Is Young Earth Creationism Biblically Problematic?

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we have a very exciting episode.

We're going to be covering the issue of young earth creationism. I know folks are very interested in discussions with regards to the debates surrounding creation, the different interpretations and understanding young earth, old earth, these sorts of things.

And of course they have a lot of application for apologetical issues. So hopefully this episode will be very very useful to folks who are interested in these sorts of discussions.

And it's very important as well since we're talking about foundational issues. I mean the book of Genesis is a foundational book that the rest of Scripture kind of refers back to as as so important in understanding doctrines that are more developed throughout the rest of Scripture.

So these are very important issues. Alright well more specifically we're going to be dealing with biblical objections to the young earth interpretation and we are going to specifically be responding to a video that was put out by Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy.

And he is a very well -known YouTube apologist. I mean he's got a very large following.

He puts out some great great content with regards to covering all sorts of issues.

I mean if you're familiar with his website really but his YouTube channel he covers a wide range of topics that a lot of people benefit from.

I've had Michael Jones on the show before to talk about tactics and debate and things like that.

And so there's this is nothing against Mike but at the same time I think it's important to have a clear voice and response in defense of the other position that is being criticized.

The young earth position has a very strong history and there have been able defenders of that position.

And so I thought it would be a great idea to have someone like Jason Lyle who most who listen to this channel are familiar with to have him on and provide some responses.

So here's what here's how things are gonna go. Okay I'm gonna introduce Dr. Lyle in just a moment here but then we're going to be playing the video that was put out by Inspiring Philosophy and then

Dr. Lyle is going to take some time to respond to each of the points. All right and these are biblical objections.

All right so I think Michael Jones does a good job in really focusing in on what's important.

There are discussions of science that are brought in usually in these debates but really as Christians we want to be faithful to scripture and we want to know what the

Bible says. And so I do appreciate that Michael tries to zero in on the text of scripture.

And while I personally disagree with with Mike's conclusions you know this is a good launching pad for a good discussion.

Okay so all that in mind let me introduce Dr. Lyle. And there is

Dr. Lyle. Hello Dr. Lyle how are you doing? I'm I'm very well how are you doing? I'm doing well been busy but it's all good we've got some snow over here it's clearing up and then we're gonna get some more snow.

So all right all right I'm used to snow. Where are you from? Well I'm now living in Colorado Springs so it's we get snow here quite a lot.

Okay all right all right. It's quite quite lovely. Okay all right well um for those of you who don't know who

Dr. Lyle is I'm just gonna read a little bit of his information that can be located on his website Biblical Science Institute which

I highly recommend folks to visit if you're interested in young earth creationism science and apologetics presuppositional apologetics

I mean he's written a couple of books just a couple I mean you know this is a really good book to help you to think clearly and logically he also has this fine book that addresses apparent biblical contradictions keeping faith in the age of reason and a book that I just got finished recommending to someone who was trying to look into introduction to logic like I have a good idea here this is an introduction to logic by dr.

Lyle so very good book it's got pictures and everything if you don't like to just read you know boring dry words on the screen he does a very good job and you know explaining these issues these complex issues and simplifying them all right well dr.

Jason Lyle is a Christian astrophysicist who researches issues pertaining to science and the Christian faith he is a popular speaker and author dr.

Lyle presents a rational defense of a literal Genesis showing how science confirms the history recorded in the

Bible brought up in a Christian family at a young age he received Christ as Lord since then

Lyle has always desired to serve the Lord out of love and gratitude for salvation and to spread the gospel message to all dr.

Lyle is double majored in physics and astronomy with a minor in mathematics at Ohio Wesleyan University he then went on to obtain a master's degree and PhD in astrophysics at the

University of Colorado in Boulder there he used the Soho spacecraft to analyze the surface of the

Sun and made a number of interesting discoveries including the detection of giant cell boundaries since then

Lyle has worked in full -time apologetics ministry and he wrote a number of planetarium shows for the Creation Museum including the popular created cosmos dr.

Lyle has authored a number of best -selling books on the topic of creation including taking back astronomy stargazers guide to the night sky the ultimate proof of creation which is probably his more popular book and understanding

Genesis so that's kind of the the back info on dr. Lyle and you can follow his information there on YouTube and on his website biblical science

Institute alright before we get started is there anything you'd like to say anything you'd like to add dr. Lyle some interesting piece of information that I missed no you covered it pretty well

I just I just hope people will check out if they'll check out that website they'll learn everything that I know that's right okay very good so let's jump right in I'm going to pop the video there and we're gonna play this video and dr.

Lyle you can just let me know when we should stop or I will stop when I think it's a good time to stop if you don't say anything and and we'll take it from there okay just for context here he does not argue for it but Michael Jones I believe holds to the theistic evolutionary position which is the view that God used evolution and so he holds to an interpretation of Genesis that is very much in line with someone like John Walton who

I just previously had on my show so if you're interested in what John Walton says with regards to how to understand

Genesis that's kind of I mean he might have some differences but that's kind of where Michael Jones is coming from and so just to create that context and of course dr.

Lyle it holds to a young earth we would say a literal interpretation right of course we want to explain what that means but well why don't we explain what that means first let's get that out of the way when we speak of interpreting

Genesis literally what do we mean by that dr. Lyle yeah I'm glad you brought that up because I think that's gonna be an issue in this in this video

I kind of got away from saying that because a lot of people the word literal when you talk about reading something literally you just mean in its plain and ordinary sense but some people take that to mean oh you mean every word has to be taken in its in its the first dictionary definition no that's not really what we mean biblical creationists like myself interpret the

Bible literarily I think would be a better way to put it which means we read the text and we take it at face value unless there is a contextual reason to take it otherwise and it's some places there are contextual reasons to take it otherwise and so I don't take the

Psalms literally when you know when the Bible says there's no rock like our God it doesn't mean I don't it doesn't mean that God is basalt you know if we understand that as a metaphor and we would expect that in the poetic literature that makes sense what we want to avoid is looking at a text that makes sense in the plain text but it's contrary to what we've been taught and so we think what can't mean that because then

I'd be wrong about well maybe you are wrong about whatever so we want to we want to read the

Bible exegetically looking at its text interpreting according to its own standard and in that includes looking at the way

Jesus interpreted the scriptures looking at the way the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament interpreted the scriptures when they're penning the

New Testament there are certain rules of hermeneutics and I have written a book on this called understanding

Genesis basically we read the Bible the way we would read really any other book in the sense of we use the grammatical historical context to understand the author's intention what is the what is the author trying to say that's what we want to get at and that implies taking a text in a plain fashion unless there are contextual reasons to make it otherwise okay would you also understand interpreting the

Bible litter litter or maybe this is what you said but kind of I'm putting it in my own words just to make sure

I'm understanding to interpret the Bible literally is to basically interpret it in accordance with its literature so that would include genre and all those other considerations cultural background contextual background things like that yeah and to avoid any confusion

I don't even say that I read the Bible literally because I people think that means a little sense

I like to say I read the Bible literally I take it according to the type of literature that we're looking at I interpret it according to its context so and by the way that is that's the normal position for biblical creationists like myself my friends at answers in Genesis would take that position too and so our critic here is going to argue against the position that we don't exactly hold to because he's gonna he seems to think that we take everything in a wooden literal sense that's not the case we use context to determine the meaning okay all right well let's jump right into this and put this up back on the screen here and I'm going to play it from the beginning and then you just let me know when we should stop if you haven't heard there are millions of people today who believe the earth is only about 6 ,000 years old and about 4 ,000 years ago there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all life on land except for a few people in to every animal that survived in an ark the basis of this theory comes from many who say we ought to take a literal or plain reading of the

Bible the holy book of Christianity the rationale behind this young earth view is that they are just taking the plain reading of the text and that Christians who believe the earth is old have to misconstrue or reinterpret passages to make the

Bible fit with an ancient earth and the theory of evolution but what many young earth creationists don't realize is that there are several passages within the

Bible itself that create problems for the young earth theory meaning if we took the plain reading of the text in many places it would actually contradict the view that the earth in the universe are only about 6 ,000 years old these are the top 10 biblical passages that create problems for the young earth theory number 10

Genesis 17 17 Genesis recounts the story of Abraham and Sarah who were old in age and had no children of their own

God appears to Abraham and says he will have a son in his old age and then in Genesis 17 it reads then

Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old shall

Sarah who is 90 years old bear a child so Abraham thinks it's biologically impossible for someone past the age of 100 to have a child but this seems to contradict the ages of his ancestors also known as the early patriarchs we're supposed to live for hundreds of year ok so already we have some problems here ok so yeah

Genesis 17 17 17 where God promises to give Abraham by his wife

Sarah a child and Abraham laughs and asks will a child be born to a man 100 years old and will

Sarah who is 90 years old bear a child and a couple things there first of all in my view and I think a lot of scholars will hold this view his laugh is a laugh of joy

I don't think he's doubting what God says Abraham had faith in God now when when Sarah laughed it was a laugh of doubt and she's criticized for it

Abraham's never criticized for his laughing he's laughing out of joy he's going to get us and he knows it's unusual so our critic here says that Abraham thinks it's biologically impossible for someone past the age of 100 to have a child the text doesn't say that it implies that Abraham thinks it's amazing that he's overjoyed that's going to happen but he knows that with God all things are possible he's not he knows that's not an issue and it could do that it's it's not just him being a hundred years old but rather his wife being 90 years old whom he also mentions he's not just a hundred -year -old man he's a hundred -year - old man married to a 90 -year -old woman and that's all the more spectacular because even in our day men can remain fertile into their older ages but when they pass menopause then that's it and so that that might be the thing that's exciting to Abraham is that his wife who is apparently past menopause

God's going to give her a child that's awesome so there's no doubt there but it does seem unusual and our critic says but this seems to contradict the ages of his ancestors no a contradiction is

A and not A at the same time and in the same sense Abraham did not live at the same time as those people who live for example before the flood well one of them

Shem overlaps a little bit but the rest of them they were gone it was very common before the flood it was common at that time for children to be born to a hundred -year -old parents because people before the flood lived to be typically around 900 years in excess of 900 years so the the entire lifespan our lifespan was much greater back then and there are various scientific theories on that but we don't have to get into that so it was common before the flood for people to give birth to a child that was if they were even if they were elderly if they're a hundred years or older but it was very uncommon at the time of Abraham in fact with the possible exception of Abraham's father we'll come back to that time that it happened was almost 400 years earlier that was the last time anybody who was a hundred years old as far as we can tell from the text anybody who was a hundred years old would have been

Shem so the last time that happened again with the possible exception of Abraham's father what would have been with Abraham's great great great great great great great grandfather and so I think it's for Abraham to say wow this doesn't happen in quite a while so while we continue there and unless you have any comments on that nope nope that's good we'll move it along there

I'm make sure we get through it area and have children in their own ages according to the

Masoretic dates many of Abraham's ancestors were supposed to be alive when

God made his promise Abraham in his 100th year and his ancestor ever supposedly outlived him so shouldn't

Abraham's reply to God have been that many people alive are having children in their old ages so having a child at the age of 100 is perfectly normal more importantly it's the fact that based on what

Genesis 12 says Abraham's own father Tara would have had to a father

Abraham at his own age of 130 Abraham's reply to God have been that having it okay for Craig's saying

Abraham's reply to God have been that many people are alive or having children in their old ages well no they weren't not not at that time the last one to do that again with the possible exception of Abraham's own father the last person do that was with sham and he was he was dead at that point he was alive and was born but he died at that before that point so no nobody alive at that time was having children at the age of a hundred now he does mention

Abraham's own father I don't think that's that's fatal to the to the the plain reading of the text though because it would just be one exception be like wow that that that is still extraordinary that the only time that's happened in the last 390 years was with my own father so it's kind of neat even then we don't have any information on on mrs.

Tira and as I as I pointed out earlier it might be more that Sarah being you know he's

Abraham's not just a hundred -year -old man he's a hundred -year -old man married to a 90 year old woman who's presumably passed menopause so Tira hypothetically might have been married to a younger woman where it wasn't so extraordinary somebody who hadn't hit he might have been married to a young hottie for all we know yeah you know so that's that's a possibility there but I think and this is something that we need to think about a lot of there are scholars who would agree with our critic here that that Abraham was born when

Tira was 130 but that's not clearly specified in the text that's in fact

Genesis 12 doesn't say that let's see it's looking at some

I have some notes here yeah so the assumption is that Abraham left her on at the time of Tira's death and that comes from two assumptions that are fallacious the first is that the beginning of the next chapter happens immediately after the events of the previous chapter but we know the

Bible doesn't always do that the Book of Judges for example is not in chronological order some of the events that happen at the that are recorded at the end happened earlier than events that that were recorded earlier and so on and so the same thing is true here and also

I think because of a misunderstanding of Acts 7 -4 people think that that Abraham left her on at the time that that Tira died but if you look at it in the original

Greek text which I've done in the Acts 7 -4 it most naturally means that when Tira died Abraham moved

Tira's body from her on to have him buried in Canaan where Abraham had already been living for 60 years if you just look at X if you just look part maybe just look at Genesis 1126 that seems to indicate that Tira was 70 years old when

Abraham was born I think that's the more natural interpretation not everyone would agree with me so I said even if even if he were 130 that would still be one miraculous exception of now too

I think it's important to keep in mind too that even even if you're saying is not necessarily correct the very fact that it's possible means that there's not a problem in the text it just means now which view are you going to adopt you have a different you have certain options to choose from interpretively to make sense out of that it's not necessary I mean you might think well that's just unreasonable well

I mean you could say that but that is a possible interpretation so therefore there's not a necessary conflict there that's true you know okay all right should we continue all right a child past the age of 100 is perfectly normal after all his own father had him when he was 130 the whole episode in Genesis 17 implies

Abraham didn't know anyone his own father included who had a child past the age of 100 and this would apply that when

Genesis assigns high ages to the patriarchs it is probably not their literal ages but symbolic numbers for theological messaging and that would mean

Genesis doesn't give us a literal chronology back to the creation of Adam damaging the young earth creationist view that the

Bible documents through the ages of the patriarchs that the earth is only 6 ,000 years old for a better understanding of the symbolic view of the ages of the patriarchs see our video on Genesis 5 9

Genesis 8 all right yeah I would imagine you want to mention something about those ages being kind of a what do you say metaphorical or symbolic or something well first of all it doesn't follow from what we from what was mentioned previously

I mean he's welcome to speculate on why Abraham thought it was unusual or or amazing to have a child of 100 but we've seen from the text that makes perfect sense because nobody was having children at that time at the time of Abraham in their hundred year with the one possible exception of Abraham's father and I've shown from the text even that's probably not an exception he was probably 70 when

Abraham was was born so there's no problem there it makes perfect sense that Abraham would say hey at this time in this time in history you know it's that's very unusual and so it's really kind of a silly argument it's be like if we found if we if we found a the tomb of a

Pharaoh and found that he was encased with a Toyota Camry you know the Pharaoh had a

Camry that's amazing you can imagine someone saying that's not all that spectacular I've got a

Camry something can be spectacular at one time and quite commonplace at another time and that's what we see here in the text so so there's no there's no there's not even remotely any suggestion that the ages are anything other than little ages we don't take our our speculations about why a person responded that way and then use that to say therefore

I'm going to interpret this text as non -literal he says the numbers may be symbolic of course the question I would ask is what does it symbolize right because a lot of times people will use that as an excuse for I don't want to believe this text is written so it's symbolic but if it's symbolic you better know what it symbolizes tell me what it what they mean and I don't they don't mean they mean the age right

I mean it's just it's just the recording the normal age you see if we're doing exegesis if we're doing hermeneutics if we're looking at the text then we would say well the given the style in frequent use of the law consecutive and Genesis is recording historical narrative therefore we ought to take it as literal history unless there's a certain phrase or something that's often used as a metaphor which we can learn from other you know the other sections of the scriptures but but in Genesis it's just it's historical narrative and therefore we we take it that way

I don't believe the Bible is some kind of Gnostic document with secret codes built into the numbers like that that denies the perspicuity of scripture the

Bible is meant to be understood by less common folks you don't need to have a PhD in astrophysics to understand it which

I do anyway but you don't need that one but you don't need one because it's it's going to be understood that does it does pay to go back and look at the original language as I respect that that's great the other thing too it's kind of interesting is if he's right and those ages are stretched out because they're metaphorical guess what that would make the age of the earth even younger than six thousand years yeah yeah if you say those are symbolic they were actually regular age as well and that just makes the earth even younger than six thousand years so that now

I have a question so so if I know Michael Jones and I've listened to his debates he becomes very prepared he's very well researched even though we might disagree with his understandings

I would imagine if you were to say you know well what do those ages represent he would probably try and provide some examples in ancient

Near Eastern texts are there examples within the ancient Near Eastern context where ages are exaggerated to make some kind of point oh

I think that happens but the thing is the Bible is not just it's not just an ancient

Near Eastern text it's the Word of God and God doesn't lie the pagan cultures lie they made up myths about how the world began and it's very common for people to say well see the

Bible's like that God didn't want them to be fooled by these other myths so he wrote his own myth

I'm thinking that doesn't make any sense you can't counter fiction with fiction right I mean you know you can't say well you don't believe these fictional stories so I'm gonna make up another fictional story about how the universe began that's not that's not what

Genesis is even even in its own text that's what not what it says is these are the generations of Adam these are the earth a book of the generations that these are the generations of heaven earth the birth things this is what happened and you find that that Toledo throughout

Genesis indicating this is what happened this is what followed and so its own text indicates that it's historical narrative it's not

God's not going to exaggerate a factual account to make a point he's not going to do that now in metaphorical literature sure in poetic literature in Psalms you can use hyperbole that's fine in the in the parables of Jesus you can use hyperbole that's fine we're recording facts you don't do that it's called lying

God's not going to do that well what if someone says well God's just speaking to them in the way that they could understand you know kind of this accommodation view

God is accommodating his language and categories to relate to that ancient context well

I think he actually is but he's not going to do it in a way that's untruthful God does come down to our level to help us to understand things but he's not gonna lie about it simplify some things and then as the as we get greater revelation we get more clarity on those things that's fine we do that with children we see you know you're all made of these little atoms and they're like little balls well they're not exactly like little balls but that's a good approximation until they grow a little over you say well now that you're in the physics class let me tell you here's the true nature of atoms they they're actually wave functions that break down when you look at it and so on the language is meant for us to understand but it's not going to be a lie okay it's not going to be something where I get to heaven and God you said that this love it would be 969 and I know he's only 72 what you lied

I mean that's not that's not going to work God does speak to our level but he doesn't do it by distorting something by lying to us by taking something and making it false now what now wouldn't they say then that he's not lying it's just that in the ancient context they would have understood it and it's our job as modern readers to put ourselves in the shoes of that ancient context so that we're understanding what was originally meant well the seductive thing about that is there's some truth to it because I do believe we should look at the radical historical context key historical that's part of it but how do we know what the ancient world believed we do have other documents of course but how do you know how do we know those are true and so on how do we know these other documents are authentic what's the most authentic document of the ancient world

I'm sure you know the answer to this yes the Bible it is exactly Bible that we use to learn how people understood the

Bible and when we look at the other texts of the Bible we find that they interpret text like Genesis literally and now the in fact

God warned the Israelites occasionally they would go off into one of these pagan ways of thinking and God punished them for doing that he says you're not to be like these pagan nations it's not the idea that that Genesis is written to help the

Israelites be like pagan nations but with a different myth that's contrary to what the Bible itself teaches the

Israelites were to be separate they were to be an example for the way everyone should be they weren't to go follow after myths fables they were they were to tell the truth they were to tell you know but but yeah there is something to that there is something to the fact that we we look to see how people understood things at the time but the

Bible tells us how people understood things at the time so that's the primary source that we should use when interpreting the scriptures all right let's continue a common view among young earth believers is the idea that the earth was covered in a global flood about 4 ,000 years ago when

Genesis records that God flooded the earth it should be understood as literally the entire globe because it says the waters covered the face of the whole earth but there is a problem for this view within Genesis 8 verses 4 & 5 say the ark came the rest in the mountains of Ararat or Eratu and the tops of the mountains could be seen at this point however later in the chapter

Noah releases a dove and it returns to him because the waters were still on the face of the whole earth but didn't verse 5 say the tops of the mountains were seen so verse 9 cannot mean the waters were literally covering the whole earth implying the entire flood account might be hyperbolic in its description of the flood and this would mean it was not literally covering the entire globe but just a regional area this is also supported by verse 13 where it says the waters dried from the earth but this obviously cannot literally mean the entire globe since most of the surface of the earth is still covered by water so it appears the flood account is describing the flood hyperbolically it doesn't necessarily teach the entire globe was covered number 8

Genesis 2 24 all right go back and get some of these he says that we younger creationists that claim that the flood was global because the text says the waters he cites

Genesis 8 9 the water still on the face of the whole earth that's that's when the floods were seeding that's not the verse that we would use it would be more like passages like Genesis 7 19 through 20 where the text says that all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered the waters proceeded upward the mountains were covered every creeping thing died everything that was on the you know the face of the earth died and and so on and so forth so so that certainly indicates a global flood and frankly the entire account of the ark mitigates against the local flood why would you build an ark the size of an ocean liner take two of every breathing every air -breathing land animal including birds for a local flood that you knew was coming

I'm gonna flood this section okay

I'm gonna go over there thank you Lord for that warning there would be no point in taking animals on board the ark because animals would just they'd repopulate the area they come from these around areas you certainly wouldn't need birds for a local flood birds can get away just fine there are birds that migrate every year from Alaska to Hawaii and of course there's no land in between they have to that's how far they can go under certain conditions and so you know there there'd be no there'd be no sense in taking birds on board an ark for a local flood it just makes no sense so the entire passage indicates a global flood and of course if you did something about the

Hebrew language the double use of coal when it says you know that all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered actually all in whole are the same word in Hebrew they're coal and when you have it doubled like that it's for emphasis

I mean I really mean everything it's like God's going out of its way to say boy it's global the entire earth everything that's on the earth everything under the under the heavens that means under the sky everything on the earth died the text is really is pretty clear now the critics seems to have some confusion about the recession of the flood he mentions in Genesis 8 5 that the on the 10th month of the flood since the initiation of the flood the tops the mountains were visible that's right by the way that only works with a global flood a local flood is not going to cover mountains it just doesn't water so that doesn't that wouldn't make sense and then later on the dove was sent out but returned because she found the resting place for the water was on the surface of the earth now the

Hebrew word they're just on how Alpen a the surface of the earth and that's different from Genesis 719 where the mountains were covered there's a difference between being covered by water and just water being on something you can fill a cup there's water on the table but it's not covered there is a difference and and just context would indicate that as well so Genesis 8 5 indicates that the surface of the earth was still wet it still had water on it everywhere it was muddy and Ravens don't care about that so much they are they can feed on carry in at least today and they're a robust bird doves are more jet more gentle they're a gentler variety of bird and so no one knew what he was doing you release the

Raven first and it goes back and forth but then that the dove he sends out and she doesn't want to land on that mud so she comes back in it makes sense it wasn't until a week later then she finally finds the olive branch and he sends her out again and she's gone so it actually makes sense the land was still in the process of drying and so we need to be careful about things like that because people make the same kind of mistake with the the tree that Jesus cursed and immediately withered and then it comes back the next day and they were surprised that it had withered because you can wither immediately to some extent and then wither more to another extent

I mean that that makes that the earth can be dry in the sense that the waters are not covering the mountains anymore and yet still the surface can still be wet that would be the more natural so to simplify he's saying that young earth creationists who also believe in a global flood will say on the one hand that the

Bible says that the whole globe was covered yet there is a passage of scripture which says the mountains the tip of the mountains were showing and so he's trying to show that there's a conflict there so how might we summarize that briefly kind of just saying wait that's not a contradiction because well that would

I don't think that's if I if I understood his argument that's not exactly saying but if he had made that argument that would be looking at two different times it's seven where we see the the oncoming of the flood where we see the mountains were covered it's in Genesis 8

Genesis 8 is 10 months later when the tops of the tops of mountains are visible it's during the recession stage okay it makes perfect sense in light of a global flood it doesn't make sense in light of a local flood local floods do not cover mountains and that should be obvious they just don't do that and people want to whistle on the

Mesopotamia Valley which is it waits open on the south you can't flood it anyway it flows you know I looked at the elevator you can check on Google earthing with the elevation you can't flood that area because the water just rushes out you know and you can flood it a little bit but not not very much it's certainly not gonna last a year so it makes perfectly set it makes perfect sense the way that it's worded he says that it's because he sees because he can't make sense of a particular text he says well therefore the entire flood might be hyperbolic no it just means you need to do your homework a little bit more you need to go back and look at language and make sure that you're understanding it right

I don't I don't I would reject this sort of hermeneutic that if I see a text

I don't understand then it's all metaphorical no you need to go back and do your homework a little I think he would probably say that it's reasonable to conclude that it's metaphorical because it's probably consistent with how what how ancient near -eastern literature looked like I mean as he sees it based on his own do you know what

I'm saying yeah and I would say but it really isn't

I had a class on myth legend and folklore okay and I really enjoyed the class it was really interesting we got to look at some of the other flood legends because there are flood legends around the world that are derived from the biblical event but they don't they don't have the internal logic that the

Bible has because the Bible's recording real history and so these you know these other stories that are passed down that are not passed down by the by the inspiration of God they're not preserved by by God they get distorted you have the you know the epic of Gilgamesh and he meets

Noah not hitting them in in that particular story and his but his arc is a cube which it doesn't make hydraulic sense because the cube the arc that God designed is a real arc it's a real boat it makes sense so we have every indication and more importantly than any of that this is written in the same style frequent use of Vaughn consecutive and this happened and that happened and that happened as Exodus as Leviticus Deuteronomy these other sections of history where God is recording things that happened and so dr.

Stephen Boyd for example who is a PhD in Hebrew he's studied this he says there's no doubt that they're recording literal history in these sections of the

Bible just based on the Hebrew verb form that's used the frequent use of the Vaughn consecutive you don't have that in poetry you might have an individual

Vaughn consecutive or two but you have more of the Vaughn disjunctive and other other forms of speech so there's no doubt from the text that this is referring to a global flood and then one other point

I wanted to address here because he says that I can't literally mean the entire globe because it says the waters are you know offbeat earth well that that that's why it doesn't say the whole earth it doesn't say cool hot rats it's just they're off the earth because it rats the word of rats can meet it can mean the planet

Earth it can mean land and so it's obviously the land that the water is off of and not the entire planet yes yes the earth is still two -thirds covered with water a little more than that actually so that's not a problem and then

I also point out to that Jesus referred back to the flood as a literal event I warn people amazing just like the days of Noah where people were eating and drinking and sudden destruction you know that's what's going to be like and nobody's as far as I know nobody said oh but that was just a metaphor so you're saying the upcoming judgments just metaphorical so I don't have to repent thank you

Jesus nobody interpreted that way he was talking about real history that happened and it is like in some sense a judgment okay all right thank you for that let's continue young earth creationists are often proud of the fact and almost go so far as to brag that they just take the play reading a scripture and don't have to reinterpret anything in my debate with Kent Hovind I asked if he takes all of Genesis 1 and 2 literally and he replied

I have a question for town Genesis 2 do you take the entire chapter of Genesis 2 literally absolutely but this is actually impossible because Genesis 2 24 cannot be understood literally after Adam is introduced to Eve it reads therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh since married couples are not sewn together this obviously cannot be understood as literal some young earth believers try to get around this by saying it's a reference to procreation in the act of making children but that would mean they interpret the phrase becoming one flesh metaphorically to mean having offspring since the text does not literally say to make children verse 24 is obviously metaphorical language but that means the text of Genesis 1 and 2 could also be using other metaphors it was not meant to be entirely literal number seven

Genesis 322 all right yeah when

I heard that I was gonna like okay what do you got to say about that yeah some problems there some problems there we go back to that original confusion on what do we mean when we talk about reading the

Bible literally okay and no disrespect to Kent Hovind but he's probably not the spokesman for the highest quality creation research that's out there

I would recommend my peers at answers in Genesis for example and and we would say that we read the

Bible literarily including Genesis 2 Genesis 2 does the Bible has poetry in it and even

Genesis even Genesis 2 has a little poetic section because you might notice in verse

I think it's verse 23 I don't have it up in front of me when when Adam receives his wife for the first time he breaks into poetry and who can blame him he said you know this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh he's using that Hebrew parallelism there now the

Bible's recording that what Adam literally said so it's still a little history but but what Adam says is poetic and then there's some debate about is is verse 24 still quoting

Adam because of course we don't have quotation marks in the original text I'm not sure that it is but in any case you know our critic here has said that I can't be understood literally well that would couple errors here couple errors first of all he's assuming that the

Hebrew word translated flesh which is bizarre has exactly the same semantic range as our

English word for flesh it really doesn't there's overlap and so you can't say well this can't be be taken literally if you don't know what the literal meaning is so I looked it up I looked at different references for the stars that occurs in scripture it's actually related to the

Hebrew word meaning to bear as in to bear news which I think is interesting Isaiah 61 one is the same continental the tri -continental structure and first print first Chronicles 10 9 uses to bear news it's the similar word it's a related word now and that makes sense that it'd be related because usually if Hebrew words if they have the same consonants but just different vowel pointings they're usually there's similarity there in the meaning between the verb and noun and so on fleshly creatures bear offspring so it makes sense like to bear news would be similar to would be relating to fleshly creatures who bear offspring it makes sense it's a possible explanation anyway and human beings that takes two two to do that so what is the range then of the sorry can mean skin it can mean your physical body it can mean meat like eating meat it can also mean a close relative which is interesting and it's used that way a number of times for especially when it's used when you use bone and flesh together or flesh and bone together that often means a close relative and it's used that way in Genesis 29 14 37 27 2nd

Samuel 19 12 to 13 first Chronicles 111 and so on and even the word itself flesh can mean relative or family and it's used that way in Leviticus 18 6 where that word is translated relative a blood relative yes that works a blood your blood flesh actually and so if that's one of the right that's in the range of the meaning of the word is relative or family and if we if we understand that we say you know does that fit the context of Genesis 2 and you shall be one family it really does

I mean you know so that that is within the range of the meaning of the word but but and it's also interesting too because even the word one in Hebrew in this instance is a cod which it can just mean one but it can also mean something that's one in one sense and more than one another sense and it's the same word that's used for God in the in the

Shema Shema Israel Yahweh Elohim Yahweh God is our God is one but we know that God is trying and he's one in one sense he's three in another sense he's one thing persons and so we have that that same word is used it's used in Genesis for day the first day day one because it has two parts it has a day part in a night part but it's one day and so here we have we have something that's two flesh and yet also one flesh in another sense so it's very fitting to take it as written but even if we say okay but that's a little bit that's a less common usage okay we take that a little bit metaphorically okay but then again my argument is not that we should take all the text of Scripture in a wood little fashion we take it in a natural sense and the natural sense is that Adam and Eve form a family unit that's what the verse is indicating which isn't within the range of the word and the fact and again you have that you have the fallacy of composition just because one section of a text contains poetry because verse although verse 24

I would argue probably doesn't verse 23 does that doesn't mean that the rest of it is poetic or to be taken on literal fashion you can have little bits of poetic sections in an otherwise historical narrative in Exodus we have a whole almost a chapter where after they crossed the

Red Sea they sang a song about it and song is poetic I mean it's literally recording what they sang but the song itself is poetic so you can have poetry embedded in historical narrative we take the text in a natural sense and the natural sense there

I think is pretty clear I don't think we need to go into much detail on that all right very good I'm gonna keep my comments so minimal so that we have time to get through everything because I think you're doing a great job

I appreciate it Aaron let's keep going Genesis 3 recounts the fall of Adam and Eve in the exile from the

Garden of Eden young earth creationists believe before this there was no death because God made everything perfect so Adam and Eve would had to have been created immortal and the fall resulted in their bodies being made mortal and consequently death came as a result however

Genesis 3 never says their bodies were changed or transformed to be mortal God curses the ground but never places any curse on their bodies in fact all he does is borrow them from the tree of life verse 22 reads then the

Lord God said behold the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil now lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever the implication numerous scholars have pointed out is

Adam and Eve were already mortal and the only way they obtained immortality in the garden was eating continuously from the tree of life to make them mortal again all

God had to do was prevent access to this sacred tree but that means humans were already mortal before the fall and were only granted immortality through a special fruit not because they were created with immortal bodies this is also supported by the fact that Adam is called dust which is an idiom in the

Bible to denote that one is mortal in Genesis it might just be metaphorical language to denote that he was a mortal human meaning

Adam was mortal before the fall which implies that death was a possibility before sin entered number six

Genesis 2 for all right so he starts with a younger creationist believe before this before the fall that there was no death because God made everything perfect well it's for more reasons than that we know that God saw everything he made me what was very good according to Genesis 131 and when you consider what

God's standard of goodness is that our righteousness is like filthy rags and by the way if you know something about the

Hebrew language and you look up what filthy rags means it's not it's not a compliment if you think about that God's standard we can

God looks at it this is very good then I think we can trust it's very good and it's not just that though we look at other passage like first Corinthians 15 which states that the first man brought death into the world by man came death and that it is an enemy so it's got gonna call the world very good if it's got an enemy and it's something that God himself calls an enemy the enemy that will be destroyed the last enemy that would be destroyed in fact likewise

Romans 5 12 by one man came sin and through sin death because death is the penalty percent and of course that leads into Romans 8 which indicates the entire creation is now groaning under this bondage of corruption and awaits to be delivered from that bondage of corruption so it'd be over be over all theme of scriptures that the world was indeed very good by God's high standard when it was first created there's no sin and there's no death in it that's an enemy that was introduced as the right punishment for Adam sin that includes animal death the first animal death that's recorded it's it's kind of between the lines but God provides skins of clothing for Adam and Eve after they send those are animal skin which means

God sacrificed an animal or animals to provide clothing for them and then shortly after that apparently people sacrificed animals to God is that they

I think they understood something of the gospel they understood that something about substitutionary atonement that that God was covering our sin set by sacrificing an animal that doesn't deserve it that's for shadows

Christ so again this comes back to it it really comes back to a gospel issue that death being the penalty percent that's rather important to the gospel and that's why this is important how are we to understand where it says that through Adam sin death came to all men so typically they make the argument that you know maybe you're right maybe sin entered in for the first time through Adam but the text doesn't seem to say that it says that death came to all men how would you navigate that that point of contention there say that one more time

I don't think I quite understood yeah when it says in Romans where it says that through Adam death came to all men so they would say yeah maybe death came through Adam but the text doesn't seem to imply that that include necessarily animal that says that death came to all men so it's kind of specifically dealing with with human death as being the thing that God considers an enemy not necessarily the death of animals which men are to be to use for their you know for their own purposes to the glory of God things like that how would you respond to that I think if you only had that section of scripture 512 and maybe a couple verses beyond that 12 itself just says death through sin it doesn't restrict it to men but then later yes death came to all men

I get that if you just had that section you wouldn't know you wouldn't know if it was if it propagated to the rest of creation or not

I think but when you once you continue on that Paul continues that line of reasoning through Romans 8 and Romans 8 indicates that all creation was subjected to futility because of because of that one man

Adam his sin wasn't it didn't just affect mankind it affected all creation we would expect that because we understand something about federal headship we understand something about when someone is given dominion when they have authority and they sin all the people under their authority experience some of the consequences of that sin a lot of people are upset about our new president because he's done some he's already done a lot of things that are unfortunate and guess what we got to suffer the consequences of that because he is in authority over us at this time that's something that God has ordained whether it's a form of judgment

I think it is a form of judgment but any case yes we understand that but the other thing to remember too is

God called everything very good when it originally do you know we find things like cancer and arthritis and fossils that evolution is believed to be millions of years old before Adam because we all agree human beings don't go back a hundred million years so if you're gonna have disease in the world animals suffering from disease that's

I think that's inconsistent with very good and it's inconsistent with the fact that God apparently

God instituted animal death at the result of the fall that's the first time we see an animal being sacrificed now

I'll grant it I'll grant that doesn't prove it absolutely but the fact that the first time we see anything about animal sacrifice it's after Adam sin and as a result of Adam sin where God provides clothing to cover them so I think the the overall message of Scripture it doesn't go in and give us a lot of details on animals because that's not the point of the scripture it's mainly a relationship with God but God does care about animals too he says in the

Proverbs it says a righteous man regards the life of his beast so if you mistreat your animals if you torture them you're not a righteous person that is not something

God approves of and it seems inconsistent that God would not apply his his own standard to himself

God does care about animals they do suffer but it's a result of our sin and not because God is cruel

God didn't create animals to suffer and die we did that the necessary consequence of us having authority over creation okay all right great let's move along there let me actually let me see if there's anything more

I want to say there I did want to point out too because he goes into you know he says the fall resulted in their bodies being made more consequently death came as a result that's being our position he says however

Genesis 3 never says their bodies were changed or transformed to be mortal he says

God curses the ground but never places any curse upon their bodies I would encourage him to tell that to a woman in labor

Genesis 3 16 God greatly increases the pain in childbirth so something changed there he changed something about the female anatomy that birth would be painful now apparently it could be a very small change we don't know but then in Genesis 3 19 we says the added dust you are just shall return that sounds to me like hey you're mortal now

Bubba and of course this was so there is there is a change he doesn't have to come out and give the details on how he did it but he did he is he is saying you're going to you're gonna die now the he says it all he does is bar them from the tree of life this is the implication numerous scholars have pointed out is

Adam and Eve were already mortal no I would say they were created immortal and we've remained immortal unless they send because that's that's the clear teaching of Scripture well if they were if they were created immortal then what's the what's the point of the tree then since it seems to suggest that the immortality is based upon having access to that tree okay two possibilities one is like he said and there are scholars that believe that that the tree was the means by which

God granted immortality to Adam and Eve that's okay I don't hold that position but I admit that's a possibility

I think the more likely position is that the tree although it's a literal tree it represents closeness with God and the end of course our immortality really comes from God and you can find that throughout the scriptures that God alone is the one who gives us eternal life and of course he gives that authority to the son the father gives that to the son to grant eternal life to all whom he wishes so the tree represented that closeness that fellowship that we have with God that was unbroken by sin and we're now barred from that as a result of the curse but the interesting thing is we read in in Revelation there will be a time where we will again eat from the tree of life because we will have unrestricted access to God unburdened by our sin nature so I'm inclined to think that's what it what it means but in any case what you know even granting his interpretation of that God ordains not only the ends but the means and so if the tree was the means by which

God granted them eternal life that's fine I see his point but I don't think it's right because animals originally would have been immortal as well because again animal death instituted after Adam sinned and many animals would have been on the other side of the globe perhaps or we think the continents were different then but they've been far away and not had access to the tree of life so it's more likely that I don't believe that the tree the tree of life or the tree of knowledge of evil had any kind of special properties magical properties in and of themselves they represented either faithful commitment to God or disobedience to God depending on which one you choose okay because I could see how people could find that confusing it seems like the tree there is connected to immortality

I think it is by virtue of the fact that it's connected to God it represents the unbroken fellowship of God and that's who ultimately gives us eternal life as God okay

I see I see what you mean okay all right let's continue very good young earth creationists often argue that Genesis 2 is a recap of what takes place on day six within Genesis 1 when

God made humans but Genesis 2 for poses a problem for suggesting this chapter is a recap the verse begins with these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created this is what scholars call a

Toledot and it is used throughout Genesis almost like chapter markers for the ancient audience however when this phrase is used it always introduces what comes after the person or the generations that follow him it is never used to denote a recap of something that happened prior to this biblical scholar

John Walton notes that the phrase in Genesis 2 is probably teaching the same idea and that what takes place in Genesis 2 is meant to be a sequel recap sure what happens in Genesis 1 there's a lot there okay

I don't want to nitpick over words I wouldn't call justice to a recap I would

I would say beginning in verse 4 verse 4 is a transition point Genesis 2 4 to the next account which is a more detailed description of the events of day 6

I think when I think of a recap I think of a short summary it's actually expanding on one

Genesis 1 gives us the brief outline of what happens on each of the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest

Genesis 2 is an account that gives a more expanded description of the events of day 6 now how do

I know that exegetically because I know human beings are made on day 6 according to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is describing the creation of those first humans and we'll come because you're gonna say some more things here that we'll come back to but that's exegetically that's why

I would interpret it that way it was just based on the context okay because Genesis 1 human beings are made on day 6

Genesis 2 says here's here's how human beings are made so that must be a more detailed account of day 6 now we have the this this phrase these are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created and that word generations is total and it's probably its most literal translation with birth things but it indicates what follows afterward what happens and it does it does describe what happens as a consequence of what was previously mentioned but in Genesis 2 for what was previously mentioned was the creation of the heavens and the earth okay so what follows then would be something that happened after that a what are the birthings what is the history that resulted from God created having heaven and earth and one of those was the creation of human beings on day 6 so there's no inconsistency there let's see yeah so it's so again birth things are more generally what follows and there are others of these toll adults that describe what happened after Adam as the birthings of Adam Shem Isaac and so on and so Genesis 2 for is the only one where it's used with a non -human it's used with heavens and earth to indicate what what was a result of their birthing what did they birth what did they lead to what was their history and so it gives the details of what happened after God created heaven and earth but that was on day one that he created heaven and earth so the events of day six did happen after that again

I think our critic is assuming that that the Bible never backs up and describes something in more detail but that is simply not true there are cases where that happens including in the toll adults he says it's never used to recap to denote a recap of something that happened prior to this

I actually agree because I don't think Genesis 2 for is a recap it's an expanded account of what happened on day six so maybe a little bit of a strawman fallacy there but Genesis 2 for is beginning a new section describing that history our critics seems to think that the text following a total death can never cover an event that was addressed previously or in a previous chapter that is wrong and we see an example of that even in Genesis and Genesis let's see it's in chapter 10 verse 1 lists the generations the total of the sons of Noah and beginning in verse 22 gives the sons of Shem Shem had this person all the way down to his great -grandson then in Genesis 11 10 it backs up and says here's the total of Shem and again gives the descendants of Shem this time in greater detail giving the numbers associated with them so they told of in Genesis 11 gives information that was already recorded in Genesis chapter 10 so that the

Bible can do that and we find the same thing in Genesis 2 for we have a total adult saying here's the birthings of heaven and earth and although it was briefly mentioned in the previous chapter that God made human beings

Genesis 2 gives us a much more deep detailed account okay all right very good okay let's go after God establishes the cosmos he then hones in on one region on the earth to create a garden environment but this would mean what is commonly viewed as the creation of the first man in Genesis 2 is not actually the creation of the first man since in the prequel to Genesis 2

God elects all humans to be his image and this would take place before Genesis 2 and before Adam is believed to have been created from dust scholars like Michael Heizer know

Genesis 1 speaks of encompassing all of humanity not just one man or one couple implying when

God made man in his image it was meant to include all humans wherever they were existing at that time then

Genesis 2 picks up after this with the creation or election of two specific individuals to act as priests in the

Garden of Eden so because of the Toledoth in Genesis 2 the implication is

Adam came after when all humanity was made in the image of God and therefore was not the first human number five

Jeremiah 4 all right Genesis 2 I would say it's not really a recap or a sequel it's a detailed account of the events of day six which had been briefly mentioned in the previous chapter and that's that's consistent with the other use of the word

Toledoth like we saw in Genesis 10 and then again in verse 11 where it backs up it talks about what happened in the previous chapter

God can do that that was pretty common in Scripture so that's not a problem there at all okay and Genesis 2 is describing the creation of the first man in the first woman because God Adam called his wife's name

Eve because she was the mother of all living that's what the Bible says so she's she's the mother of all human beings and let's see what else was like that point out there the so he says that Genesis 1 is referring to the creation of lots of humans not just two and then

Genesis 2 picks up after that with creation or election I noticed that of two specific individuals that's not what

Genesis 2 is about God creating man from the dust of the ground it's not election he's not saying you yeah you two come out of this group

I'm gonna elect you as priests that's not what the text says God made Adam from the dust of the ground it's talking about his formation and then he made

Eve from his side and in fact that is the basis for marriage and so if that didn't really happen we have no basis for marriage if that's just a metaphor we don't have basis for biblical marriage it's not linked in history and the interesting thing too is in Matthew 19 4 through 5

Jesus quotes Genesis 1 27 and Genesis 2 24 back -to -back as if they're referring to the same people he refers to the create

God making humans in his own image male and female he created them that's from Genesis 1 27 and he says for this reason a man shall leave his mother and her father mother and cleave into his wife and she'll be one flesh so Jesus was under the impression that the same people mentioned in Genesis 1 27 are the same two people mentioned in Genesis 2 24 so if Walton's right then that means

Jesus is wrong and we've got we got some issues there so that's gonna be a problem okay so now don't some theistic evolutionists suggest something that there were other people in existence but when

God chose Adam and Eve and breathed into them the you know the giving them a soul that in that sense that's

God electing them to be the first quote humans because what makes man human is is really the image of God right people that the other people that say that it's just it's just you can't you can't work that in the scriptures right you know because he says

Adam you know Adam may have not been the first human but what does Paul say in 1st Corinthians 15 45 that the first man

Adam became a living soul so he was the first he was the first person and the first human being were all descended from them so the

Bible is pretty clear that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings they really were made the way that that God says again

Adam calls his wife named Eve because she's the mother of all living as Genesis 3 20 so I really have to twist the scriptures to try to fit the the traditions of men in this instance all right thank you let's continue 3 to 26 young earth creationists often assert that Genesis 1 cannot be read to mean anything other than a literal six -day creation of the cosmos when theistic evolutionists interpret it to mean something else they are reading that into the text but it seems the

Prophet Jeremiah used very similar language from Genesis 1 to metaphorically describe the fallen northern kingdom of Israel in Jeremiah 4 the

Prophet is warning Judah that they will be desolated like the northern kingdom if they do not repent in doing so he described what happened in northern

Israel by heavily borrowing from Genesis 1 he says northern

Israel is now formless and void there is no light no man no birds of the air and no vegetation even the very conservative scholar

John MacArthur acknowledges the language was taken from Genesis 1 and is used in reverse to speak of what happened in northern

Israel but this language does not mean the fabric of space -time opened up and sucked out the land of the northern kingdom the

Sun was still literally shining on the region there were still humans and there was no reason to believe birds refused to fly over the area or that no plants grew

Jeremiah is simply using this language to metaphorically say the northern kingdom no longer functions properly but if the same language is used in reverse in Genesis 1 that implies all it is saying is

God took a disordered cosmos and made it function properly for human civilizations to begin thus within the scriptures itself the implication is the language of Genesis 1 does not mean literal material creation and therefore does not necessarily refer to a literal six -day creation for Genesis 1 it seems to me that he is very much relying upon John Walton's work with regards to that the issue is not material creation at all it's assigning function to things that are already there and so what what it seems like he's trying to do is he's trying to find wiggle space in the text so as to open up the possibility that this is what might actually be happening in which case you're then if it's not about material creation you can fit in a couple of other understandings perhaps theistic evolution or something else

I mean I'm not saying that he's doing that in some nefarious way but it seems that that sort of interpretation seems to lend towards that that understanding in my opinion but oh yeah yeah

I agree and that's that's pretty common among the old creationists among the theistic evolutionists you know because it's not what we do is biblical creationists we don't so we know the scriptures could mean this or that or so you know that reading the text here this is pretty much what it's got to be we use logic and we use hermeneutics to figure out what

God is actually saying rather than all the other possibilities that God might be saying that he actually isn't in the text now this is this is another example too

I think of the the overarching fallacy of hey the Bible uses metaphor and poetic passages therefore the historical narratives can be metaphorical that that is that doesn't follow logic it's a non sequitur

Jeremiah being a prophetic passage it's written in poetic form that's pretty much always the case with Hebrew prophecy they're always written in poetic form and you can recognize that by parallelism and maybe we should cover this just briefly unless your audience is already aware of this but you know the

Jeremiah 423 I looked on the earth and behold it was formless and void and to the heavens and they had no light so you see that parallel there you have earth going along with heavens those are often mentioned together heaven and earth and you have formless and void and no light darkness okay so those two things go together whenever you have that that's an indication that you're dealing with a poetic passage and the key to interpreting poetic literature is to understand what the two things have in common and that that's the point of the passage and so for example psalm 19 1 the heavens declared the glory of God the skies proclaim the work of his hands okay that's parallelism because you have the heavens declared glory about sky heavens and sky go together his glory the work of his hands those go together because the work of his hands reflects his glory and so the way you interpret that as you say well the heavens are saying something about what

God's glory through through what they do through creation that's how you interpret it and of course

Jeremiah it's it's prophetic passage it's written in that same poetic form you can find that throughout the passage you can see the parallels there and one common feature of poetry is hyperbole perfectly acceptable where you exaggerate something to make a powerful point perfectly acceptable in poetry not acceptable if you're recording regular history because you want to keep recording facts you want to get the facts as they are but if you're making an analogy that's fine to use to use hyperbole that's what

Jeremiah is doing and the interesting thing is our critic actually got the first part of his argument there pretty much right

I think he's right about that it the Jeremiah is borrowing language from Genesis and you know so he says

I looked on the earth and behold it was formless and void to the heavens and they had no light that was actually the literal conditions of the heaven and earth the first instant before God created light before he formed and filled the earth and Jeremiah what he's doing is he's metaphorically describing the destruction that happened to Israel and what happened to Judah if they didn't repent using hyperbole saying

God is basically not uncreate he's gonna destroy you so so massively that it's like he's uncreating the universe and the interesting thing about that is it only works if Genesis is real history because if Genesis didn't really happen if it's just you know if it itself is a metaphor and Jerry's in Jeremiah saying what's gonna be like reversing that event that never actually happened then oh good

I don't need to repent that because that never actually happened and so this this destruction is not going to happen even even isn't in an exaggerated sense he says but this language the critic says but this language does not mean that the fabric of space -time opened up and sucked out the land of the northern kingdom right it's it's poetic and it's written that way and we know that because of the parallelism which you do not see in Genesis you don't have that well the claim to parallelism is not an arbitrary look you're not interpreting it literally like no no there is evidence within the text that there is

Hebrew poetry being used to make that right and it's the neat thing is it's very easy to see parallelism

Hebrew very easy it's one of those wonderful it's it's a it's a wonderful illustration of the fact that God's sovereign over history that he used the

Hebrew language to record the Old Testament of the Bible because if he used a language like English in our poetry we focus on rhyme and meter and when you translate that it's lost the beauty is lost but with parallelism it transfers into other languages

I think it's wonderful so in this case we to interpret this passage we look at what the two couplets have in common the in this case severe destruction that's that's the implication of the passage and he says if the same language is used in Genesis and he implies well then it too can be metaphorical well no it's not really the same language in the same style but they're both

Hebrew but it's not using the same style Genesis does not have that that poetic parallelism we don't see it neither synonymous nor antithetical again you might have an individual verse like when

Adam sees his wife and he breaks out in poetry that's fine but you don't find that consistent use of it throughout

Genesis and I should point out to that metaphors only work if there's an anchor point right if I say a literal anchor point

I say Joe is a real bear when he first wakes up we understand that metaphor because we understand the disposition of a literal bear it would be logical to say oh so well if Joe being a bear is metaphorical then maybe the bears themselves are all metaphorical they're not real animals they're just metaphors representing

Joe it doesn't work that way it doesn't it doesn't go backwards the metaphor depends on the real thing in order for it to make sense so Jeremiah is referring back to the literal history of Genesis but in reverse to metaphorically describe massive destruction hmm all right very good 14 and 19 the most popular objection used against young earth creationism is the fact that nights and days exist before the

Sun which is created on day four days and nights cannot exist without the earth rotating and moving around the

Sun young earth believers often reply by suggesting maybe there was another light source or they will argue that God made the light on day one and then gathered it together into the

Sun on day four but this seems unlikely since Genesis 1 talks about the

Sun and the moon being created together as lights and the composition of the moon is not the same as the

Sun you cannot gather light together to make the moon it only reflects like the

Sun okay see but this is this is why

I think having you on is helpful because you can deal with the text but you're also a scientist so you can speak with knowledge in that area and a lot of people they're either scientists who have little knowledge in the text or they're very textual but they don't really know the science so that's good yes you are visit you are an astrophysicist so perhaps you can share your thoughts here in mistakes in astronomy

I guess they bother me a little more than they would other people so his claim is that nights and days exist before the

Sun which is created on day four that's true but he says days and nights cannot exist with the earth rotating and moving without the earth rotating and moving around the

Sun that is not true all you need for day and night is to have a rotating planet any light source doesn't have to be the

Sun if there was a planet orbiting around the quasar as long as the planets rotating it'll have day and night even though quasar is not the

Sun it's a different light source you just need a light source and a rotating planet you'll have day and night was there a light source for the first three days yes there was the

Bible tells us that Genesis 1 3 and God said let there be light and there was light and God divided the light from the darkness called the light day the darkness night evening and morning or the first day so the earth's already rotating there on day one it's no problem with God creating light initially you can speculate all you want as to what kind of source

God used or whether God himself just sort of supernaturally created the light Bible doesn't tell us but it does tell us that God originally provided the light for those first three days and then on day four

God replaced that temporary light source with a permanent light bearer and other other things here he said to that it just struck me as odd he says young Earth's say that maybe

God gathered the light into the Sun day for I'm not aware of anyone that believes that I'm inclined to think that God whatever

God was doing for the first three days to provide that light he just stopped doing that and on day four he creates the

Sun turns it on the Sun replaces that temporary light source I guess God could gather light into the

Sun God can't do that but he says and he says the composition of the moon is not the same as the Sun that's true

I'm not sure how it's remotely relevant but the Bible doesn't say otherwise well doesn't say the moon and the Sun are of the same substance or of the same composition they're not he says you cannot this was energy says you cannot gather light together to make this the moon and my first reaction was no you can't gather light together to make the moon

God can do what he wants but not that I believe that but the the moon may God may have made the moon from nothing he may have made it from previous material we don't know but it was made on day four we know that because that's in that's in the text and he says the moon only reflects light from the

Sun that's and I think he's therefore thinking well therefore it's not really a light and if so then that's a semantic anachronism fallacy because maybe today we would say in order to qualify as a light something has to emit light but in Hebrew that's not the case something is something reflects light very brightly it's it's considered a light that's fine the moon reflects light it's a light therefore the planets reflect light but they're still considered lights they're part of the lights that are made on day four they're part of the cocoa bean the stars that are made on day four because planets are stars under the biblical system the

Hebrew system so they have a Hebrew word for lights more includes things that shine by reflected light as well so there's no problem okay all right very good also you just cannot separate the

Sun into pieces and have the same resulting chemistry necessary to provide sunlight for plants supposedly created on day three this whole response from younger creationist is simply oh

I had a quick question so when you say that all you need is a light source and a rotating planet that it doesn't even that doesn't even mean you need to know what that light source is true that point is just to make that you're just making that point to show that it's not inconsistent to say that it's a you know that you have night and day without the

Sun necessarily we don't have to know what that source is you know it that's not a problem to not know what it is but just just to go to show that it's not impossible to have night and day right right without rotating planet that'll do it okay all right thank you

Lee contrived an ad hoc a more likely explanation is the Sun and Moon are just elected to serve as signs for seasons and for days and years instead of being materially created and this is what

Genesis 1 is actually saying number 3 okay Genesis 128 okay he makes a comment

I don't know what he means here he says also you you just cannot separate the Sun into pieces and have the same resulting chemistry necessary to have sunlight for plants supposedly created on day three the

Sun is fairly homogenous in terms of its chemistry so you can't any part of the Sun that you remove is going to be the same as any other part in terms of the composition that gets hotter towards the core so I don't

I don't know what he's saying there but it doesn't make any sense to me I don't understand what problem there would be with God speaking the

Sun into existence creating it pretty much like it is today a little different because there's a little more helium in the core today because it's exhausted some of its fuel but yeah there's no problem there's there's no issue there that I can see and plants about you know necessary for plants plants don't need sunlight to live they just need light you can grow plants indoors you have to have the right spectrum and so on but you don't need the

Sun for plants you just need light and we had light for the first three days because God was providing it so there's no problem with plants being created on day three and enjoying that temporary light source which

I would I would guess probably had the same spectrum that the Sun does yeah so they're absorbing that just fine and then

God replaces that temporary light with the Sun on day four maybe so the Hebrews would be less inclined to worship the

Sun because God's saying the Sun's not the ultimate source of life I'm the ultimate source of life so he displaces the

Sun it's not a deity it's just an object that God created a lot of other cultures worship the Sun the Egyptians worship the

Sun and so on so God displaces it he talks about the plants supposedly created on day three well that's what the

Bible teaches the plants were made on day three it actually says that on day three it's just words like that make me think you know this

I wonder if this person is kind of a low view of Scripture because when you start questioning of things the Bible just directly says that's that's that's that's a problem

I would say you know a natural reading of Genesis 1 makes perfect sense there's no problem with astronomy the there's no problem with that God supplied the light for the first three days then he made a permanent light bearer and light bearers on day four there's no problem there he says a more likely explanation is the

Sun and Moon are just elected to serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years no that's not what the text says he didn't merely elect previously existing light sources

God can God can do that God can take people that previously exist and make disciples out of them for example and that's what the text says when

God does that with disciples but the Bible says that God made the lights and that's in Genesis 116 he made the lights a saw in the

Hebrew that's the root word and the the greater light rule today unless you're like to all the night the stars also so it specifies what those lights are each one is connected by a

Hebrew term called yet which connects the object of a verb back to the verb and so the

Sun the moon the greater light the lesser light God doesn't call them by name so they're not deities they're just objects and the stars also those are all made by God on day four so there's no doubt from the text if you take the text seriously that they were made on day four they weren't elected or appointed on day four sure all right okay let's go yeah as noted before young earth believers say before the fall the earth was blissful and perfect with no death or suffering but Genesis 128 suggests the opposite was true humanity's told to subdue the earth and have dominion over all animals in Hebrew these words are extremely harsh the first word is used of war conquest and enslavement the second word refers to ruling harshly over someone or oppression so God is telling humans to make a war like conquest on the earth because it needs subdued implying the earth wasn't perfect and humanity was elected to transform the earth into a better place but to do that meant tackling the harsh environments forcefully the scholar

Joshua John Vanney notes the use of the second word for ruling over the animals seems to suggest humans had the right to use animals for any purpose like food and clothing implying they already had the right to kill and eat animals but this means the command from God implies the earth was not a perfect blissful creation instead this verse implies the earth was chaotic and needed order brought to it also humans seem to be given the right to kill animals implying death was already in existence okay so it seems to me let me just start with the overall the broad picture here that the critic is suggesting that Genesis 128 might imply the opposite of what

Genesis 131 directly states and that's a problem and what is directly stated in 1

Corinthians 1521 that's a hermeneutical error a very basic one because one of the first things you learn about hermeneutics is the explicit constrains the implicit okay in other words the clear statements of Scripture must be used to properly understand the less clear statements of Scripture not the reverse you don't take a word or phrase that has multiple meanings and just pick one that you like during the context and then use that misunderstanding to reinterpret a very clear verse that really can't mean anything other than what it says and so you know the

Bible says that God saw everything he made and behold was very good before before sin entered the world and so to say well yeah but this other verse you know these words can be harsh and well they really aren't let's let's take a look at those words specifically in Hebrew he says in Hebrew these words are very harsh let's take a look at that passage it says be fruitful and multiply nothing harsh there fill the earth as a result of multiplying nothing harsh there and then there's the words and subdue it and have dominion over the animals and the one that sounds harshest in English would be subdue those are the and maybe have dominion even or rule over the animals people you know is that does that imply cruelty does that imply harsh and the answer is no neither of those words is neither of those words are inherently harsh subdue comes from the

Hebrew word kibosh and of course even in English subdue can mean to conquer because the root meaning of subdue is to bring into order to bring under your authority now you can do that harshly but you don't have to do it harshly right so one one example of a harsh form of subduing would be conquering a nation but that can't be the meaning in Genesis 1 it can't be the main meaning because Virginia just one because there were no nations to conquer yet that doesn't make sense that doesn't that doesn't fit the context of the passage to bring under control as another definitions do that's a little more consistent interestingly one of the definitions if you look it up in a standard standard dictionary of subdue is to bring land under cultivation to bring land under cultivation now does that fit the context sure does especially when we look at Genesis 2 and we get more explicit instructions about what

Adams to do God put Adam in the garden to work it and keep it to cultivate it so that makes perfect sense so I think that's probably what the verse is indicating when it says to subdue the earth he's talking about cultivating it bring plants under his authority now can you do that with animals too sure he's the ruler the end rule the animals but again that can be done in a sinful harsh way or can be done in a very godly way so the word itself doesn't apply harshness it's it is used in other places in Scripture it can again it can be used in warfare which is harsh but it can also be used in bringing someone or something under your authority a servant would be brought under your authority and of course under biblical law servants slaves were not allowed to be mistreated so the

Bible forbids that it's kind of like electricity right I mean electricity is not harsh it's not good or bad it can be used for good or bad things it can be used to power a hospital it can be used to electrocute someone you know the substance itself is neither good or bad it's how you use it and so it's the same way with bringing something under authority you can do that in a harsh way or in a gentle way and of course what you're doing it with plants how could that possibly be harsh

I mean an arboretum is an example of people subduing the earth and it's a great example of that I like our readings because it's kind of the way it's what we were really originally supposed to do you know to bring it's

God and man working together because man can organize where he plants the seeds but only God can make them grow and I think that's just kind of neat and then he says the second word to rule to have dominion refers to ruling harshly over someone with oppression it just doesn't the

Hebrew word radah simply means to rule to have dominion and again you can do that in a good way or harsh way a good king rules his kingdom with compassion and justice some

Kings rule harshly but that the word itself just means to rule and in fact the word is used of King Solomon King Solomon's dominion in first Kings 424 that's radah the

Solomon was a good and wise King wisest man who ever lived right Psalm 72 8 applies the applies this to the

Messiah may he rule from sea to sea he's the same word radah so does

Jesus rule harshly he has dominion but he's not a harsh he's not a harsh King he's a good

King he rules with justice and with mercy the critic says this seems to suggest that humans have the right to use animals for any purpose

I would say not any purpose but yes the word does mean that we can use animals for righteous purposes just as a good

King rules his people but he can also use his people to build cities and things like that but he must treat them with justice and compassion he can't treat them harshly it's the same with us over the animals we can use oxen to plow fields and I would

I would cite this verse in Genesis as giving us the right to do that God gave us rule over the animals we can use horses for transportation we can do that we can bring pets into our home just to love and have fun with that's fine as long as they're treated with compassion and in fact the

Bible says a righteous man has regard for the life of his animal that's Proverbs 12 10 so we are to care for and we're to rule over them but in a way that's compassionate and just so there's nothing in that verse that suggests that the world was a harsh place or that it was cruel or that there was violence or death not none of that is in that passage he goes on to say that we can use animals for any purpose like food and clothing not before sin that would have been cruel and outside the scope of our authority before sin because again it would be cruel to kill an animal for no purpose you don't need that at that time people still have to answer to God we're not the ultimate king of the earth we're stewards

God's the ultimate king and so we have to answer to him in the way in which we rule over the animals we need to rule with justice and compassion now after sin

God did prevent it's to come he instituted animal death at the time of sins to provide skins of clothing for Adam and Eve and that told them what they could do then for the coming generations and as those floors clothes were out they'd have to kill animals to provide new clothing and so on after sin yes you can kill an animal you still don't want to do it in a needlessly cruel fashion though so and then what about eating them well after the flood is the first time

God gives people permission to eat meat if you look at Genesis originally human beings and animals were all vegetarian initially and then we don't know when the animals became some of them became carnivorous but human beings were not permitted to eat meat until after the flood so now we have permission for God to use animals in that way so go ahead and enjoy that bacon praise the

Lord all right good I was feeling conviction about it I'm glad that we got that settled all right we're almost we're almost good we're making better time than I thought does these things take time so I appreciate it you're doing a great job number two is not so much a passage but the use of a

Hebrew word many young earth creationists believe this word refers to God creating out of nothing and it is used frequently throughout

Genesis 1 but looking at how the word is used outside of Genesis 1 implies para doesn't necessarily mean creation out of nothing and might not even refer to material creation at all

John Walton has done a full semantic analysis on the word and he points out the word never necessarily means creation out of nothing and there are several times it cannot mean that in Psalm 51 the author uses para to ask

God to make a new clean heart within him this obviously doesn't refer to the creation of a new material heart out of nothing in Isaiah 65 it refers to electing

Jerusalem to be a place of joy and Isaiah 43 it refers to creating the nation of Israel there which came over time and through now so this in a way is a non -starter because it

I'm not committed one way or another as to whether or not there all has to mean in all cases to create out of nothing okay some creationists believe that others don't so that's not we're not unified on that front so it's a little bit of red herring fallacy and it's not really relevant strongly relevant to creation because the first thing that God created would have to be made out of nothing just logically so now

I think a case could be made I have read cases made that barab is God speaking something into existence that has no previous existence that's its literal meaning and when

I look at Genesis in all instances I can see that fits there aren't any obvious places where it wouldn't in Genesis for example so that the real the real question is not what is the range of the word brah which is the issues getting into but rather what does it mean in the context of Genesis 1 now

I mean there's nothing wrong with examining what it means another context that's fine that might help you constrain it in Genesis 1 but we don't want to commit this fallacy of saying well this word can mean something in this context over here therefore must mean that in this context here hermeneutics doesn't work that way it's that's an unwarranted expansion of the expanded semantic field to to change you know to allow meanings that do not fit the context even though the word could mean that in a different context sure so so John Walton apparently says that he points out the word never necessarily means creation of nothing

I would take issue with that in Genesis 1 1 the creation of heaven earth in the beginning must have been out of nothing why logic because it was in the beginning the first things that God creates the first thing that God created has to be made out of nothing because there was nothing else to make it out of and so it would have to be that in the context of Genesis 1 1 the only alternative would be you have some other eternal substance co -eternal with God that made universe from that now would be heretical because God alone is now you would you agree with dr.

Walton that the word doesn't necessarily mean that would you agree with that but say given

Genesis 1 though it seems to strongly suggest that that is the case yeah I'm saying I'm not I'm not committed one way or another as to whether or not the raw has to mean okay create out of nothing but it does have to mean that Genesis 1 and that's the issue that's that's the issue that we're going into the one with here so it's fine to discuss what it means in other contexts but to then try to import that into Genesis 1 it's not going to do that and I would say that there are no clear examples in scripture being used in its literal sense to mean anything other than creation out of nothing there's there's no there's no verse where it necessarily has another meaning now several have been brought up here but all of these are examples from poetic sections of scripture where the word is being used a poetic sense it is the verse that's on the screen right now

Isaiah 43 1 he who created you Oh Jacob he who formed you Oh Israel created and formed those are synonyms because they both you know bringing something into existence

Jacob and Israel those are two different names for the same person so you can see that parallelism there and create a new clean heart renew a right spirit in me they go together clean heart yeah right spirit clean heart go together and create and renew go together they're not exactly the same but they go together and so you can't then take you know words in a poetic section where they can be used in a non -literal sense and then try to import that non -literal meaning back into historical narrative where they're meant to be meant to be taken literally it's so you know he's basically trying to say see it doesn't it doesn't have to mean literally create out of nothing in these poetic sections

I agree but that's true of all words any word it can take on a long literal meaning in poetry you know tiger tiger burning bright in the forest of the night that doesn't mean that Tigers literally burn us we can't say well you know that's burning is therefore a property of a tiger no because you can't take poetry and apply it literally like that it doesn't it doesn't work even here you know create in me a clean heart even that is consistent with the literal meaning of the word because we know he's not talking about the physical heart anyway it's talking about the core of our being and there are other passages where God doesn't transform our hearts so much as remove our heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh so you know that he's made out of nothing so even there it's not it's not necessarily meaning but I will grant that in poetic literature words can take on all sorts of non -literal meanings that has no relevance to what the word means in historical narrative particularly in the context of justice one one

I'm seeing some confusion in the in the comments here it may be the case and I don't want to speak for Michael Jones but I do believe he believes in creation ex nihilo yes he may just think it's not being necessarily taught in Genesis 1 that's

I think that's probably his position I'd have to double -check that so same thing with John Walton I think John Walton who he relies heavily upon believes in creation ex nihilo but thinks that Genesis 1 is not necessarily talking about that because of the reasons he gives saying that it's more functional as opposed to you know creating you know new matter okay all right let's let's we're almost done here you're doing an excellent job dr.

Lyle thanks and are you having fun all right there we go natural processes in Ezekiel 21 it refers to making a sign is even used to refer to David not eating food there are times it could refer to material creation out of nothing but it never necessarily does and there are clear examples where Barack cannot refer to material creation so there is no reason to assume that that is the meaning in Genesis 1 especially given the previous problems that we have gone over Kenneth Matthews knows for a more likely refers to bringing about activity rather than material manufacturing implying

Genesis 1 is not about material creation before we number one remember to subscribe and hit the okay so I noticed a mistake in 2nd

Samuel 12 17 that's not an instance of the wrong actually it's a similar word it's not a very similar but it's not okay a mistake there but we all make mistakes that's fine it seems to me that all always really demonstrated in this section is that non -literal sections of Scripture can use words non -literally but I don't dispute that he says so there's no reason to assume that that's the meaning in Genesis 1 well yes there is context and logic context and logic context

Genesis 1 historical narrative frequent use of the verb consecutive that's the way

Jews recorded their history so there's no doubt that that's what it's referring to is literal history it's

Genesis 1 in the beginning God created but ah it's that's that's the word that he uses and he's you know well he says it couldn't it doesn't necessarily mean to make out of nothing

I would take issue with that in Genesis 1 it has to mean to make out of nothing there because it's the first thing that God created if it wasn't then it wouldn't be the beginning right if God created something you know billions of years ago and then finally got around and then changed that into heaven and earth then it wouldn't be in the beginning that God may create it or made heaven and earth it would be the much later that's not the text as it's in the beginning that God created down in the earth so it's at the start of time that indicates that's the first thing or first things

God created heaven and earth and so logically the first thing that God makes has to be made out of nothing because otherwise it wouldn't be the first thing that God made and so just from logic we can see that in Genesis 1 1 logic and hermeneutics we can see that in that in that instance of it all would have to mean to make out of nothing yeah that's confirmed in other scriptures where you know that we know that the worlds were not made out of things which appear which are visible they're made out of nothing it's consistent

God calls those things into existence that had no previous existence that's a consistent theme throughout scripture

I'm not gonna debate whether or not Baral has to mean that in all instances that's that's not a downhill issue for me but it does mean that in Genesis 1 1 and that's the important one for this this conversation all right

I have motion sensors so the light okay there we go I had to move my chair that's the dark all right let's continue notification bell so you are updated when new videos are coming out we have several videos on archaeological evidence for the life of Abraham to the

Exodus coming out over the next few months so hit the bell and stay updated to know when these videos are published and now finally number one

Genesis 1 verse 1 this may come as a shock to you but the very first verse of the

Bible can create difficulties for young earth models the reason is over the past few decades scholars have noted the first verse lacks a definite article in Hebrew so the way we translate it may not be accurate instead scholars like John Sal hammer and Robert Homestead have argued it would make more sense to translate it as when

God began to create the heavens in the earth what this would mean is verse 1 is no longer a complete sentence but what we would call a dependent clause in an incomplete sentence so this would mean verse 1 is dependent on the following clause which is in verse 2 so Genesis is really saying when

God began to borrow the heavens in the earth the earth was formless and void in other words when

God started burying the heavens in the earth it was already there as formless and void so many scholars know this implies

Genesis 1 is not about bringing the universe in the earth into existence for the first time but is about God transforming the earth from a chaotic state into an ordered state if the

Hebraic form of verse 1 and 2 implies the earth was already there existing before the creation week then the text supports an extended period of time prior to this and is not actually stating the absolute beginning point of our universe now

I know some of these points might come as a shock to you but we are not arguing this creates okay is that is that and I think he ends there right yeah so there's nothing more to listen to at that point

I'm gonna remove that and get us both some there we go okay right good so he says the first verse lacks a definite article in Hebrew that's true

I'll come back to what that means I said so the way we translate it may not be accurate and one thing

I do want to point out because I don't think he's remotely right in anything he said here other than I think it is legitimate for people to go back and ask the question has that word or phrase been translated correctly because I'm not claiming that any particular modern

English translation is infallible I'm claiming the original Hebrew and text that God inspired is infallible so that's fine we need to go back and check that but I do have to say if if every major English translation of scripture translates the word phrase exactly the same way that's a pretty good indication that it's been translated properly because the people the people that translated the

Bible these are no dummies these are people that you can read Hebrew and Greek is better than I can read English these are these are scholars and while an individual translation might get some there are some translations where they they differ on how the verse should be translated those are the ones that you look into and you say okay where do

I come down on this maybe look at the text and usually it's not easy otherwise they would have all come down on the issue the same way but when somebody comes along and says no all all the

Bible translations have been getting this wrong for millennia that raises an immediate red flag that's an indication that no you probably don't you probably don't know

Hebrew or logic as well as you think you do now to the issue here the the definite article that's a word like V in the

English language right so the dog that refers to a definite example of a dog so that's the definite article a dog would be the word a would be an indefinite article and Hebrew has a

Hebrew has the definite article and it's it's like the letter H in English so just a little hop in front of in front of the word so chamayim is heaven so ha chamayim would be the heavens okay and so and Hebrew has no indefinite article so a lot of times when a verse is translated if there's no definite article you think well it's probably it should be translated a whatever and I've heard people argue that he didn't our critic here didn't quite argue that way but I have heard people argue that Genesis 1 should be translated in a beginning because the definite article is not there and I understand that but it's not accurate the the word for beginning is resheath in Hebrew and the thing you need to understand is that even though it doesn't have the definite article in front of it it's always used in a definite sense in scripture

Hebrew the Hebrew language is not the same as English and there are places in Hebrew where you have a the definite article there hot whatever the whatever that in English it sounds awkward so English translations remove it and there are other places where definite this is is indicated but the word the is not or the

Hebrew equivalent ha is not there and yet we had it in English to make sense and so I would argue that the translators have translated

Genesis 1 one correctly it really does mean in the beginning because resheath whenever it's used in scripture it always has it in every instance

I could find it always has deafness to it resheath in scripture never has a in front of it it never has the definite article attached and yet it's always translated the beginning in every single instance

I'll give you some examples here Jeremiah 26 1 in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim that's resheath without the definite article in fact it's boresheath because the

Hebrew word for in like in the beginning would be but you just attach it to the front of the word so boresheath means in the beginning it's exactly the same as in Genesis 1 1 now could that mean in a beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim no that wouldn't make any sense because he reigned once so it's a beginning of his reign one beginning so that wouldn't make any sense

Jeremiah 27 1 in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah it's boresheath Jeremiah 28 1 in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah again again it's boresheath

Proverbs 1 7 the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom it's reishi it does not have the definite article in front of it should it just be a beginning of wisdom no the fear of the

Lord is the beginning of wisdom so it's been properly translated and likewise justice 1 1 is properly translated gray sheep never has the definite article in Hebrew but it would translate it to English it always does and that that's the only way that would make sense so so then it goes on to say it would make sense to translate it as when

God began to create the heavens and the earth I'm sorry but that's just wrong boresheath means in the beginning that's the way it's translated to English that's what it means if you wanted to say when

God began it would be a key heck at all Elohim he had

Elohim totally different construction that's how you would say when God began and that's that's used in passages like Genesis 6 1 when men began to multiply that's that's the way it's there so and by the way if even if it were phrased that way you know he

Elohim wouldn't be brought after that right it wouldn't be when God began created it would be when

God began to create but all would be in the infinitive form at least in English and I think in Hebrew as well although I admit your verb forms are hard but but all is in the it's in the call perfect form it's not too pretty it's not in the beginning it's not when

God began to create it's in the beginning God created that's really what the words mean in Hebrew and he says that would make

Genesis 1 an incomplete sentence according some sense it's it's moot to talk about that because that's just not the way it's not what the words mean in the

Hebrew language it's requiring verse 2 to complete the clause no because then

I wouldn't have the end in front of it and the earth was without form and void in the beginning when God began to create the heaven and the earth the earth was without wouldn't be an end there and the earth was without form in fact the verse 2 is using a what's called a

Bob can set or Bob disjunctive and that's where you have and followed by a non -verb and that indicates that it's commenting on what happened previously normally in Hebrew the verb comes first and then the noun but if you want to comment on something that just happened you can you can flip that especially if the noun was mentioned previously to keep the focus on in this case the earth so in the beginning

God created them in the earth and the earth it's kind of what we use parentheses for in English verse 2 is describing the conditions that existed when

God first created a heaven in the earth okay so it's a parenthetical comment that's what verse 2 is it's not the completion of a sentence it's and and then it gives additional information to tell us what the earth looked like when when

God first created it before he formed and filled it it was formless avoid so so he says so Genesis is really saying when

God began to borrow the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void in other words when when

God started borrowing the heavens and the earth it was already there as formless and void that's just not what the text says there is a way to say that in Hebrew if that's what

God had intended to say he could say that and I gave the example of how you would say that in Hebrew so it really was in the beginning that God created the heavens and the earth not billions years later and he goes on to say if a

Hebrew form first one and two implies the earth was already there existing before the creation week then the text supports an extended period of time prior to this now it doesn't follow even if you were right about that it wouldn't it wouldn't demand millions of years with it you at best it would allow for it but I would say that even that is not allowed in the text because there are many passages that confirm the recent origin of the universe remember in Mark 10 6 when

Jesus said from the beginning of creation God made them male and female is referring to the creation of Adam and Eve and puts that at the beginning which makes sense because they were there on the first week some people say well it wasn't the first instant

I think the first week counts as the beginning but if it was millions of years later that wouldn't make any sense at all he's referring to the creation of you know the beginning of creation he says so he specifies that Romans 120

Paul argues that people have no excuse to suppress the knowledge of God because they have seen his power in nature since the creation of the world okay and that wouldn't be true if the world were created billions of years ago people would only recently have had access to that but in fact people have had access to the creation since the sixth day of creation when the world was still being created albeit at the end of that creation week so not billions of years later so I just encourage people to you know

I hope you can see what's going on here I think if you just if you read the Bible naturally if you read it in the way of Jesus and the

Apostles took the scriptures they took they took them as history took the historical sections as history they took the Psalms of Psalms we should do the same and you know if you're gonna believe the

Gospels if you're gonna believe a man can rise from the dead you might as well go ahead and believe the Bible when it talks about the creation of the universe why not you're gonna be made fun of either way all right well you've given a lot of a lot to chew on and I as I tell people all the time

I listen to my own podcast because I have to sometimes I'm like navigating multiple things so I have to go back and listen so I can get all the the nuggets but uh do you have a few minutes to take a couple of questions

I don't okay so we'll get some of these this is quick you could answer it quick and then we move on so that we can get through you know more questions than if we were to give more in depth but I'm gonna do some super chat once because they were nice enough to give a couple of bucks

I appreciate that Jason what's the difference he has these Hebrew I don't know if you could read that I can't be let me see if I can enlarge it a little bit okay a little bit of Hebrew but you're a visual test okay so that's but a sheet and okay it's it's just a pointing that's different okay so the vowel pointing is different on B on the buff one of the other one it lacks the degash so it would be but but a sheath

I'm not familiar with the well I'm reading right to left because Hebrew is right to left so that's what would be the second term so I can't tell you sorry about that like I don't know no worries no worries that difference ratio itself just means beginning and normally we put the beat you put the bait right you detach it to it that's the way it is in scripture there's no space there so if you attach it to it all right and thank you for that question here's another question to what extent of the early church fathers understand the young earth creationism thanks for coming dr.

Lyle hi Eli yeah I recently I actually did some articles on that so you might want to look on our website if you don't mind a shameless promotion their biblical science

Institute comm because Phil this year the creator veggie tales had made some comments about young earth creation he seemed to think that it was a very recent aberration from what the

Bible teaches but but no the early church fathers were I won't say completely unified but it was certainly the dominant position throughout church history until 1700s 1800s the and it was mainly from geologists who began importing the philosophies of uniformitarianism into their interpretations of the rock layers that civil it really this can't be done by one flood it had this happen gradually over millions of years people then began to come up with things like the day age theory and the gap theory yeah those are those are fairly recent though the gap theory particularly 1800s people didn't believe that before that where there's supposedly a gap between Genesis 1 1 1 2 throughout church history the majority of people believed in a recent creation even folks like Augustine who didn't take

Genesis entirely literally he still believed in a world that's less than 6 ,000 years old and I have a quote from him to that effect so that was the dominant position you will find one or two here there that that wanted to argue for the the

Greek philosophy because Greek the Greek thinking influenced the church and the Greeks believed in the Lord so you'll find a little bit that but it wasn't common until 1700s 1800s all right very good

James asks is dr. Lyle a Hebrew scholar because major Hebrew scholars wouldn't say that IP that's inspiring philosophy they wouldn't say that what he said is totally wrong with regards to the possibility of certain words having the meanings that he suggested okay no

I'm not a Hebrew scholar no I have the joy of knowing Hebrew scholars I know Stephen Boyd personally he's a PhD in Hebrew and so if you have questions about that I rely a lot on his information so if you have specific questions on a specific nuance of a

Hebrew term I suggest you look up Stephen Boyd especially his chapter in the rate book which is just wonderful that's where he analyzes the verb forms in Genesis 1 and shows that it is undeniably historical narrative it's not in their course should be interpreted literally it's not a poem or anything like that okay all right well

I had a question someone asked it a while back and I can't find it but I'm interested in this and then we'll wrap things up because I want to respect your time which

I feel like I've disrespected you time we went so long but as long as you don't mind I don't mind it I'm learning a lot as well someone mentioned with regards to the global flood that if the flood was global how did the

Nephilim how are the Nephilim in existence after the flood would that would it would it not be the case that they were destroyed prior to the flood yeah they were

Nephilim Nephilim well there's there's some debate about that word that's the Hebrew word there's some debate about what it means it's similar to the

Hebrew word for to fall so it might mean fallen ones some people think they were angel human hybrids

I don't I stay away from that interpretation I think that the Nephilim the bottom line is the

Nephilim that existed before the flood were different to feel them than existed after the flood that's that's the answer they didn't survive they were killed and then new people were born and I I think the feeling we're just human beings that fell away from the faith so that word is applied for those unbelievers in the

Old Testament and those before the flood pardon me and also those that came about after the flood hmm okay all right well thank you so much this was this was awesome very guys if you appreciate what dr.

Lyle had to say I would strongly I would strongly suggest that you support his ministry I mean it takes money to and time to do the things that he does and so I'm sure he'd greatly appreciate if you go over to his website biblical science

Institute comm and support whether it's just taking in the content or financial support that'd be very much appreciative one last word with regards to how we should interact with one another on this topic

I do see a lot of contention on this topic it is okay to passionately disagree but you need to do that in a way that is itself consistent with Scripture we need to be able to talk about these things without necessarily judging someone's motives

I see people you know sometimes saying someone like you know Michael Jones like oh well he's just trying to do a

B and C let's not attack the person let's actually take his arguments and interact with them like dr. Lyle tried to do and if you disagree with dr.

Lyle address his arguments that that's how we should be doing it instead of attacking the person because that keeps lines of communication open you have fruitful discussion as a result so I just want to encourage folks to to approach this topic in that fashion all right well with that said