith and NAR. I would say that rejecting an idea just because you can link it to another religion (such as Secular Humanism) motivates anti-intellectualism, rather than being an alternative to it. Attacking the source rather than responding to the idea itself commits ad hominem and genetic fallacies, which is an anti-intellectual practice. Apologetics teaches you that you have more tools available than Bible quotes that some people refuse to even consider.

@@ricksonora6656 No. I attack the secular humanist worldview and the epistemic assumptions and a priori conclusions inherent in that worldview, and how that affects how people think and do their scholarship in the first place.

​@@williamjpellas0314 I am speaking of the folks who believe reading anything other than the Bible is wrong. It is strong and straight up anti-intellectualism. I am not commenting on the fact that other factors are at play.

Ya. We can only hope he sees real science a day the lord convicts him to belive the truth. Becuase yec and flat earth have made christians out to be bulling fools... sad thing he fooled me around last christmas as I got fired and was depressed. Went to bed one night remembering wat I wanted to be. (A geologist) I gave the dream up. Life happened. And he scared me with u ain't christian unless u think this

They were "flabbergasted" because it is hard to understand how someone can teach children to deny the plain reading of Scripture. They probably were relying on only "one book" of Creation, the True one.

@@DavidThigpen-yp7ko I teach every individual to the level I feel they are capable - the younger, the simpler. The older, the more complex and critical. My high schoolers were capable of critical thinking (especially in a supportive environment with trusted educators) where multiple perspectives could be weighed and compared. So when they asked about Genesis and creation, I encouraged them to think deeply instead of blindly accepting the “plain” reading they’d grown up with that was proving unsatisfactory when compared to the heavens, which declare the glory of God and make his invisible qualities known.

“Every act of interpretation involves our fallible brains.” Then you can’t _know_ that Christ the God-man died for the sins of the world and rose again for the justification of His sheep; you can’t know _anything._ Your interpretation could be wrong. Your post-modernist view of the truth of God’s word relegates Christians to a life of “always learning and never arriving at a knowledge of the truth.”

@@matthewdyer2926 Sticks and stones Some topics (like Jesus Son of God came save us from death and sin) get a lot more development than others (like rapture or age of the earth). And so somethings are more reliably understood. If an idea has less to support it, interpretation is more needed. And we shouldn't be more certain than is called for in Scripture.

@@matthewdyer2926 And NT Scriptures tell us that we are given the Holy Spirit after salvation as a guarantee, a down payment, of our place in heaven. This is an added confirmation of salvation, outside the realm of interpretation. There is nothing comparable for lesser doctrines, as mentioned earlier. We must do our best to study to arrive at a true understanding, but it's not the same degree of confidence. There should be humility, acceptance that error is possible. And kindness to those who disagree in non-essentials -- signs the HS is present in a person's heart. Traits Gavin shows in his videos.

@@Joan-ph2es This… “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that *all* the high mountains under *the whole heaven* were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And *all flesh* died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and *all mankind.* *Everything* on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out *every living thing* that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth.” Is no less clear than this- “And we apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear.” Or this- “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” “Humility” is _believing what is plain and obvious in God’s word._ Syncretizing scientism with Scripture is the height of arrogance in the guise of “humility”. The only reason you and Ortland don’t, is because of cowardice, syncretism, and capitulation to the pressures of modernity.

@@matthewdyer2926 Still with the ad hominem? Rhetoric unreliable? Even in English, "all" and "every" don't have to carry a global-wide meaning. -- I lost my keys! I searched everywhere, all over! 1 Kings 10:23-24 "So King Solomon exceeded all.... And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." "All the earth" -- it's not syncrynistic (or even cowardly) to think that the Kings of Tahiti, Incas, or Australian aborigines never made to Jerusalem. Because "all" can cover just the Levant or even the Middle East, and still be an absolutely true statement according to all rules of grammar. You're doing your interpretation in a hyper-literal manner, and leaving regular text meaning and word sense behind. Sometimes "all" is a smaller set of possibles. To anybody speaking a language. Context matters.

I think you hit it right on the head. I believe most Christians are content with the fortune cookie version of their beliefs and it is rare to find those who are willing to wrestle with the Scriptures. I see Ken Ham as being the one who provides the bare minimum to these much deeper theological discussions while Gavin Ortlund and others are providing deep theological study on these matters. The question we must always ask ourselves is, are we content with the quick google search or are we the one’s who will sometimes have multiple commentaries open along with several translations of the Scriptures in order to get to the bottom of subject? I know for me, the latter describes my studying.

Yes I was also curious about that because from what I’ve heard St. Augustine has had a major West influence but the East not so much.

Reading how others interpret the Scriptures can be very helpful, but at the end of the day they are not infallible like the Bible. I think a lot of people are missing something when they read the first part of Genesis. It states that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. A point in time? Or a point before time? Who knows? Then we have the curious statement that the ‘earth was without form and void’! Why? Why didn’t God create the earth perfectly at this time? Mystery! And had a vast time passed between the first creation of the heavens and the earth, and this ‘forming and fashioning’ of the earth as a home for mankind which the Bible says God then took 6 days to do? Who knows? But something is definitely going on here, that is why we need to be humble. When we consider the ‘ages’ of rocks etc, we need even more humility, for in creating the earth originally, everything was of the same age wasn’t it, or was it? And if scientists talk of the ‘age’ of certain rocks etc, aren’t they made up of particles of other substances of perhaps varying ‘ages’? A rock is only a conglomeration of sand, in the case of sandstone isn’t it? And other types, igneous for instance, didn’t start out ready made, but formed from the melting of other rocks and materials. So ‘ages’ surely are a bit of of a puzzle. I for one do not understand how science can ‘age’ rocks when they are formed this way. I am not arguing against rocks being millions of years old, for in the original creation they are mature ‘rocks’ aren’t they? So much mystery! And we shall perhaps never be able to reconcile all the puzzling facts. So science can show its findings and the Bible have the infallible explanation for our existence. Either one does not have to exclude the other!

As a yec I’ve had to distance myself from Ken Ham. His back bitting and name calling are unchristian and unhelpful to the discussion

He's not a good teacher if he doesn't teach the truth. So explain to me how Ken's remarks have done harm to the body of Christ, and please provide examples. Because I don't think you have a clue of what you're talking about.

@@BillMurrey Ken Ham's remarks cause damage to the body of Christ by throwing accusations against other Christians of not being 'true' Christians by questioning their commitment to the scriptures. When Ken Ham says that you must agree with his interpretation of the Bible, he equates it with the Bible itself. This kind of conflation elevates his interpretation to infallible status not unlike God Himself. My friend, we as human beings are not infallible. Can you see why suggesting that your interpretation is infallible saying it is on par with the Bible itself could be damaging to the body of Christ?

​@@Narikku If the 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Just happen to write it first? Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? You think God would've thought of that? Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth? We are talking about God's authority here. Does He have absolute authority over you? If He told you to do something you thought was wrong would you do it? If God promised you a son that He was going to make a great nation from and then He told you to take your promised son and sacrifice him on an altar, would you do it? Abraham did. He respected God's authority and knew that He could do what He had promised. You think God could do the things mentioned in Genesis? Or has a group of self-worshipping scientists, who are known for making mistakes, proven God to be a liar? You believe that? I'm sorry for you if you do. Ken NEVER says "This is MY interpretation, you must obey it!" He always says "God has told us..., God says this....God has written..." He knows it's not his Bible, it's God's Bible. Most of what he teaches is about the Authority of God, not young earth, you got a problem with the authority of God? He stands on the authority of God and preaches what it says in the Bible. Show me where he doesn't preach from the Bible! Genesis is plain reading, a child can understand it, but if you want to go clipping verses from it, because you don't like what it says, go ahead. But don't be surprised if God does a little clipping Himself. As far as I can see you are being willingly ignorant regarding God's word.

@@BillMurrey> If 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Yes, my friend. This is precisely why discussion about this topic is warranted: because Ken Ham is teaching the Bible wrongly in many ways. This is one example. > Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Because that is the way that we, as a people, organized it. There is nothing in scripture that says that Genesis has to be the first Book of the Bible. There is nothing in scripture that says Revelation has to be the last. To illustrate what I mean, why is Proverbs after Psalms? > Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? Is Christ your foundation, or your personal view of creation? > Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth. Yes. That's why I don't trust Ken Ham at his word, and I examine every word he says with scripture. And I don't find Ken Ham's interpretations to fit well with scripture. > Ken never says "This is my interpretation, you must obey it." He always says, "God has told us... God has written... God has says..." Then promptly after saying these things, Ken Ham gives his interpretation of what those mean. Are you trying to tell me Ken Ham doesn't have a preferred interpretation of the Bible? That he understands it 100% correctly? Every single meaning of every single word? There are so many questions here, my friend. I cannot answer them all. Hopefully this suffices to get my point across.

As Dr. Heiser said, "The Bible is not a history or science textbook."

You say nobody was there when creation happened. I disagree. You see God in His wisdom wanted us to see His "eternal power, being known by what was made, so that men are without excuse." When you see the sun, you see it as it was 8 minutes ago. It takes light 8 minutes to reach us on earth. You are looking at the past not the present. The deeper we look into space the further back in time or the past we see. We actually get to peer all the way back to the origin of space, time, and energy. This creation event demands a trancendant creator who all powerful, all knowing, has wisdom like a craftsman before he makes the first cut. He is also personable, to let us enjoy this earth He fashioned for us to live and experience Him. Everything is just right in our universe so we can experiance life and have this conversation.

@@jonpadilla4321 Men have looked at the universe. There is no beginning when they look, just more. God has curtained certain things off from us. Only He knows the beginnings and the ends. I agree, rejoice in what we have, and He will reveal what is for our good. Speculation leads only to men in dispute.

@@stephenbailey9969 you say men see no begining when they look. I agree that we can not peer behind the curtain at the exact mombet of creation. Our physics do not work, at it all becomes speculation at this point. But a fraction of a second before this moment he lets us look behind the cutain and see the birth of creation. He gives us a a baby picture of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. He knew we would study and observe his creation and he built physical laws and order it so we would could see his handiwork. For all practical purposes he does let us see the begining even though we are confined to the dimensions of space and time.

thanks for the suggestion -- are his arguments different from those I already addressed in my follow-up video? I went through 6 common responses there.

@@TruthUnites yes. His main concerns are things like the new testament references to it, the extent of the flood corresponding to the extent of the covenant (small flood, small covenant) and what the connections between the flood and baptism can tell us about it. His response video is about 20 mins long as opposed to the initial video(s) you might have seen which were watching through your video. The shorter response has much more condensed arguments and points.

I discovered Christian Combatives because of the Truth Unites local flood video and thought his response was literally moving the conversation forward….he is or recently was a military chaplain so he can be a little different the way military folks can be…but he walked the conversation forward a few steps. Example: if the flood was local, was God’s promise afterwards just for that local area. Why did God cause the flood? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just move Noah and the family and the animals to safe ground rather than move them all to the ark? What about tectonic plate shifting to explain those pesky lemurs and koalas?

@@onepingonlyplease Yeah I really appreciated that he was genuinely focusing on what he thought the central theological issues are, not speculating about motive, or mudslinging in any way. I really hope Gavin can maybe do a discussion with him, or a response video because I think the two of them are both intelligent, charitable, and genuinely Christian. Their discussion of these questions would be very fruitful and insightful.

I hope they do a video! I’m certain that the first thing Christian Combatives (Paladin Actual) will ask Dr Ortlund will be “what in the text leads you to believe it was a local flood?” Not if the text allows for a local flood. I want to hear Dr Ortlund respond and keep moving this train forward!!

Did death enter into the world before or after sin?

Exactly, YEC and OEC both agree God made the heavens and the earth. We just disagree about *how and when.* It’s really not an issue to disfellowship over imo

Yeah I think it shouldn't be ignored that the ages of people when down drastically after the flood. And I kind of wish Christian scientists would address the expanding earth model, since our science overlords who expect us to appeal to authority wont look into it. I do not think it is a coincidence that the continental crusts form a perfect sphere if you make the earth shrink at oceanic boundaries. That is too many coincidences to ignore for me.

I do something similar. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.

Yep, very helpful sometimes.

Genesis is a revelation of Jesus, look for him you will see.

I’ll take the Bible as it says and the theory of evolution as what scientists say…neither are compatible or intertwinable, why cant we just accept what the Bible says, why cant we be proud of Scripture and Tradition, why must we appease secularists that dont care for us. We witness to them, not appease them.

I think you mean, being able to say “I don’t know” is comforting. Paradox is discomforting because it requires God to be either illogical or dishonest. But having the humility to admit one’s limitations and trusting the solution to God is what brings comfort.

Two things to consider: Did death enter the world before or after sin? (Is sin the cause of death?) and Hebrews 11:1-3 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Did it really take billions of years for God's Word to effect the earth and universe (along with death piling up throughout the world before the first sin)?

thanks so much, and glad to be connected! :) I wonder if Reasons to Believe has any curriculum? They are a great ministry. God bless.

Thank you for taking the time to answer! I will check it out. My son is very science minded and I have always been hesitant to teach Young Earth straight but it's everywhere. This is helpful! @@TruthUnites

​@@ME-hsmomof4 I'm a homeschool dad, though my wife has done most of the research for curriculum. I've wondered the same thing recently as I'm an OEC. I always figured I would just tell my kids when they're older that some people think the Bible is saying YEC and some, like me, OEC and leave it at that unless they have more questions.

@@telleroftheone my kids are elementary age and home schooled. I’m YEC but am very open that there are many interpretations of Genesis. My main concern is they retain their faith in Christ and the resurrection. If they decided the flood was not global, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

It sounds like a Dr. Seuss book title. =D

This discussion here isn’t about theistic evolution, which I believe is a huge error. This is a discussion of the age of the earth, which isn’t as great of an issue. So you can believe old-earth and we don’t need to be so divisive about it as ppl like Ken Ham are. With theistic evolution, I think we can and should be more dogmatic about.

Btw, praise God he took you out of darkness into the light of the gospel of Christ. I praise God for that brother! 🙌

Ham has influence because he correctly diagnoses the fulcrum of the problem. Origins. He's right when he says that Genesis 1:1 is everything. But he then insists that the only solution is a literal reading of the creation account combined with a hypercalvinist reading of Romans 5. Nuance is the enemy. Naturalistic science overplayed its hand, creating mistrust. I have read "scientific" accounts of origins and evolution that read like fairy tales.

Wow! Some who is bringing biblical answer should be disregard? Gavin's arguments are not biblical and contradicts Sola Scriptura. Imposing his beliefs onto Scripture.

I'll go with the Bible and observable science. Death before sin in evolution. Evidence of a world wide flood across the Earth. Creationists are also PhD. from the same universities as Gavin. Amazing how you people believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection and annonment of sins, but young Earth and God doing it all in 6 days as said in Genesis is just too much. All of God's word is truth.

I couldn’t agree more.

@@thomasglass9491How does "sola scriptura" play into your argument here?

The old testament describes 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology, not modern science.

Amen. Also the sabbath being celebrated every week. God's word is clear. The serpent comes in and asks questions that beguile minds and suddenly it's a "confusing" issue. Nothing new under the sun.

@@bettyblowtorthing3950 No it doesn't. You're trying to make an excuse.

Excellant scripture!

Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.

If that's the case then you believed a lie.

@@heather602 In what way? I said a lot of stuff and I am sure at least a good chunk of it is true.

@@emryswilliams9190 The early church absolutely believed in literal days. There is no indication in scripture that they did not.

@@heather602 St. Augustine. I think that's all I need to say. And you're using a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, to say that the Early Church did not disagree on creation.

@@emryswilliams9190 Augustine was one of the first to introduce such ideas. He also believed in purgatory.

Agreed. Neither did the person trying to answer his critiques of the Cessationist film. 😬 I tried watching both of those interviews and ended up complaining to my phone screen, "You didn't even respond to Gavin's point!!!" 😅

@@AndreaWhoGoesByAndrea Glad I wasn't the only one, Andrea. I kept waiting...and waiting... Also, I'm in neither camp on these issues that have nothing to do with my salvation. In fact, I lean more on the literal 24-hour creation days. The flood not being global makes sense. I also think Calvinism is non-Biblical, and very destructive. Uh-oh. Christ died for me. Calvinists are saved by Grace, through Christ. Does anything else matter?

Because Gavin's arguments have been debunked a long time ago.

@@thomasglass9491 Ah, another one that hasn't listened. 🙂 No - Ken Ham, as well as you it seems - were simply ignoring everything Gavin anticipated. They acted as if he made no mention of it. I just hope you lie out of ignorance, and not out of malice. Because lie you do.

@szilardfineascovasa6144 honest question. Is it actually lying if it’s out of ignorance?

Ken believes his interpretation is infallible .

Both of you are dead on right.

His entire ministry is built on 24 hour days and a global flood not worldwide.

Stand fast in the truth. I believe God does mean creation was literally 6 days. However I do believe there may be a spiritual layer that the 6 literal days point to 6,000 years in which God will fulfill all things. With the 7th day, as the Sabbath, representing the 1,000 year millennium. This could be one reason why God doesn't mention evening and morning on the last day. Because for believers who take part in the resurrection, our rest will be permanent in that sense, even into the new heavens and new earth.

@@heather602we've been in the millennium for almost two thousand years. Nero was the beast. everyone knew it. it's why different translation used 666 and 616 for the applicable numerology on it. Christ is already reigning and will not return in physical form until "every enemy is under his footstool" it's the churches job now to change the world and reach the masses, not wishfully think we're just going to be beamed up and rescued was a tribulation.

@@heather602 take God at His word for literal 6 day creation and Christ's words that literally the generation wouldn't pass before that time. He's not a false prophet. so it happened.

So, here are some thoughts to consider re: "day" meaning "a 24-hour period." 1) Our insistence that the word "day" be thought of in terms of hours and seconds is culture-bound. Not all cultures today, and certainly not all cultures throughout history thought in terms of what we might call "clock-time." Other conceptions of a day are possible, such as a period of work and rest. These conform to what we might call "social-time." If these other conceptions are allowed into the conversation, then it becomes possible to see God's workdays in the creation week as being "normal days" consisting of periods of work and rest, but not necessarily knowing how many hours they took. 2) Much gets made of the definition of the word "day" in these discussions, but what about the word "hour?" What is an hour? Why speak of 24 of them? If we're defining an hour as "1/24 portion of a day" and a day as "a period of 24 hours" then the definitions become tautological and tell us nothing about the length of time involved. If we want to speak of hours in terms of our observation of the sun or stars, then we hit the conundrum of how to define an hour prior to day 4 of the creation week. Most YEC responses to this issue I've seen involve the supposition of some sort of "sun-substitute" existing on days 1-3, allowing for us to reckon time on the "normal" 24-hour scale. But then you have the problem that the text says that the sun, moon, and stars were created specifically for the purpose of marking out time, implying that this function wasn't being fulfilled prior to their creation. 3) The sixth day is a bit of an issue for the 24-hour view. While it's certainly possible that all the things the text says happened on that day happened in a period of 24 hours, it seems unlikely. Adam had to be created, be placed in the garden, have the animals brought before him, name them, be put into a deep sleep by God, have Eve formed from his rib, wake and name her. Also, when Adam sees Eve, he proclaims "at last!" This seems to imply that his wait for a suitable companion had been lengthy. These are just a few of the issues that could be presented for a strict 24-hour view. There are others, but these are enough to show that the 24-hour view has difficulties that often aren't considered as deeply today as they were in the past, due to the rhetoric of the 24-hour view being the "obvious" or "plain" reading of the text.

@@gardyloogubbins God defines each day in the text. "Evening and morning." Adam doesn't say "at last" in Hebrew. Only the NIV seems to add these words.

Ham has always given me Nuda Scriptura vibes, which is not the same as Sola Scriptura.

The 7 days is about a temple inauguration. It's not about the age of the earth

@@bettyblowtorthing3950 - You missed the point. Exo. 31:16-17 confirms the Genesis 6-day Creation Account and defines what a "day" is. Thus confirming YEC.

@@RoyceVanBlaricome you missed the point, it's 7-days because it's a temple inauguration, not the age of the earth. Try reading in context next time.

@@bettyblowtorthing3950 - You missed the point AGAIN. Try a class in Hermeneutics 101. Or better yet ya might wanna start with a 3rd Grade Reading Comprehension Class. Or just try pulling your head outta your six. Context ONLY matters when trying to interpret a verse or passage or a word such as "DAY". And the CONTEXT there is that a DAY is the same as a DAY in Genesis 1. IOW, the CONTEXT in Exo. 31 interprets the CONTEXT of Genesis 1. That's Hermeneutics 101. “Answer a fool according to his foolishness, so that he may not be wise in his own eyes.” (Pro 26:5) “Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.” (Pro. 26:11) “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Pro. 26:12) Oh, and btw, the CONTEXT of Exo. 31:16-17 is NOT temple inauguration. it's about the Sabbath and keeping it. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach.

@@RoyceVanBlaricome no. Context also matters with bara. Context matters with scientific concordism. Context matters with ancient near east cosmology in Genesis. Etc. Please educate yourself. Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology, not modern science. That's the Bible in its context.

Ken has a problem with wrong teaching. Ross's book denies the flood and I'm pretty sure he believes in evolution too. the Bible does not teach these things.

​@BillMurrey Hugh Ross does not deny the flood! He believes it destroyed all of mankind and a huge area of land - most of the Middle East, but not the whole planet. And Ross doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution. Please check facts before commenting...

⁠@@BillMurreyHugh Ross does NOT believe in evolution. He believes in 6 long periods of time, rather than 6 literal 24 hour days. And I did not come across anything that alludes to him denying the flood. If any fault in in his beliefs, it would be relying on science to explain everything rather allowing God room to operate outside of science.

That is one of the biggest things that bugs me about Dispensationalism and modern interpreters of Scripture. They often shout loud how they interpret the text literally but then as you stated when it comes to Eschatology, they often force modern current events into the text. I have even heard/read some interpret horses to be tanks, arrows to be missiles, locusts to be helicopters, the new heavens as a space station etc… It is quite absurd.

@@J.F.331 Ironically Ancient Alien Astronaut theorist Erich von Däniken (mis)interprets scripture in the EXACT same method as Hal Lindsey and the rest of dispensationalists. They ignore historical and literary elements of the text, as well as time indicators, and pour into it their wild imaginations that tell to sell a lot of books and make great content for Science Fiction. There is a literary parallelism in Genesis 1 & 2 that is similar to that in The Book of Revelation. William Hendriksen details the pattern in his book "More Than Conquerors."

I agree, it is very inconsistent. The most consistent way to read the Bible would be to follow the genre principle--Genesis 1 should be read as history, since it is a historical narrative, and Revelation/Daniel should be read as a figurative prophecy, since they are prophetic books.