00:00:00 Introductions 00:04:31 Michael Jones Opening 00:23:58 Marcus Ross Opening 00:45:24 Michael Cross Examination 00:56:06 Marcus Cross Examination 01:06:40 Moderated Dialogue 01:27:44 Audience Q&A 01:55:25 Conclusion
I kind of hate how Dr Ross seems to be sarcastic and talking down to Michael Jones. There's a slight level of disrespect, I don't appreciate. I appreciate that Michael kept his composure
Hard to not be sarcastic when your opponent (IP in this case) literally has the worst possible arguments. Hard to take IP's theistic evolutionism seriously. Dr. Ross gave IP a free education and IP should be thanking Marcus for that
Three weeks ago I would have strongly sided with Ross. Now I'm totally on Jones' side. I've learned so much about ancient Near Eastern mythology in the last three weeks. I'm now completely convinced Genesis 1-11 is Jewish myth and a polemic against the other Mesopotamian religions.
I’m just here to note with everyone else that whichever guy represented my pre-existing views really owned the other guy whom I happened to disagree with already. 🙂
Nah, I became a theistic evolutionist *after* I heard Ross say "Well that's your view but it's not the scriptural view so we need to work on that." When that's the whole topic of the debate. So him revealing himself to be a supreme douche harmed his cause given that Jones is very disagreeable, but remained pleasant through the debate.
@@jacknickelson8096I wouldn't become a Christian because its beneficial. Id most likely get murdered if I'm the type of Christianity to speak loudly and don't care what anyone says if it's only me murdered but then again eternal life and One relationship with God who's beyond the foundation of mere existence as we conceive of it. But I certainly wouldnt lean to theism because some guy failed to provide emotional support it's disruptive to hear any atheist curse and slander their Christian opponent. Atheism is wrong on almost everything that it doesn't already steal from God.
@@NSOcarththat's what I was thinking. My views weren't pre existing. But if his foundation of his strength faith is firmly steady then I guess it's good.
@@jmorrayeah we're probably both wrong mabey God made the universe trillions of years old bruh. Trillionaire earther vs billionaire earther vs thousand year earther fun dun dun! Realistically It's up To God to tell us ultimately we shouldn't fight over this silly stuff. It's not nonsense. But IT IS nonsense to fight for it.
This debate was very educative and intellectual. I haven't done enough research on the subject so this is a good reference. Good job to both Mike and Dr. Ross for working and bringing their findings to us, and Cameron for hosting; loved the way you moderated
So glad I was there to attend! Very good debate, and well moderated. I enjoyed the honesty and intellectuality of the speakers, particularly Inspiring Philosophy! Edit: As fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, can we please be thoughtful and kind in the reply section? Our differences in our interpretation of Genesis shouldn't distract us from our mutual belief in Jesus.
I think both came short in some ways. Dr Ross seemed to be attacking Mike’s worldview rather than critiquing the translations by scholars. But Mike wasn’t as concise or firm with his arguments, and I think that’s why many say “Ross won.”
@@sidtom2741 I did notice that (on IPs part I mean, specifically in his opening statements). While I disagree with Mr Ross's YEC view, I would partly agree that he won the debate. But, you can win the battle and lose the war. Cheers! :)
@@StandingForTruthMinistries Thats not exactly the most respectful way you couldve put that. Even as a YEC you should atleast give credit where it is due and praise IP, not just start saying he twists and turns scripture to fit his ideas that are contrary to yours.
The opening statements were great. Loved the mutual respect. The cross-examination, Dr. Ross started to use debate tactics and appeal to snarky remarks, which in my opinion is a sign of desperation and frustration - that was a bit disappointing. Apart from that, this was an excellent debate. I'm no where near a theistic evolution interpretation, but I do hold to a Framework position. (It was neat to see Jones use it a bit to touch on the priesthood of Adam and temple theology.) Overall, I agree more with Ross in this debate. I just wish he kept that same energy in the cross examination. Jones was pretty consistent and sharp throughout the whole event. Good job on moderating, Cameron!
"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." Philippians 2:3 Humbly serve others following the perfect example of Jesus. He said that He came not to be served but to serve others and give His life for others. (Matthew 20:28). Let us be humbled by the awesomeness and greatness of God and the unworthiness of ourselves. CS Lewis said that true humility is not thinking less of yourselves but rather thinking of yourself less. Let us look each day for opportunities to serve God and thus others, and be empowered by the Spirit to do these things glorifying God. Hopefully this impacted you positively today. God bless you!
You have no idea how happy I was when I saw that these two guys are debating. I have been listening to Michael for a couple of years now and I love his content. I am currently taking online classes at Liberty University and just finished a class where Dr. Ross helped teach. Okay, now time to watch the debate. Thanks!
@@Tessinentdecken there is no definitive evidence that is was written by Moses and there is no passage that says Moses writes like in the rest of the Pentateuch. However, the theory with the most evidence and scripture backing is that Moses wrote Genesis.
I definitely believe the earth is old, but I'm not too confident on my understanding of adam and eve, the days in genesis, and origins... i'm open to be persuaded... I have no problem with God using evolution to create all of all life.
Not to toot my own horn but I've made a few videos on the subject. There not the best quality in the world but if I was successful in my task I did a decent job of giving an explanation of Adam and Eve and the days in Genesis
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
@@austinapologetics2023 You don't need to. Genesis is a creation myth modelled on the older Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. Don't tell your followers that though, huh? 😉 *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
@@ancientfiction5244 We don't really care the ancient wisdom is known and written down in other narratives, but there are significant differences. But nice of you to take the difficulty to copy and paste you're message everywhere.
The Oxford Annotated Bible and the Harper Collin’s Study Bible have pretty thorough footnotes which touch on some of the grammatical details that Michael mention. I personally liked the Harper Collin’s notes better, but the Oxford Bible also included a lot of scholarly essays as well.
John Walton and Craig Keener’s Niv Cultural Background study Bible has a lot. It doesn’t really talk about IP’s view of Genesis 1:1 but it’s great otherwise.
@@taylorj.1628 lol a genuine statement. Love might be a bit exaggerating for it, but it’s genuine. I like the idea of having a bible to read that has accurate wording.
Get a Jewish version of Bible. These grammatical anomalies have been discussed at length and in depth. In fact, everything he mentioned came from these commentators.
Hi Cam! Thanks for putting up good contents always. Just a suggestion, it will be really helpful if you can put timestamps on the description for debate videos. God bless!
That was actually one of the best debates I’ve ever seen to be honest. The only thing that I was surprised about that was not talked about or at least more in depth was the ages of the pre flood people. Sure this would be in favor for the YEC so I was interested in seeing how IP would’ve responded to that question/topic.
He's made videos on that. His argument is that Hebrew numbers have certain meanings and that the ages actually symbolize important characteristics or accomplishments of the people rather than their actual time on earth.
@@vladislavstezhko1864 Well, I think it’s important to know the nature of the language that the scriptures are written in. I guess that’s why certain people are vocationally called to study the linguistics of the Bible, and why we can be grateful for their work.
@@bornagainbart8352 If the text is inspired I don't think one would require tremendous external academic knowledge to understand. When Jesus came he didn't go to the Pharisees, he went to Fishermen, he spoke to the laymen first and in ways they understood, not debate the academics above the heads of everyone else. We should study the bible exhaustively to understand what it tells us about how to live, but finding interpretations to meet contemporary scientific theories seems like a waste of time. Most of them are going to reject it whether it fits with their timelines or not.
@@kriegjaeger but if the text is inspired should it be easily understood by a 21st Century American or a 5th Century BC Jew or an illiterate 18th Century Chinese Peasant? The most central parts of scripture are easily understandable - the greatest commandments are love, God is a Father, Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Do all the details need to be easily understood as they clearly aren't. Revelation says that the number 666 should be understandable by anyone and the church has frequently debated what it means since (as the meaning was presumably obvious to 1st Century Christians but not as obvious to all peoples subsequently).
Very interesting debate! I am so happy to be part of it! I think it maybe a wrong interpretation of languages, and some chronological issues written in the time! Bless you all! Anna UK. 🙏🏻
Terrible theology. Trying to massage Darwinian evolution into Genesis is a waste of time. Darwinism is a failure while the historical approach to Genesis is more sound.
I think what frustrates me about this debate primarily come from Dr. Ross. First, he often “jabs” and belittles Michael Jones’ views with side comments(though this is my smallest issue). Second, he tries to pin Michael to a specific interpretation of the text. Michael’s position in the debate to say Evolution is compatible with the text, not “this is my view if the text.” Michael merely has to argue that one can interpret Scripture faithfully and believe in evolution, that case is made. Third, there are times where Dr. Ross dismisses points the Michael makes essentially because Dr. Ross presumes he’s right. His engagement on more than one occasion amounts to “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” What’s the point of a debate/discussion if you’re unwilling to actually interact with the other view. Michael in the other hand, really seems to be engaging with Dr. Ross’ view and wrestles with it.
The... “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” is a common type of fallacy but I forget the name for it.
@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD My understanding is that sin = disobeying God. Just because God forbids something doesn't mean that something didn't happen before. There is no record in the scriptures that murdering was a sin before Cain and Abels time, however, when Cain murder his brother, he committed sin.
Michael you have greatly helped me in the process of keeping my faith being in the minority of an evolutionary theist, thank you for your work, and keep it up!
Young earth creation almost made me turn my back on god how can u see out into space millions of light years but space only being 6000 years old inspiring philosophy saved me from turning away from god bc I didn’t have to deny basic logic and science to believe in god
@@tonyabrown7796 a big bang and since posting this I have read the Bible cover to cover and decided I am no longer Christian and I’ve completely dropped “faith” idk how anyone could read that book and say that a all loving all powerful god wrote that book when it was clearly written by barbaric savages that didn’t know any better
@@the_banshee6708nobody says that God literally wrote that book. Much of the Bible is descriptive, not prescriptive I highly suggest you check out the book ‘Is God a moral monster’ by Paul copan I will be happy to share more resources with you if you like. Remember, Jesus is real and He loves you so much
I'm really interested on Michael's argument of Adam in the eighth day. I think he is referencing a guy names Benjamin (Gilker? Quilker? Kilcher?). I am unable to understand the full name. Does anyone have the full reference? Thanks.
Well, if isn’t, that’s a problem for genesis, not a problem for evolution because there’s much more evidence that evolution happens and humans evolved from a common ancestor with other species then there is that genesis is true.
One thing that this debate makes clear: the church has certainly for most of its history interpreted Genesis in YEC terms in some form. Now we have to ask ourselves, why do we reinterpret to be in line with evolution? Why is the answer never the other way around? It’s an important question.
I am a YEC and Micheal did a great job bringing a new perspective and I found it quite interesting, my mind has not changed but I think theistic evolution is still a strong option but not the strongest one personally.
Very good and charitable take. Most of the discussion in the comments have been good too, which is nice to see. I'm a former YEC, now an OEC/TE, but I think Dr. Ross has moved up in my book as the best defender of the YEC position and I really appreciate his defense, even if I disagree.
Mike did a great job here. Swamidass pointed it out quite well that Ross wasn't able to demonstrate incompatibility with the ancient near east context of the Bible.
I'm a YEC. I've been following Michael and Cam's ministries for years (ironically I'm unfamiliar with Marcus Ross), and I just wanted to thank Cameron for hosting this debate at his conference and giving him his own breakout session the next day. I hope he continues to foster dialogue on this important topic.
YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. You should just raise your kids atheist, and skip the part where they apostatize due to YEC nonsense and become leftists for a couple decades. Or, you know, raise them with a biblical interpretation compatible with the natural world (i.e. old earth).
Just curious how do you deal with the fact that rocks and minerals in the Grand Canyon and other surface to very deep rocks and minerals contain samples that can be dated by radiometric dating and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating that are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of one another (the factors that lead to the dating technology is completely unrelated from each other). Radiometric dating uses daughter products from radioactive decay, while OSL dating using metal oxides (rocks are Silicon oxides primarily) and they absorb and integrate the radiation background until the moment they are analyzed. Interestingly enough BOTH of these dating techniques give the exact same dates for GRAND CANYON sediments taken from the top of the Canyon to the bottom at regular intervals. Isn't it amazing that they are in TOTAL AGREEMENT over the entirety of this geological column? Even if you don't concur with these dating techniques, you must take issue with the fact that no HUMAN BONES are mixed with DINOSAUR fossilized bones. I have personally reviewed all the ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos tapes and there are FATAL FLAWS with absolutely ALL OF THEM. If you have to LIE to reveal BIBLICAL TRUTH then there might be a PROBLEM WITH THE STORY YOU ARE TELLING!! Note I am not saying there is any problem with the BIBLE, my PROBLEM is with these YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!! It's amazing how COCKY Marcuss Ross comes across like he knows all the answers, yet they GLOSS OVER ANYTHING THEY HAVE ISSUE WITH! My challenge to YOUNG EATHERS IS TO PUBLISH their "scientific work" in REPUTABLE SCIENCE JOURNALS and submit yourself to the same SCRUTINY that all Scientists have to submit to!!
I think Dr. Ross’ arguments were very compelling. It seemed more consistent with scripture and didn’t require assumption. Michael Jones is a very formidable debater.
Too bad YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. Raising your kids YEC all but guarantees they'll turn into atheists as adults. Meanwhile, old earth Christians have no problem with science. Also, Ross was a condescending prick (probably why you found him compelling).
I would say its weird to assume anything outside of what God purposely revealed to us. If we trust in Him to preserve his word, it would be weird to argue that "In the beginning" was never there, though all translations have it. @M.E-Martinez
Michael Jones is far from formidable. His interpretation of scripture is based on assumptions and external scholars, rather than on the clear and contextual reading of The Bible itself. I just can't take him seriously at all. The concept of evolution was alien when all 66 books of The Bible were written. Only now, in the modern age, have people tried to reinterpret The Bible and make it fit the evolution fairy tale. If evolutionary theory didn't exist then no Christian would get it from The Bible. They would just be believing in the creation story as it's presented. People are just taking manmade modern theories and injecting them into scripture. That's an observable fact. Show me anyone in the past who taught evolution is in The Bible, and who didn't accept the creation story as it's presented. This interpretation of scripture is a very serious sin in my opinion. It's the fear of man, where people go along with the popular accepted theory in society in order to fit in. It's either due to cowardice or brain washing. Those Christians who affirm evolution are either under the fear of man, or they've been genuinely brainwashed. That's the only two possibilities. The latter is more understandable, but the former is due to spiritual weakness. There is a lot of pressure to go along to get along, especially when your job, social staus, and even relationships can be at risk.
56:36 Dr. Marcus Ross says that John Walton says that Genesis 1:1 MUST be translated at “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” because otherwise it would contradict with Walton’s view of functional ontology. This is simply untrue. I specifically asked John Walton in my interview with him on my channel and he explicitly said that translating Gen. 1:1 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth” would add more evidence for Walton’s view of Genesis 1. This was a very odd claim by Dr. Ross. The video is called "Bible Scholar Puts Genesis 1 in Context ft. John Walton" and the time stamp is at 22:03 if anyone is interested.
@@dustinkfc6633 The most popular view in the 1700s was either gap theory or day-age. This is a bit different as there's no gap at all since creation wouldn't start until Genesis 1:3.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou “When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void.” JSB My mistake, not 1700’s, but the Middle Ages. I thought Hebrew scholars back in the Middle Ages thought it be translated this way?
I love IP, love his channel, his ministry, his teachings, I genuinely love his stuff but I’ve always disagreed with his arguments on theistic evolution. Maybe it’s my bias, but he missed the mark for providing a coherent and consistent argument for his position. Love the debate
@@Tornadospeed10 Holy cow. It was only 50 bucks a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know of anywhere else to get it right now. I'd try finding a pdf, but it's a long read for a screen.
@@Tornadospeed10just in case you never found it or anybody else is wondering, you can look up the title along with “internet archive” and it shows up 👍
Few points I really appreciate here; The civility This isn't a salvation issue If either side is wrong, it's an issue of interpreting the text My contention; If scripture is inspired then I would expect God continues to manage it in some degree to ensure the gospel can be understood by the laymen, not interpretations that require academic study and outside knowledge. It seems the intent behind re-interpreting scripture for millions of years and evolution is not to get closer to the truth, but pre-supposing that contemporary theories are truth and if the Bible disagrees, it is wrong.
Though I strongly disagree with Dr. Ross I’d say he did the best he could for his position and he seems very intelligent. Also I appreciate his ability to somehow make us laugh and bringing down tension. He has a great personality and confidence from what I can tell. I still agree with IP though even though I don’t believe in evolution yet
I think a good source for arguments against the theory of evolution, but not necessarily against an ancient earth, would be two books called" signature in the cell" and "Darwin's doubt"by Dr Stephen C Meyer.
@@calebsmith7179 In my look on the internet for the evidence I didn’t find anything very compelling. I found the data didn’t necessarily lead to what people say it does. To be fair that was from a basic internet search so I’m sure academic books from scholars in the field would be better. But until I see the evidence and conclude that it leads to the type of evolution most people are talking about, I’ve yet to be convinced
@@gospelfreak5828 to help me understand where you are coming from, how exactly have you come to know evolution? There is misinformation everywhere these days.
Other than the frustration that the debaters didn't seem to focus on the debate topic specifically, Dr. Ross's continued insistence on "focusing on the context", in response to verses and words that seem in conflict with his view, and then proceeding to merely offer the context the "right" context by reinterpreting such verses in light of his model apart from using the text itself, is blatantly eisegesis and concordism (reading science into the text). He would have been better off simply stating that he wasn't sure why the text read the way it does.......was very frustrating 😜
I gotta say our family in Jesus has got some of the smartest people I’ve seen, Jesus really spares no knowledge and wisdom to those who want it and search for it. I got alot of pride in being with Jesus and his family wouldn’t trade Jesus for a single thing in this world. Hands down best thing I’ve ever done in my life is go to Jesus. Much love to all you guys God bless whoever is reading this.
Well then, lets put that to the test, shall we? PResent ANY SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, FACT, PIECE OF EVIDENCE, OR EXPLANATION EVER MADE that was gained specifically through your religious beliefs and not scientific research. Alternatively, admit that all knowledge comes from us studying the world, and not from believing in fictional characters like Jesus and God.
Can you give me one specific recent example of evidence of evolution that’s not “millions” of years old? Whats imaginary is this theory of evolution that’s been placed by Darwin even though all he had under his belt was a degree in religion. This theory is as credible and evidential as the Big Bang theory.
@@edihoxhalli do a simple DNA test between you and your parents. What you'll find is genetic mutations in your DNA. These mutations are Evolution. We find that in every living thing, in every generation. If your dog had puppies, you can do a DNA test between them and you'll find genetic mutations as well. That's Evolution. Banana's have been cultivated by man to be the way they are. Wild banana's are short, straight, bitter, and filled with large seeds. Domesticated banana's are longer, curve, have small seeds, and are sweet when ripe. Dogs are bred by humans from wolves and are now available in a wide variety. Various vegetables are the result of human intervention through selective breeding. Bacteria evolving nylonase to digest nylon, which is not a natural product and thus an example of Evolution. Humans growing larger brains and smaller jaws. Tetrachromic vision. Malaria resistance. Cholesterol resistance. Ability to digest lactose. Etc. all examples of Evolution within the last 10.000 years. And you're right, both Evolution and the Big Bang are scientific Theories, meaning they've been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Gravity also has Theories btw.
@@jehandesains8674 but their still theories. You atheist know for sure just as much as a Christians do. When the earth was created there were 1 of 2 things, energy and mass, guess what energy and mass can't do lol create organic life.
@@daMillenialTrucker a scientific Theory is not to be confused with the layman term for theory. You're thinking it's "just a guess". In SCIENCE, the word Theory means that it's the best conceived explanation for all the facts, data, and evidence, which has been rigorously tested and scrutinised by the best of the best in the respective fields of science to make sure there are no mistakes, no inconsistencies, that it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Theory of Special Relativity are 2 Theories on Gravity. We atheists know far more for sure than you Christians, because all our claims are proven beyond reasonable doubt. For example, we know with absolute certainty God does not exist, because history proves we made him up, along with all the other gods. Earth was never created. It formed through natural processes. And Abiogenesis shows that life can form from non-life, and no, it has not been refuted, as the refutation you're thinking of talks about spontaneous generation, which is not the same.
In the back and forth (around 48:48), Dr. Ross says that God might’ve formed the Sun out of the Light that was there from day 1. But, this would be reading the term ‘made’ in IP’s way of reading it, where God takes something that was already there (the light) and organizes it for a purpose. If this reading of ‘made’ from Gen 1 16’s ‘God made the two great lights’ is open to Dr Ross, why can’t IP use that same understanding for the other uses of the term ‘made’ in Genesis 1?
Because of context. Ross' explanation of the light/sun is based off of what scripture explicitly says - whereas IP's wasn't (its founded on speculation). So it's not at all the case that Ross was doing what IP was doing.
@@Ttcopp12rt Actually he was doing the same. Other creationists who dont believe in literal days but long periods use exactly the same argument - bara means to give functionality to something that already exists, in this case to give light to the earth and as a time-keeper, ie calendars. But I disagree, I think the text implies the sun and moon were created on the 4th day (ie after the earth), which is one reason why I reject a literal understanding of Genesis as that is not how it happened in reality. It seems Ross wants to have it both ways, whichever is convenient for his position.
@@PC-vg8vn If you want to argue ad nauseum - go ahead. Simply stating something over and over doesn't make it true lol.. You stand corrected by my comment above.
@@Ttcopp12rt “simply stating something over and over again doesn’t make it true.” Lol that’s one of the most ironic statements I’ve read in a long time given your previous comment. But if you didn’t get it when they explained it to you then I’m sure this comment will do no good lmao
What Ross also fails to appreciate is that 'earth or 'world' typically mean either the known world then or a local area. Even in the NT it is used for the known world, ie the Roman world. We only refer to the 'world' today to mean the globe because we only now know that the earth/world is this large globe.
The word ערץ is the same used as in the beginning… (genesis 1:1) so is introduced as meaning the whole Earth. The flood account is a recapitulation of the creation narrative, but other contextual details make it explicit that the whole Earth is in view
@@MrWholphin But again, the whole earth did not mean a globe as we now know it to ancient Hebrews. Youre reading the text with a 21st century understanding.
@@UnderTheFloor79 It may be a case of hyperbole which a number of OT writers were prone to. Another reminder that we are not to read the Bible as a scientific textbook. The Hebrew translated 'mountain' could just as easily be translated 'hill'. Or it could simply be that from the point of view of those on the boat, it seemed that everywhere that they could see from their position was covered in water. I understand this is quite possible due to the curvature of the earth - a fascinating insight.
I came in leaning toward theistic evolution but honestly I think Dr. Ross has moved me a bit the other way...I'll have to look into this more. Thanks for posting this!
@@Zandman26 that’s a bit of a bold statement but could you point me toward a source I can check out that you think really supports theistic evolution? I sincerely appreciate the help.
@@Zandman26 That's a very bold claim which an entire camp of scientists supporting the young-Earth concept would evidently strongly disagree with you on!
@@Xenosaurian It would be great if science deniers actually tried to argument using evidence that could be tested, instead of trying to use the argument from authority (fallacy).
Εν αρχη (in the beginning) means "at first" in typical compositional Greek. James Aitken (one of the world's leading LXX scholars) has made this clear recently. Gen 1:1 in the LXX should be translated "At first, God created the heavens and the earth" or "First of all, God created the heavens and the earth."
That is interesting. Did he comment on what that means for this passage. It seems indeterminate to me as if it could support both interpretations but neither strongly.
"No man to till the ground" does not necessarily mean there were no people. It could mean there were people but they didnt know how to till the ground because nobody had eaten from the tree of knowledge.
Brothers i need help . My faith is in a crisis . Does anyone have any where I can look for an alternative view of Genesis 1 and 2 . I can’t believe in YEC . And I held Michael’s view but I think it’s not as strong as it was. Please brethren .
Hey hun, I’m really sorry to hear this. I’m not entirely sure of an alternative view. My best suggestion would be for you to break down Genesis and go back to the direct translations and make your own stance. I pray your faith is not faltering! Also, just because we can’t always see a clear solution doesn’t mean God is not bringing one about ❤️
I am definitely not buying YEC. What is important to me is that Bible is NOT a science book. It is about relationship between man and God. The relatively small part of Genesis dedicated to Creation is very limited, written in most general terms by author that was, of course, not present at the time. He wrote in cosmology terms (dome, lights) that were easily understood by his readers. Imagine if he tried to explain the scientific details of fine tuned Universe to people in bronze age! That would not bode well. God chose to have man write the Bible, and this is a clever thing. Although He had to cope with their limitations. That He allowed words like dome and lamp for atmosphere and celestial bodies is because it was a perspective point of man and not matter of accurate scientific description. Even today we say that Sun rises. Only back then they thought that their perspective reflects reality. Today we can view it knowing that the description of bronze age perception is not scientific reality. Back to Genesis 1 and 2. As I read it I am noticing some holes in narrative. These are not errors but they show that main thing of the story is that God is the one responsible for our creation and it is Him we have to give glory (Romans 1). This is what was given to all humans in Genesis 1 which is a description of how humanity came to be. There was no Law in Genesis 1 but the one in their hearts. In Genesis 2 we can see God is presenting humanity with a special kind of people. They are isolated pair of humans one made from earth and other from his genetic material. The creation of these is special, they were not to be "multiplied on whole earth" but to be in Eden where they had access to the Tree of Life. Eden was created by "planting" and had it's creation in different order then creation of heavens and Earth in Genesis 1-2:4. These two, Adam and Eve, didn't stop to be those special people after being removed from the special place. The circumstances changed for them with the Fall but we can see that they and their children did have extended life spans and that through them worship of God continued. The Fall was about the covenant with God and Adam letting the sin into the world by the trespassing the given law. After the fall, Cain had a wife. He found it among people of the earth (the subsequent children of Adam and Eve came after the murder), among those who were created in Genesis 1 and were obeying the command to multiply for some time now. These have explored the land and that is how the writer can now about the gold, precious stones, rivers, and land of Kush. These were the people Cain was afraid of and these were the ones with whom he built and settle his town in, already named, a land of Nod which was east from Eden. The recorded story of Adam and Eve is how we were unable to live in a perfect communion with God and how God promised the deliverer.
A tiger, with its gloriously designed retractable claws, is made by God to snag the hind limbs of fleeing prey. " Eating only plants" is absurd. It has to mean something else, unless you see claws and teeth as mutations brought about by the fall. A tiger, in every way, is designed to kill, even though he can eat papaya if need be.
IP (Michael Jones) has a methodology for interpreting Scripture that's very confusing for me. 1. He takes what a word/phrase *could* mean, or does mean in another context, and applies that meaning to Genesis 1, without providing any argumentation from the context of Genesis 1 itself. Examples: a. “create” c.f. Psalm 51, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 43 b. “formless and void” c.f. Jeremiah 4 c. “toledoth” c.f. its other uses in Genesis to mean only what comes after the word toledoth d. “subdue” c.f. Numbers 32, Joshua 18, etc. e. “very good” c.f. Jeremiah 24, Judges 18 2. He uses a very similar technique with broader motifs and themes. Examples: a. Motif of the number 7 c.f. the tabernacle, the temple, Solomon’s temple dedication b. The “election” of Adam and Eve c.f. God’s calling of Abraham and later Israel c. Priests installed on the 8th day c.f. Leviticus d. For interpreting Matthew 19: Scriptural, not chronological ordering of martyrs c.f. Matthew 23; this means Matthew 19 is intended to be the Scriptural order, not chronological 3. Here is a list of Scripture references that *explicitly refer* to Genesis 1-3 that Jones quotes *NOT* to help interpret Genesis, but rather to attempt to refute arguments for the YEC interpretation by providing his re-interpretation of those passages in light of his interpretation of Genesis: a. Romans 5 b. 1 Corinthians 15 c. Exodus 20:11 d. Matthew 19 4. To sum up points 1 through 3: Jones finds passages throughout the rest of Scripture that contain similar words, phrases, themes, or motifs as Genesis 1-3, then he figures out what these things mean in the context of the other passages, then he brings those meanings over and forces them onto Genesis 1-3. Meanwhile, he sidelines the passages that explicitly refer to Genesis 1-3 (my point #3) until he forms his interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Then, he takes his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and uses that to interpret the list of verses from my point #3. This is *NOT* my understanding of how to “let Scripture interpret Scripture.” This is not letting “Scripture speak for itself.” It seems to me that these are the tactics one would use when one wants to force a different meaning onto a text. 5. He combines the opinions of different scholars in a piecemeal way to achieve his result. Dr. Ross points this out very clearly in his side of the cross-examination. I think Jones’ response is technically correct: he doesn’t have to agree with everything a particular scholar says. But his approach still feels forced, and his result seems arbitrary and incoherent.
After watching Ken Ham and Kent Hovind utterly fail at logically defending YEC, I’m glad to see Dr. Ross finally defend the position seriously. I still don’t agree with it anymore, but it’s very refreshing to see.
Yea, I have to agree with others, the idea that the Bible promotes the “flat earth” concept is false. If someone says the Bible teaches that, ask them where it states that and in context.
I like that so much of the New Testament was used by Dr. Ross. Be cool to see Michael address this theologically within the New Testament from Paul and Jesus as well. The missing fossil recorded disposes I feel of millions of humans preadam. Just that alone screams a young earth.
Well, we know for an objective fact that Adam and Eve are fictional characters, as was Jesus. That's why first of all, our genetics and fossil record prove we evolved, and secondly, not a single contemporary historical source exists nor any other form of evidence to suggest Jesus ever existed. Also, biblically, death came through God. Adam and Eve, according to the bible, had no concept of sin, no concept of evil, no concept of disobedience or wrongdoing. They weren't even aware of their nudity or why that should matter. Only AFTER they ate the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil" (gee, it's like the name is telling us something we should probably take note of) did they become aware of what has happened. Only AFTER they ate the fruit, were they aware of their nudity and were ashamed. This means that God deliberately made Adam and Eve, completely oblivious of what it means to disobey, then deliberately took them right to the thing that they weren't supposed to eat, did absolutely nothing at all to prevent them from doing so, had a walking talking snake (not Satan in any way btw) there that told zero lies, then deliberately left and gave them some time to play around, and when he came back he was "shocked" that the thing he caused to happen, happened. This is like putting two babies in a small room, and put a loaded gun between them, tell them "don't shoot each other" and leave the room, waiting for a gunshot, then come in "oh no, didn't I tell you not to shoot each other? I guess I'll have to torture the one who's left for the rest of its life now". If a human did this, he'd be considered an extremely evil monster. If God does it, you praise him as the goodiest of good goods that can be. And you wonder why atheists aren't convinced.
@@thomasglass9491 That's because you are incapable of understanding that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. I am a Theist and when I want to learn Science, I study Science. It's that simple.
@@robinrobyn1714 The Bible is not per se a scientific book but it talks about the creation and how God did everything, evolution is not compatible. Also, evolution is no science, but pseudoscience.
@@thomasglass9491 Where did you study Judaic Hermeneutics? Because the Tanakh has varying levels of understanding. As for Evolution, which I believe and always have, David Berlinski disagrees with you. And before you even go there- he's not a Christian. He's an Agnostic Jew. He takes serious issue with Evolution. He is not uneducated either. He has a Ph.D from Princeton.
@@robinrobyn1714 Terry Morteson in his book, Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin. He examines that topic and searched what the jews prior to christianity and the early church believed. The majority of the early church believed in a literal Genesis that favors the YEC interpretation (well except from Origen and his school of allegory, which is consider a heresy and the hellenistic jews who are not orthodox). Has David Berlinski brought evidence for evolution? Because since darwin there has been zero evidence, just theories.
Why are short-earth creationists all so stuck on temporally-limited causality? Is God limited to working within human understandings of linear history?
Bereshit is defined as "in the beginning". You can look it up in any Hebrew language source. Also, kione Greek does, indeed, have indefinate articles. Many variants in NT manuscripts that are inconsequential are those involving the incorrect indefinate article (a apple, instead of an apple, etc...Greek works the same as English in this regard) as well as spelling variants (color vs. colour). These two types of examples "count" as texual variants but do not change the meaning of the text.
Ross is such a master debater that all he has to do is the same thing over and over: states his personal interpretation as if it’s objective fact and then acts confused when he gets challenged
This was not doc's interpretation. He quoted the Bible. Michael on the other hand, interpreted freely. I 'll ask you the question : is God limited in Creation? Do you believe the ressurection of Jesus or did that took billion of years too? Do you believe , that when Jesus says in revelation , we will be ressurected is a lie or is it truth? Will that be billions of years too?
@@rebeccad6840 wrong, he quoted his interpretations. You didn't notice, because you agree with him. Like when he dishonestly told Michael, "that isn't the scriptural view," that was a lie. In reality, that just wasn't *Ross's interpretation* of what the scriptural view is. They literally disagree about what the scriptural view IS.
@@rebeccad6840 No Ross interpreted freely. Like when he assumed that Adam was the first man on the earth because the bible ways "there was no man to till the ground" focusing on the "no man" part, but ignoring the "to till the ground" part. He also showed he doesn't understand how analogies work. I don't know where he gets that analogy's only work forward in time. When your comparing two things an alalogy only works backwards in time because we don't know the future. Also when he said that the mountain tops could still be seen even though the flood covered them. The problem with that is a little thing called gravity. Water flows to the lowest point because of it, unless he's suggesting God kept the water from flowing off the mountain tops, but the bible never says that happened.
@@rebeccad6840absolutely no one is arguing that God couldn’t have done *anything* It’s arguing that God set in place natural scientific laws. Evolution may be a mechanism made and lead by God
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:46-47
Although I agree with Dr. Ross in that I hold a young earth creationist view, I think he did a great job presenting his information, but a poor job interacting with his opponent. In my opinion, he had plenty of sarcastic remarks and face gestures that weren’t very professional. During cross examination, I noticed Michael’s goal was for Ross to validate his view, while Ross’s goal was to to simply discredit Michael! Not the best approach as it seems more like a fear tactic. Overall, great debate, and just proves that even very smart men don’t always have the right answers! God bless!
I don’t really understand the opening argument. Even if Gensis 1 does say ‘in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’, how would that contradict evolution and/or suggest a young earth? It literally says nothing about the age of the earth.
Elsewhere it says he created male and female from the beginning. If it took millions of years before different sexes evolved, wouldn't that contradict the statement? And if Adam and Eve were the original humans and we have a short genealogy then that contradicts a long age.
I have great respect for both of these individuals but I would like to ask Michael Jones if the beginning of John's gospel as it begins with "in the beginning" should be reinterpreted as well in the similar fashion he feels that Genesis 1:1 should be reinterpreted
John Walton's view of Genesis has been refuted in _Review of John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology_ by Nathan Mastnjak, John Day's _From Creation to Babel_ pages 4-5 and here's an excerpt from William Lane Craig's criticism: "Walton has a particularly difficult time with the firmament which God creates. He thinks that the ancient Israelites believed that there literally existed a solid dome in the sky - the firmament - which held up the waters which are above the earth. So he says if we take Genesis 1 as an account of material creation, then it implies the existence of something “that we are inclined to dismiss as not part of the material cosmos as we understand it.” There is no firmament in other words. He says we can “escape from the problem” by interpreting the text purely functionally. It doesn’t really mean that God created the firmament in the sense of bringing this thing into existence. Here I think Walton has very clearly allowed modern science to intrude into his hermeneutics. The issue isn’t whether the firmament is part of the material cosmos as we understand it. The issue is whether or not the firmament was part of the material cosmos as the ancient Israelites understood it. Trying to justify a functional interpretation by appealing to the non-existence of the firmament in modern science is an example of concordism, which you will remember is allowing modern science to enter into and guide your exegesis. This is a view that Walton himself rejects. I find it tremendously ironic that Walton, after inveighing against concordism earlier in the book, should find himself guilty of this very hermeneutical fallacy himself in saying that because the firmament doesn’t exist according to modern science therefore we should think that this narrative is not about material creation but functional creation."
@N/A The functional/material distinction is the main point of Walton's argument. He says rather then Genesis speaking of material creation, it's speaking about assigning "functions" to various entities. The paper I cited shows this is a false dichotomy and John Day's book makes the point that Gen. 1:11 implies material creation of vegetation while it's "function" as food isn't mentioned until Gen. 1:29-30. As for the solid dome, the Ancient Israelites certainly believed it was real. See Day's _From Creation to Babel_ pages 2-3.
Yeah... The problem with this argument is that Walton is not using his argument as a hermeneutic. The fact is he did the hermeneutic prior when he said the verse calls the sky a solid dome. His comparison is only to make a further argument that either the Bible is making a literally false claim or it is not about it's not a claim about the material. That's not a concordance approach to hermeneutics.
@N/A it's a school of knowledge pertaining to interpreting the Bible. So what I was saying is that John Walton gave an interpretation of the passage, that it refers to the sky as a solid dome. He then argues that the implication of this interpretation is either at the Bible makes a literal false statement or it is not talking about the creation of a material solid dome sky, but instead refers only to its function.
@N/A well John Walton would argue that the Bible making a literal false statement is problematic. But his point isn't that it could refer to a solid dome sky. It's that it does, but that this reference could either be a material reference or a functional one. The material reference would be a literal false statement, but the functional reference would not.
English is limited in expressing what God create and made. Both words are used differently in the entire Bible. Bara (create) is specifically creating out of nothing. Subsequently the other things that came to existence was made from already created things e.g Adam was made from the earth …. Michael Jones was right
Then why does gen 1:27 use bara for creation of man. You also have to ignore many other verses. Or if you read isaiah 43. Verses 1 and 7, is it creating out of nothing there?
@@405servererror A simpler way to know the difference between created(bara) and made(asah) is when something is new God created it but not when God made things.Things that God made were not new.Things that God created were new. Now read Exodus 20. and notice God made it in six days he did not create it.So it was not new.Old earth
@@405servererror you didn’t read the text well. The text in question about man isn’t about actualization of its existence but in preparation of it. God creative processes in this regards is in his mapping of human existence in one man which was actualized in making of Adam. Note: the text says 27. So God created mankind (species) in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 NIV Let me add little knowledge I have here: note: I’m not imposing my view or opinion on anyone. It remains what I think and which I used mostly in explaining to people who need to know. When it is time for Adam existence, God made him from existing materials then putting what will animate and what will help him replicate himself in him. We know a Man contains XY chromosomes (X- Female) and (Y-Male) {male and Female) he created them. When Woman was made from Man, God took from the Man’s side (X) and made a woman. God by his supernatural power doubles female chromosome (XX) to enables her able to produce part of herself (X) in forming her kinds along with the Man. No matter what the man give from (XY): Male (Y) or Female (X), the woman is readily able to match and produce their kinds either a new (XX) or (XY). All these happens making process called reproduction. Reproducing what God already made or produced.
@@PC-vg8vn unfortuntaely, Mr Jones did not adhear to the TEist strengths. Trying to put a theological argument forward only to support TEism will always fail when confronted with sound theological doctrine from the Bible. Mr Jones should have avoided that approach...he was never going to survive the problems associated with his view from that angle. It also doesn't help when one is up against a Dr of Paelentology who also happens to be a very well doctrined academic theologically and a YEC. Big ask to defeat this kind of opponent. Mr Jones gave it a great shot, but even from his opening statement, the huge theological flaws in his speech were clearly evident from the outset.
@@adamedgar5765Agree fully. I though Dr Ross' analogy of an argument or reasoning being like cotton candy i.e. it tastes great but in the end there's nothing there, sums up the point you make well. On the whole Dr Ross' arguments were far more scholarly sound than Mr Jones' "mostly, could be and maybes."
@@PC-vg8vn Jones' theology and understanding on Genesis is woeful and flies in the face of what was believed by nearly all of the early church fathers of the first few centuries, and most importantly affirmed in scripture. Jones had to constantly rely on modern scholars opinions to affirm his inaccurate interpretation of Genesis. Cheers, ex-atheist.
Michael seems to have forgotten when the text was written in its original language there were only 2000 words so many have different meanings depending on how its used to a larger degree than it would be today. I hope at some point he changes his ways and retracts what he's been teaching.
I think 18:07 is very interesting and could claim an answer in genesis. Not saying this part is 100% true because I would need to study it myself but could help you.
I’ve always kind of chalked it up to they were then old enough to marry their sisters. It doesn’t tell us how long until they got married and also, scripture does not usually mention the birth of daughters.
Thankful for the charity and clarity here, alongside the obvious love for God and his revelation in this Word and in the world. Model debate, thank you!
It would seem to me that Adam represents the first human who exists within the specific construct of time or history. That is, the first to be a man and not an ape.
@@ThatsTheFamthat’s kinda what I was thinking too. Like Adam was made in the image of God and I believe he was immortal until the fall. He was in a state of glory until sin perverted that.
Listening to Michael Jones is frustrating. I like his position on somethings and I think he does a good job on his defense of God as creator. But listening to this, when scripture plainly says that Satan, the devil, the accuser of the brethren was the Old Serpent, and in other places, and he shakes his head. It seems like he wants to claim that he believes the authority of scripture, but then he denies the plan reading of the text.
Perspective is an interesting thing. IP had to totally dance around scripture in order to justify his positions. Whereas Carter used scripture as his basis and confidently won this debate.
I find his opinion unconvincing. His opinion to me always sounds like he thinks God has to bend the knee to the laws of nature or that he’s subject to them. He takes specific verses bluntly and then other loosely to fit his worldview. He believes the science then works backwards which is why his interpretations seem odd.
@@Checkmate777 no rather the law of nature has to bend the knees to God, basically God working through the ordinary, God working through nature, what we see in nature is God's work, so he trying to show evolution is compatible with God and does not deny the existence of God at all
@@justinpartogi disagree. I think the whole continuity and narrative of the Bible is destroyed when you disregard Genesis as history. If you don’t believe the Bible just don’t believe the Bible. No need to pervert it. God is not a deceiver or confuser. Especially to a THEORY that doesn’t have any actual proof other than fossils and animals that look similar.
@@Jim-Mc ,.....Because they are both basically saying the same thing, and neither of them understands the Bible. The 100% fake manmade theory of evolution is the exact opposite of what the Bible states and is a 100% antigod/antibible/antichrist religion. Anyone who is actually a Christians would say what I have just said and stand 100% against this fake manmade theory and against every blind, lost, and deceived person that believe and holds to it. No actual Christian would never debate this but just say that anyone that thinks that Godless mans theory of evolution could even possibly be true is not a Christian but is an atheist. The entire church is filled with atheists, absolutely not Christians.
@@Jim-Mc I'm genuinely curious what could be the opposite of both and be a Christian belief. I personally agree though that the truth lies somewhere between the two. I've always joked that I'm a middle aged earth creationist, or middle earth creationist. There are clearly holes in the evolutionary model, but also plenty of observable holes in a YEC model. Also, it seems laughable that God existing outside of time and space, was super anal about creating the universe in 24hour time periods when the very universe he's creating has an extraordinarily relative structure for measuring time. It's a nonsensical proposition.
@@thebestSteven Wish there was a specific model I could point to as an alternative. But for instance I definitely think there is room for mistranslation of the time period between the Creation and the days of Noah. And relatedly I think there is a lot of material evidence for (practical) global flooding about 12,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas period which also coincided with many people migrating from the Caucasus, where Ararat happens to be. So in short, much older than 6,000 years, but with regard to humans I don't buy the hominid narrative of hundreds of thousands of years at all. If you disregard the specific lengths of time and focus on the sequence, the Genesis narrative begins to make a lot more sense both symbolically and physically.
Ross wants to believe the 'days' in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days but ignores the very definition of what a day is - a single turn of the earth on its axis in the light of the sun. His is a completely illogical position.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 If that is true, then why do YEC use the same definition of a day back then as a day is today? If back in Genesis a "day" was just the difference between light and dark, then you cannot say it was the same length of time as we call a day right now.
@@karozans What I have said is true. The OPs definition is objectively NOT in the text. I can't speak for all YECs. I only speak to the truth of the Scriptures, which are easily understood by their plain meanings, when a little common sense is applied. God fixed a set period of time, begun by a morning and finished by an evening, which He called a "day". He created the light and separated it from the dark (Gen 1:3-4) during the first day. On the fourth day, He created the sun, moon and stars to be additional lights for additional purposes (Gen 1:14-19). Each of the seven days are described in the EXACT same way, with an evening and morning, the light being day and the dark being night, both before and after the sun and moon were created to be the ruling lights of day and night, respectively. It could not be more plain that these were seven literal, 24hr days.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 Although I agree with you about 24 hr days.It is important to know and understand the difference between the words created and made.Claiming that these words are used interchangeably is just not so. Moses is really trying to get us to understand this in Genesis 2:1-4 so that we will read Genesis 1 and the rest of the OT properly. Gap Theorists understand this and they are correct about the difference between bara and asah in hebrew.God mostly made things in Genesis 1 and it is very important to notice what God made and what he created.
@@abelcainsbrother If you are theorizing some kind of millions-of-years long gap in Genesis, then you are reading that into the text. It's simply not there. It seems you are trying to reconcile modern Scientism with the Genesis account. You cannot serve two masters. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Crazy how it's just genesis that we've had wildly incorrect translations of for the best part of two thousand years. I can rest easy now, knowing the ancient authors of the bible had a scientifically accurate understanding of birth of the universe and life on this planet. Big weight off, thank you.
Lol nop even science is not even accurate on the age of the earth, they calculated the age of the earth with assumptions that everything was constant which may be incorrect
No one is arguing that genesis is a scientific account of creation, nor that the authors knew about modern scientific theories. Genesis is not a literal account of creation, it is an allegorical account that tells philosophical and theological truths about creation. You can believe in natural revelation through the sciences and also believe in the deep, philosophical and theological revelations of scripture. None are incompatible.
This may come off as an incredibly stupid question, but so far Im not sure where I stand on this issue and im trying to learn more about the YEC perspective. What confuses me moat about it is don't creationists believe the Genesis 1 account of creation are used to estimate an age for the Earth and universe of about 6000 years? So what do they think about all the bones of animals and artifacts found by scientists and archeologists that come from say 10000 years ago? Even Marcus seems to acknowledge this at around 38 minutes when he shows events that happened more than 6000 years ago How do creationists reconcile believing the earth is 6000 years old with artifacts and bones being found from even further back? This is one things I can't wrap my head around.
Either God intentionally created everything with age, or during Noahs flood, nuclear decay sped up exponentially. These are the 2 (equally stupid) arguments ive heard.
Christians should not use much time to look at friends who's focus is to make sin funny and acceptable. Hopefully that's why. Unfortunately I was not where I should be at that time myself, and got your point....
Is it just me or is Michael's voice cracking throughout this? I'm glad this debate happened. Neither of these guys seem completely comfortable with in-person debate. Good practice, at the very least.
I watch lots of Michael’s livestreams. His voice frequently cracks. That’s even when he’s joking around with his friends. I don’t think it means anything. My voice cracks a lot too. LOL!
00:00:00 Introductions
00:04:31 Michael Jones Opening
00:23:58 Marcus Ross Opening
00:45:24 Michael Cross Examination
00:56:06 Marcus Cross Examination
01:06:40 Moderated Dialogue
01:27:44 Audience Q&A
01:55:25 Conclusion
🐐
Give this man a cape
Thank you so much
@Soldier yet we have Genesis so
@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD Yet before humanity sinned, there was another rebellion.
I kind of hate how Dr Ross seems to be sarcastic and talking down to Michael Jones. There's a slight level of disrespect, I don't appreciate. I appreciate that Michael kept his composure
Hard to not be sarcastic when your opponent (IP in this case) literally has the worst possible arguments. Hard to take IP's theistic evolutionism seriously. Dr. Ross gave IP a free education and IP should be thanking Marcus for that
@@StandingForTruthMinistries I rather like what IP had to say and considering both with respect is best
Three weeks ago I would have strongly sided with Ross. Now I'm totally on Jones' side.
I've learned so much about ancient Near Eastern mythology in the last three weeks. I'm now completely convinced Genesis 1-11 is Jewish myth and a polemic against the other Mesopotamian religions.
@@icypirate11 myth is a long stretch i would say an allegory
@@icypirate11 The Devil has got you big time.
I’m just here to note with everyone else that whichever guy represented my pre-existing views really owned the other guy whom I happened to disagree with already. 🙂
Yeah!!! He DESTROYED HIM!! He agrees with MEEEEE!!
Nah, I became a theistic evolutionist *after* I heard Ross say "Well that's your view but it's not the scriptural view so we need to work on that." When that's the whole topic of the debate. So him revealing himself to be a supreme douche harmed his cause given that Jones is very disagreeable, but remained pleasant through the debate.
@@jacknickelson8096I wouldn't become a Christian because its beneficial. Id most likely get murdered if I'm the type of Christianity to speak loudly and don't care what anyone says if it's only me murdered but then again eternal life and One relationship with God who's beyond the foundation of mere existence as we conceive of it. But I certainly wouldnt lean to theism because some guy failed to provide emotional support it's disruptive to hear any atheist curse and slander their Christian opponent. Atheism is wrong on almost everything that it doesn't already steal from God.
@@NSOcarththat's what I was thinking. My views weren't pre existing. But if his foundation of his strength faith is firmly steady then I guess it's good.
@@jmorrayeah we're probably both wrong mabey God made the universe trillions of years old bruh. Trillionaire earther vs billionaire earther vs thousand year earther fun dun dun! Realistically It's up To God to tell us ultimately we shouldn't fight over this silly stuff. It's not nonsense. But IT IS nonsense to fight for it.
This debate was very educative and intellectual. I haven't done enough research on the subject so this is a good reference. Good job to both Mike and Dr. Ross for working and bringing their findings to us, and Cameron for hosting; loved the way you moderated
I WAS HERE!!!!!
Edit: First time coming to a CCv conference, and it was a blast. Thank you so much, Cameron
What does CCv stand for?
@@yekkub9425 Can't stop Christ violinists. They make amazing music
@@yekkub9425 Closed-Circuit Vision. It's a surveillance company.
🤣@@daMillenialTrucker
are you a christ violinist?@@daMillenialTrucker
So glad I was there to attend! Very good debate, and well moderated. I enjoyed the honesty and intellectuality of the speakers, particularly Inspiring Philosophy!
Edit: As fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, can we please be thoughtful and kind in the reply section? Our differences in our interpretation of Genesis shouldn't distract us from our mutual belief in Jesus.
I think both came short in some ways. Dr Ross seemed to be attacking Mike’s worldview rather than critiquing the translations by scholars. But Mike wasn’t as concise or firm with his arguments, and I think that’s why many say “Ross won.”
@@sidtom2741 I did notice that (on IPs part I mean, specifically in his opening statements). While I disagree with Mr Ross's YEC view, I would partly agree that he won the debate. But, you can win the battle and lose the war.
Cheers! :)
Agreed. Dr. Ross definitely won. IP must be exhausted after nearly 2 hours of twisting and turning the scriptures on its head.
@@StandingForTruthMinistries that wasn’t even what he said, and you’re acting like such a child
@@StandingForTruthMinistries Thats not exactly the most respectful way you couldve put that.
Even as a YEC you should atleast give credit where it is due and praise IP, not just start saying he twists and turns scripture to fit his ideas that are contrary to yours.
This was some heavy duty stuff. Fantastic debate!. Loved every minute of it
The opening statements were great. Loved the mutual respect. The cross-examination, Dr. Ross started to use debate tactics and appeal to snarky remarks, which in my opinion is a sign of desperation and frustration - that was a bit disappointing. Apart from that, this was an excellent debate. I'm no where near a theistic evolution interpretation, but I do hold to a Framework position. (It was neat to see Jones use it a bit to touch on the priesthood of Adam and temple theology.) Overall, I agree more with Ross in this debate. I just wish he kept that same energy in the cross examination. Jones was pretty consistent and sharp throughout the whole event. Good job on moderating, Cameron!
"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." Philippians 2:3
Humbly serve others following the perfect example of Jesus. He said that He came not to be served but to serve others and give His life for others. (Matthew 20:28). Let us be humbled by the awesomeness and greatness of God and the unworthiness of ourselves. CS Lewis said that true humility is not thinking less of yourselves but rather thinking of yourself less. Let us look each day for opportunities to serve God and thus others, and be empowered by the Spirit to do these things glorifying God. Hopefully this impacted you positively today. God bless you!
This is great. So many debates on this are just people talking past each other. Here they actually probe the real differences.
You have no idea how happy I was when I saw that these two guys are debating. I have been listening to Michael for a couple of years now and I love his content. I am currently taking online classes at Liberty University and just finished a class where Dr. Ross helped teach. Okay, now time to watch the debate. Thanks!
How did it go?
Ross is wrong. Moses didn‘t write Genesis. The Author is unknown.
@@Tessinentdecken there is no definitive evidence that is was written by Moses and there is no passage that says Moses writes like in the rest of the Pentateuch. However, the theory with the most evidence and scripture backing is that Moses wrote Genesis.
@@cthefro what evidence do you have that Moses wrote Genesis. Give me only one.
@@Tessinentdecken Question, why is one of Moses' miracles a literal scientific fact that has only been observed recently?
Best debate I've seen on this topic. Kudos to both guys.
I definitely believe the earth is old, but I'm not too confident on my understanding of adam and eve, the days in genesis, and origins... i'm open to be persuaded... I have no problem with God using evolution to create all of all life.
Not to toot my own horn but I've made a few videos on the subject. There not the best quality in the world but if I was successful in my task I did a decent job of giving an explanation of Adam and Eve and the days in Genesis
When you are done watching Austin’s videos, you can come over and finish watching mine 😉😉
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"*
*"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"*
*"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"*
*"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
(A Christian organisation)
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
@@austinapologetics2023 You don't need to. Genesis is a creation myth modelled on the older Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. Don't tell your followers that though, huh? 😉
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"*
*"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"*
*"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"*
*"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
(A Christian organisation)
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
@@ancientfiction5244 We don't really care the ancient wisdom is known and written down in other narratives, but there are significant differences. But nice of you to take the difficulty to copy and paste you're message everywhere.
I would love to have a Bible that had all these nuances of grammar accounted for and included, that Michael Jones points out.
The Oxford Annotated Bible and the Harper Collin’s Study Bible have pretty thorough footnotes which touch on some of the grammatical details that Michael mention. I personally liked the Harper Collin’s notes better, but the Oxford Bible also included a lot of scholarly essays as well.
John Walton and Craig Keener’s Niv Cultural Background study Bible has a lot. It doesn’t really talk about IP’s view of Genesis 1:1 but it’s great otherwise.
Is this a genuine statement or is it a dig at Michael?
@@taylorj.1628 lol a genuine statement. Love might be a bit exaggerating for it, but it’s genuine. I like the idea of having a bible to read that has accurate wording.
Get a Jewish version of Bible.
These grammatical anomalies have been discussed at length and in depth.
In fact, everything he mentioned came from these commentators.
Hi Cam! Thanks for putting up good contents always. Just a suggestion, it will be really helpful if you can put timestamps on the description for debate videos. God bless!
That was actually one of the best debates I’ve ever seen to be honest. The only thing that I was surprised about that was not talked about or at least more in depth was the ages of the pre flood people. Sure this would be in favor for the YEC so I was interested in seeing how IP would’ve responded to that question/topic.
He's made videos on that. His argument is that Hebrew numbers have certain meanings and that the ages actually symbolize important characteristics or accomplishments of the people rather than their actual time on earth.
@@bornagainbart8352 sheesh. It looks like the Bible is enough study for life, but life is not enough for the Bible study.
@@vladislavstezhko1864 Well, I think it’s important to know the nature of the language that the scriptures are written in. I guess that’s why certain people are vocationally called to study the linguistics of the Bible, and why we can be grateful for their work.
@@bornagainbart8352
If the text is inspired I don't think one would require tremendous external academic knowledge to understand. When Jesus came he didn't go to the Pharisees, he went to Fishermen, he spoke to the laymen first and in ways they understood, not debate the academics above the heads of everyone else.
We should study the bible exhaustively to understand what it tells us about how to live, but finding interpretations to meet contemporary scientific theories seems like a waste of time. Most of them are going to reject it whether it fits with their timelines or not.
@@kriegjaeger but if the text is inspired should it be easily understood by a 21st Century American or a 5th Century BC Jew or an illiterate 18th Century Chinese Peasant? The most central parts of scripture are easily understandable - the greatest commandments are love, God is a Father, Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Do all the details need to be easily understood as they clearly aren't. Revelation says that the number 666 should be understandable by anyone and the church has frequently debated what it means since (as the meaning was presumably obvious to 1st Century Christians but not as obvious to all peoples subsequently).
Very interesting debate! I am so happy to be part of it! I think it maybe a wrong interpretation of languages, and some chronological issues written in the time! Bless you all! Anna UK. 🙏🏻
Thank you bro.Michael, it's really inspiring to know more about Genesis. God bless!
He does inspire because he's the inspiring philosophy
Terrible theology. Trying to massage Darwinian evolution into Genesis is a waste of time. Darwinism is a failure while the historical approach to Genesis is more sound.
Half his beliefs he just made up out of thin air without any reason or proof
I think what frustrates me about this debate primarily come from Dr. Ross.
First, he often “jabs” and belittles Michael Jones’ views with side comments(though this is my smallest issue).
Second, he tries to pin Michael to a specific interpretation of the text. Michael’s position in the debate to say Evolution is compatible with the text, not “this is my view if the text.” Michael merely has to argue that one can interpret Scripture faithfully and believe in evolution, that case is made.
Third, there are times where Dr. Ross dismisses points the Michael makes essentially because Dr. Ross presumes he’s right. His engagement on more than one occasion amounts to “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” What’s the point of a debate/discussion if you’re unwilling to actually interact with the other view.
Michael in the other hand, really seems to be engaging with Dr. Ross’ view and wrestles with it.
That summed it up nicely, Dr. Ross was really unprofessional and childish here.
The... “but that’s not Scriptural, because my view is the Scriptural one and that’s not my view.” is a common type of fallacy but I forget the name for it.
@@thebestSteven Protestantism? 🤣
@Soldier didn’t sin enter the world through one man?
@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD My understanding is that sin = disobeying God. Just because God forbids something doesn't mean that something didn't happen before. There is no record in the scriptures that murdering was a sin before Cain and Abels time, however, when Cain murder his brother, he committed sin.
Interesting how much more civil this is than the "Is Child Marriage Wrong" Debate with Daniel LOL. Reasonably so, very interesting discussion
That was a real debate?
@@albertbecerraMichael's opponent was a Muslim
@@EmberBright2077 ahh explains it
@@albertbecerrayeah look up Mike Jones vs Daniel Haqiqatjou debate
@@demonking86420 oh brother. Alright then
The first CCV conference was a great time. Wish I could've made this one too
Michael you have greatly helped me in the process of keeping my faith being in the minority of an evolutionary theist, thank you for your work, and keep it up!
Ditto
Im catholic, when you mean being a minority of an evolutionary theist is that mean most of your church believes in young earth creationism?
@@haronsmith8974 from my experience as a non denominational protestant, yes.
@@thrasher9898 Yea I went to a friends "service" theres a lot less worship and a lot more culture war stuff thats just garbage.
Who really cares whether macro-evolution is real? Why would that impact your belief in God?
Good debate. I never thought a YEC would give IP a run for his money. This debate was so close.
Young earth creation almost made me turn my back on god how can u see out into space millions of light years but space only being 6000 years old inspiring philosophy saved me from turning away from god bc I didn’t have to deny basic logic and science to believe in god
So what view do you actually hold? A special creation long ago or a big bang?
@@tonyabrown7796 a big bang and since posting this I have read the Bible cover to cover and decided I am no longer Christian and I’ve completely dropped “faith” idk how anyone could read that book and say that a all loving all powerful god wrote that book when it was clearly written by barbaric savages that didn’t know any better
@@the_banshee6708 I'm sorry to hear that.
@@tonyabrown7796 there’s nothing to feel sorry about honestly
@@the_banshee6708nobody says that God literally wrote that book. Much of the Bible is descriptive, not prescriptive
I highly suggest you check out the book ‘Is God a moral monster’ by Paul copan
I will be happy to share more resources with you if you like. Remember, Jesus is real and He loves you so much
I'm really interested on Michael's argument of Adam in the eighth day. I think he is referencing a guy names Benjamin (Gilker? Quilker? Kilcher?). I am unable to understand the full name. Does anyone have the full reference? Thanks.
check out his channel "Inspiring Philosophy" he probably uses the same source in his Genesis series.
Not sure if you found it or not. Try Benjamin Kilchor
Well, if isn’t, that’s a problem for genesis, not a problem for evolution because there’s much more evidence that evolution happens and humans evolved from a common ancestor with other species then there is that genesis is true.
One thing that this debate makes clear: the church has certainly for most of its history interpreted Genesis in YEC terms in some form. Now we have to ask ourselves, why do we reinterpret to be in line with evolution? Why is the answer never the other way around? It’s an important question.
Yes that was a great debate, getting your two perspectives out there well! :)
I am a YEC and Micheal did a great job bringing a new perspective and I found it quite interesting, my mind has not changed but I think theistic evolution is still a strong option but not the strongest one personally.
I wish more creationists were like you.
As a Theistic Evolutionist, all I can say is thank you.
Very good and charitable take. Most of the discussion in the comments have been good too, which is nice to see.
I'm a former YEC, now an OEC/TE, but I think Dr. Ross has moved up in my book as the best defender of the YEC position and I really appreciate his defense, even if I disagree.
@cchhiicckkeennss, my problem with Mike argument is that it's not backed up by the physical evidence. There are no "Pre Adamic" grave found
@@telleroftheoneso are you an OE or TE? I think there’s a difference right as OE don’t hold to evolution?
Very interesting debate. I commend Cameron for giving a YEC advocate the chance to present their views. Please include them (us) in discussions more!
Yes, I would also like to see a debate between a young earth creationist and a christian flat earther
@@belialord I'd like to see a debate between a flat earther and one who believes we live in a matrix
There is no debate Anthony. The earth is much older than 6000 years. By a lot.
@@dagan5698 figuratively or literally?
@@dagan5698 Ok so I just watched a (Nothing) for 1hr 55mins. Interesting theory...
What an excellent debate! I'm proud to see see both sides produce such compelling ideas.
Though I believe for myself at least, I side with Michael.
Mike did a great job here. Swamidass pointed it out quite well that Ross wasn't able to demonstrate incompatibility with the ancient near east context of the Bible.
I'm a YEC. I've been following Michael and Cam's ministries for years (ironically I'm unfamiliar with Marcus Ross), and I just wanted to thank Cameron for hosting this debate at his conference and giving him his own breakout session the next day. I hope he continues to foster dialogue on this important topic.
YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. You should just raise your kids atheist, and skip the part where they apostatize due to YEC nonsense and become leftists for a couple decades. Or, you know, raise them with a biblical interpretation compatible with the natural world (i.e. old earth).
Just curious how do you deal with the fact that rocks and minerals in the Grand Canyon and other surface to very deep rocks and minerals contain samples that can be dated by radiometric dating and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating that are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of one another (the factors that lead to the dating technology is completely unrelated from each other). Radiometric dating uses daughter products from radioactive decay, while OSL dating using metal oxides (rocks are Silicon oxides primarily) and they absorb and integrate the radiation background until the moment they are analyzed.
Interestingly enough BOTH of these dating techniques give the exact same dates for GRAND CANYON sediments taken from the top of the Canyon to the bottom at regular intervals. Isn't it amazing that they are in TOTAL AGREEMENT over the entirety of this geological column?
Even if you don't concur with these dating techniques, you must take issue with the fact that no HUMAN BONES are mixed with DINOSAUR fossilized bones.
I have personally reviewed all the ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos tapes and there are FATAL FLAWS with absolutely ALL OF THEM. If you have to LIE to reveal BIBLICAL TRUTH then there might be a PROBLEM WITH THE STORY YOU ARE TELLING!!
Note I am not saying there is any problem with the BIBLE, my PROBLEM is with these YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!! It's amazing how COCKY Marcuss Ross comes across like he knows all the answers, yet they GLOSS OVER ANYTHING THEY HAVE ISSUE WITH!
My challenge to YOUNG EATHERS IS TO PUBLISH their "scientific work" in REPUTABLE SCIENCE JOURNALS and submit yourself to the same SCRUTINY that all Scientists have to submit to!!
@@salmonkill7 DAYUM 🫡😤
I think Dr. Ross’ arguments were very compelling. It seemed more consistent with scripture and didn’t require assumption. Michael Jones is a very formidable debater.
Too bad YEC contradicts literally all past and present scientific observations. Raising your kids YEC all but guarantees they'll turn into atheists as adults. Meanwhile, old earth Christians have no problem with science.
Also, Ross was a condescending prick (probably why you found him compelling).
Dr. Ross assumed a lot of things
I would say its weird to assume anything outside of what God purposely revealed to us. If we trust in Him to preserve his word, it would be weird to argue that "In the beginning" was never there, though all translations have it. @M.E-Martinez
Michael Jones is far from formidable. His interpretation of scripture is based on assumptions and external scholars, rather than on the clear and contextual reading of The Bible itself. I just can't take him seriously at all. The concept of evolution was alien when all 66 books of The Bible were written. Only now, in the modern age, have people tried to reinterpret The Bible and make it fit the evolution fairy tale. If evolutionary theory didn't exist then no Christian would get it from The Bible. They would just be believing in the creation story as it's presented. People are just taking manmade modern theories and injecting them into scripture. That's an observable fact. Show me anyone in the past who taught evolution is in The Bible, and who didn't accept the creation story as it's presented. This interpretation of scripture is a very serious sin in my opinion. It's the fear of man, where people go along with the popular accepted theory in society in order to fit in. It's either due to cowardice or brain washing. Those Christians who affirm evolution are either under the fear of man, or they've been genuinely brainwashed. That's the only two possibilities. The latter is more understandable, but the former is due to spiritual weakness. There is a lot of pressure to go along to get along, especially when your job, social staus, and even relationships can be at risk.
@M.E-Martinez Excuses for what? You comment makes no sense.
56:36 Dr. Marcus Ross says that John Walton says that Genesis 1:1 MUST be translated at “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” because otherwise it would contradict with Walton’s view of functional ontology. This is simply untrue. I specifically asked John Walton in my interview with him on my channel and he explicitly said that translating Gen. 1:1 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth” would add more evidence for Walton’s view of Genesis 1. This was a very odd claim by Dr. Ross.
The video is called "Bible Scholar Puts Genesis 1 in Context ft. John Walton" and the time stamp is at 22:03 if anyone is interested.
Wasn’t This translation around since the 1700s, instead of the more traditional view of ex nihilo?
@YAJUN YUAN The video is called "Bible Scholar Puts Genesis 1 in Context ft. John Walton" and the time stamp is at 22:03.
@@dustinkfc6633 The most popular view in the 1700s was either gap theory or day-age. This is a bit different as there's no gap at all since creation wouldn't start until Genesis 1:3.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou “When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void.” JSB
My mistake, not 1700’s, but the Middle Ages.
I thought Hebrew scholars back in the Middle Ages thought it be translated this way?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou But there is a gap. But you must study the bible honestly to realize it.
This was a pretty good debate. Appreciate that Dr Ross wasn’t as belittling to the opposing view as other YEC.
@Gnostic Calvinism is a Doctrine from Hell you seem like a lot of fun
@@soldier7332 How do you determine what is heretical or not?
Dr Marcus was quite impressive.
1st time to listen to him...
I love IP, love his channel, his ministry, his teachings, I genuinely love his stuff but I’ve always disagreed with his arguments on theistic evolution. Maybe it’s my bias, but he missed the mark for providing a coherent and consistent argument for his position. Love the debate
I like IP also, but yes. I agree with you. He lost this debate because theistic evolution doesn't make sense. (I'm an OEC)
"Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" by Fr. Seraphim Rose. This book changed my mind on a subject I'd never have thought possible.
Yea do this book is like $480 on Amazon rn lmaooo. Do you have any idea where I might be able to read it without paying $500?
@@Tornadospeed10 Holy cow. It was only 50 bucks a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know of anywhere else to get it right now. I'd try finding a pdf, but it's a long read for a screen.
@@Tornadospeed10pirate it
Edit, ha I just looked it doubled to nearly $1000
@@Tornadospeed10just in case you never found it or anybody else is wondering, you can look up the title along with “internet archive” and it shows up 👍
@@alt8938 thank you!
Few points I really appreciate here;
The civility
This isn't a salvation issue
If either side is wrong, it's an issue of interpreting the text
My contention;
If scripture is inspired then I would expect God continues to manage it in some degree to ensure the gospel can be understood by the laymen, not interpretations that require academic study and outside knowledge. It seems the intent behind re-interpreting scripture for millions of years and evolution is not to get closer to the truth, but pre-supposing that contemporary theories are truth and if the Bible disagrees, it is wrong.
Though I strongly disagree with Dr. Ross I’d say he did the best he could for his position and he seems very intelligent. Also I appreciate his ability to somehow make us laugh and bringing down tension. He has a great personality and confidence from what I can tell. I still agree with IP though even though I don’t believe in evolution yet
I think a good source for arguments against the theory of evolution, but not necessarily against an ancient earth, would be two books called" signature in the cell" and "Darwin's doubt"by Dr Stephen C Meyer.
Why don't you accept the most well-established scientific theory we have to date?
@@jameswatts2338 there are no good arguments against the scientific theory of evolution.
@@calebsmith7179 In my look on the internet for the evidence I didn’t find anything very compelling. I found the data didn’t necessarily lead to what people say it does. To be fair that was from a basic internet search so I’m sure academic books from scholars in the field would be better. But until I see the evidence and conclude that it leads to the type of evolution most people are talking about, I’ve yet to be convinced
@@gospelfreak5828 to help me understand where you are coming from, how exactly have you come to know evolution? There is misinformation everywhere these days.
Other than the frustration that the debaters didn't seem to focus on the debate topic specifically, Dr. Ross's continued insistence on "focusing on the context", in response to verses and words that seem in conflict with his view, and then proceeding to merely offer the context the "right" context by reinterpreting such verses in light of his model apart from using the text itself, is blatantly eisegesis and concordism (reading science into the text). He would have been better off simply stating that he wasn't sure why the text read the way it does.......was very frustrating 😜
I gotta say our family in Jesus has got some of the smartest people I’ve seen, Jesus really spares no knowledge and wisdom to those who want it and search for it. I got alot of pride in being with Jesus and his family wouldn’t trade Jesus for a single thing in this world. Hands down best thing I’ve ever done in my life is go to Jesus. Much love to all you guys God bless whoever is reading this.
Well then, lets put that to the test, shall we? PResent ANY SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, FACT, PIECE OF EVIDENCE, OR EXPLANATION EVER MADE that was gained specifically through your religious beliefs and not scientific research.
Alternatively, admit that all knowledge comes from us studying the world, and not from believing in fictional characters like Jesus and God.
Can you give me one specific recent example of evidence of evolution that’s not “millions” of years old? Whats imaginary is this theory of evolution that’s been placed by Darwin even though all he had under his belt was a degree in religion. This theory is as credible and evidential as the Big Bang theory.
@@edihoxhalli do a simple DNA test between you and your parents. What you'll find is genetic mutations in your DNA. These mutations are Evolution. We find that in every living thing, in every generation. If your dog had puppies, you can do a DNA test between them and you'll find genetic mutations as well. That's Evolution.
Banana's have been cultivated by man to be the way they are. Wild banana's are short, straight, bitter, and filled with large seeds. Domesticated banana's are longer, curve, have small seeds, and are sweet when ripe. Dogs are bred by humans from wolves and are now available in a wide variety. Various vegetables are the result of human intervention through selective breeding. Bacteria evolving nylonase to digest nylon, which is not a natural product and thus an example of Evolution. Humans growing larger brains and smaller jaws. Tetrachromic vision. Malaria resistance. Cholesterol resistance. Ability to digest lactose. Etc. all examples of Evolution within the last 10.000 years.
And you're right, both Evolution and the Big Bang are scientific Theories, meaning they've been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Gravity also has Theories btw.
@@jehandesains8674 but their still theories. You atheist know for sure just as much as a Christians do. When the earth was created there were 1 of 2 things, energy and mass, guess what energy and mass can't do lol create organic life.
@@daMillenialTrucker a scientific Theory is not to be confused with the layman term for theory. You're thinking it's "just a guess". In SCIENCE, the word Theory means that it's the best conceived explanation for all the facts, data, and evidence, which has been rigorously tested and scrutinised by the best of the best in the respective fields of science to make sure there are no mistakes, no inconsistencies, that it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Theory of Special Relativity are 2 Theories on Gravity.
We atheists know far more for sure than you Christians, because all our claims are proven beyond reasonable doubt. For example, we know with absolute certainty God does not exist, because history proves we made him up, along with all the other gods.
Earth was never created. It formed through natural processes.
And Abiogenesis shows that life can form from non-life, and no, it has not been refuted, as the refutation you're thinking of talks about spontaneous generation, which is not the same.
Good debate from both participants.
Excellent debate. Very well organized.
In the back and forth (around 48:48), Dr. Ross says that God might’ve formed the Sun out of the Light that was there from day 1. But, this would be reading the term ‘made’ in IP’s way of reading it, where God takes something that was already there (the light) and organizes it for a purpose. If this reading of ‘made’ from Gen 1 16’s ‘God made the two great lights’ is open to Dr Ross, why can’t IP use that same understanding for the other uses of the term ‘made’ in Genesis 1?
Because of context. Ross' explanation of the light/sun is based off of what scripture explicitly says - whereas IP's wasn't (its founded on speculation).
So it's not at all the case that Ross was doing what IP was doing.
@@Ttcopp12rt Actually he was doing the same. Other creationists who dont believe in literal days but long periods use exactly the same argument - bara means to give functionality to something that already exists, in this case to give light to the earth and as a time-keeper, ie calendars. But I disagree, I think the text implies the sun and moon were created on the 4th day (ie after the earth), which is one reason why I reject a literal understanding of Genesis as that is not how it happened in reality. It seems Ross wants to have it both ways, whichever is convenient for his position.
@@PC-vg8vn If you want to argue ad nauseum - go ahead. Simply stating something over and over doesn't make it true lol.. You stand corrected by my comment above.
@@Ttcopp12rt You clearly dont understand what 'ad nauseum' means.
@@Ttcopp12rt “simply stating something over and over again doesn’t make it true.” Lol that’s one of the most ironic statements I’ve read in a long time given your previous comment. But if you didn’t get it when they explained it to you then I’m sure this comment will do no good lmao
The scariest answer to the Problem of Evil - or at least the Problem of Suffering - is that, to some degree, the world was designed to be this way.
“ that’s a difficult statement to justify “. Well said
What Ross also fails to appreciate is that 'earth or 'world' typically mean either the known world then or a local area. Even in the NT it is used for the known world, ie the Roman world. We only refer to the 'world' today to mean the globe because we only now know that the earth/world is this large globe.
The word ערץ is the same used as in the beginning… (genesis 1:1) so is introduced as meaning the whole Earth. The flood account is a recapitulation of the creation narrative, but other contextual details make it explicit that the whole Earth is in view
@@MrWholphin But again, the whole earth did not mean a globe as we now know it to ancient Hebrews. Youre reading the text with a 21st century understanding.
Ok, great point. So the flood could have been a local flood that was 20 thousand feet above sea level, covering the tallest mountains in the region.
@@UnderTheFloor79 do you not know what hyperbole is?
@@UnderTheFloor79 It may be a case of hyperbole which a number of OT writers were prone to. Another reminder that we are not to read the Bible as a scientific textbook. The Hebrew translated 'mountain' could just as easily be translated 'hill'. Or it could simply be that from the point of view of those on the boat, it seemed that everywhere that they could see from their position was covered in water. I understand this is quite possible due to the curvature of the earth - a fascinating insight.
I think Dr. Ross is doing good at challenging Jones on consistency issues with respect to hermeneutics.
An enjoyable debate, but I do think it would be cool if they did a follow up debate on the actual science of the matter.
I came in leaning toward theistic evolution but honestly I think Dr. Ross has moved me a bit the other way...I'll have to look into this more. Thanks for posting this!
It's a hard position to take when all evidence humanity have gathered points the other way.
@@Zandman26 that’s a bit of a bold statement but could you point me toward a source I can check out that you think really supports theistic evolution? I sincerely appreciate the help.
@@Zandman26 That's a very bold claim which an entire camp of scientists supporting the young-Earth concept would evidently strongly disagree with you on!
@@Xenosaurian It would be great if science deniers actually tried to argument using evidence that could be tested, instead of trying to use the argument from authority (fallacy).
@@Zandman26 What is that supposed to mean? Stop being obnoxious and make some actual sense.
Εν αρχη (in the beginning) means "at first" in typical compositional Greek. James Aitken (one of the world's leading LXX scholars) has made this clear recently. Gen 1:1 in the LXX should be translated "At first, God created the heavens and the earth" or "First of all, God created the heavens and the earth."
That is interesting. Did he comment on what that means for this passage. It seems indeterminate to me as if it could support both interpretations but neither strongly.
It’s because we read the hebrew to understand what the original authors were meaning.
Glad to see these brothers being so cordial, especially Michael.
"No man to till the ground" does not necessarily mean there were no people. It could mean there were people but they didnt know how to till the ground because nobody had eaten from the tree of knowledge.
Brothers i need help . My faith is in a crisis . Does anyone have any where I can look for an alternative view of Genesis 1 and 2 . I can’t believe in YEC . And I held Michael’s view but I think it’s not as strong as it was. Please brethren .
Hey hun, I’m really sorry to hear this. I’m not entirely sure of an alternative view. My best suggestion would be for you to break down Genesis and go back to the direct translations and make your own stance. I pray your faith is not faltering! Also, just because we can’t always see a clear solution doesn’t mean God is not bringing one about ❤️
I am definitely not buying YEC. What is important to me is that Bible is NOT a science book. It is about relationship between man and God. The relatively small part of Genesis dedicated to Creation is very limited, written in most general terms by author that was, of course, not present at the time. He wrote in cosmology terms (dome, lights) that were easily understood by his readers. Imagine if he tried to explain the scientific details of fine tuned Universe to people in bronze age! That would not bode well. God chose to have man write the Bible, and this is a clever thing. Although He had to cope with their limitations. That He allowed words like dome and lamp for atmosphere and celestial bodies is because it was a perspective point of man and not matter of accurate scientific description. Even today we say that Sun rises. Only back then they thought that their perspective reflects reality. Today we can view it knowing that the description of bronze age perception is not scientific reality.
Back to Genesis 1 and 2. As I read it I am noticing some holes in narrative. These are not errors but they show that main thing of the story is that God is the one responsible for our creation and it is Him we have to give glory (Romans 1). This is what was given to all humans in Genesis 1 which is a description of how humanity came to be. There was no Law in Genesis 1 but the one in their hearts.
In Genesis 2 we can see God is presenting humanity with a special kind of people. They are isolated pair of humans one made from earth and other from his genetic material. The creation of these is special, they were not to be "multiplied on whole earth" but to be in Eden where they had access to the Tree of Life. Eden was created by "planting" and had it's creation in different order then creation of heavens and Earth in Genesis 1-2:4.
These two, Adam and Eve, didn't stop to be those special people after being removed from the special place. The circumstances changed for them with the Fall but we can see that they and their children did have extended life spans and that through them worship of God continued. The Fall was about the covenant with God and Adam letting the sin into the world by the trespassing the given law.
After the fall, Cain had a wife. He found it among people of the earth (the subsequent children of Adam and Eve came after the murder), among those who were created in Genesis 1 and were obeying the command to multiply for some time now. These have explored the land and that is how the writer can now about the gold, precious stones, rivers, and land of Kush. These were the people Cain was afraid of and these were the ones with whom he built and settle his town in, already named, a land of Nod which was east from Eden.
The recorded story of Adam and Eve is how we were unable to live in a perfect communion with God and how God promised the deliverer.
See John Walton's lecture's on the Lost World of Genesis One
Nice performance by IP
I assume you're being sarcastic and your comment is implying that Ross therefore had a fantastic and scriptural-supported performance in that respect.
@@Ttcopp12rt Just say you disagree man
I'm an old-earth creationist, and I will admit that Dr. Ross won this debate.
@@theoverreactor8731 thanks for being honest!
@@theoverreactor8731 He did win.
A tiger, with its gloriously designed retractable claws, is made by God to snag the hind limbs of fleeing prey. " Eating only plants" is absurd. It has to mean something else, unless you see claws and teeth as mutations brought about by the fall. A tiger, in every way, is designed to kill, even though he can eat papaya if need be.
IP (Michael Jones) has a methodology for interpreting Scripture that's very confusing for me.
1. He takes what a word/phrase *could* mean, or does mean in another context, and applies that meaning to Genesis 1, without providing any argumentation from the context of Genesis 1 itself. Examples:
a. “create” c.f. Psalm 51, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 43
b. “formless and void” c.f. Jeremiah 4
c. “toledoth” c.f. its other uses in Genesis to mean only what comes after the word toledoth
d. “subdue” c.f. Numbers 32, Joshua 18, etc.
e. “very good” c.f. Jeremiah 24, Judges 18
2. He uses a very similar technique with broader motifs and themes. Examples:
a. Motif of the number 7 c.f. the tabernacle, the temple, Solomon’s temple dedication
b. The “election” of Adam and Eve c.f. God’s calling of Abraham and later Israel
c. Priests installed on the 8th day c.f. Leviticus
d. For interpreting Matthew 19: Scriptural, not chronological ordering of martyrs c.f. Matthew 23; this means Matthew 19 is intended to be the Scriptural order, not chronological
3. Here is a list of Scripture references that *explicitly refer* to Genesis 1-3 that Jones quotes *NOT* to help interpret Genesis, but rather to attempt to refute arguments for the YEC interpretation by providing his re-interpretation of those passages in light of his interpretation of Genesis:
a. Romans 5
b. 1 Corinthians 15
c. Exodus 20:11
d. Matthew 19
4. To sum up points 1 through 3: Jones finds passages throughout the rest of Scripture that contain similar words, phrases, themes, or motifs as Genesis 1-3, then he figures out what these things mean in the context of the other passages, then he brings those meanings over and forces them onto Genesis 1-3. Meanwhile, he sidelines the passages that explicitly refer to Genesis 1-3 (my point #3) until he forms his interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Then, he takes his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and uses that to interpret the list of verses from my point #3. This is *NOT* my understanding of how to “let Scripture interpret Scripture.” This is not letting “Scripture speak for itself.” It seems to me that these are the tactics one would use when one wants to force a different meaning onto a text.
5. He combines the opinions of different scholars in a piecemeal way to achieve his result. Dr. Ross points this out very clearly in his side of the cross-examination. I think Jones’ response is technically correct: he doesn’t have to agree with everything a particular scholar says. But his approach still feels forced, and his result seems arbitrary and incoherent.
After watching Ken Ham and Kent Hovind utterly fail at logically defending YEC, I’m glad to see Dr. Ross finally defend the position seriously.
I still don’t agree with it anymore, but it’s very refreshing to see.
Why didn't Michael ask: "If you interpret Genesis and the Bible literally why don't you believe that the earth is flat with a dome?"
Because yom and eretz implicates a rotating earth.
Because the Bible never says flat
Yea, I have to agree with others, the idea that the Bible promotes the “flat earth” concept is false. If someone says the Bible teaches that, ask them where it states that and in context.
The Bible never says the earth is flat
@@NewASMR24 Literal interpretation would conclude the sky is a dome and that the earth is on pillars
I like that so much of the New Testament was used by Dr. Ross. Be cool to see Michael address this theologically within the New Testament from Paul and Jesus as well.
The missing fossil recorded disposes I feel of millions of humans preadam.
Just that alone screams a young earth.
"The missing fossil recorded disposes I feel of millions of humans preadam. " I literally don't know what this sentence means
Awesome debate
Yeah
Dr Ross says Walton has been taken to task by several old testament scholars.is it possible to get a link to these sources?
1:32:39 micheal trying to pick up the water bottle made my day a tad bit better, hes funny lol
Denying adam was literally first man denies Christs geneology. Death came through adam.
Well, we know for an objective fact that Adam and Eve are fictional characters, as was Jesus. That's why first of all, our genetics and fossil record prove we evolved, and secondly, not a single contemporary historical source exists nor any other form of evidence to suggest Jesus ever existed.
Also, biblically, death came through God. Adam and Eve, according to the bible, had no concept of sin, no concept of evil, no concept of disobedience or wrongdoing. They weren't even aware of their nudity or why that should matter. Only AFTER they ate the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil" (gee, it's like the name is telling us something we should probably take note of) did they become aware of what has happened. Only AFTER they ate the fruit, were they aware of their nudity and were ashamed.
This means that God deliberately made Adam and Eve, completely oblivious of what it means to disobey, then deliberately took them right to the thing that they weren't supposed to eat, did absolutely nothing at all to prevent them from doing so, had a walking talking snake (not Satan in any way btw) there that told zero lies, then deliberately left and gave them some time to play around, and when he came back he was "shocked" that the thing he caused to happen, happened. This is like putting two babies in a small room, and put a loaded gun between them, tell them "don't shoot each other" and leave the room, waiting for a gunshot, then come in "oh no, didn't I tell you not to shoot each other? I guess I'll have to torture the one who's left for the rest of its life now". If a human did this, he'd be considered an extremely evil monster. If God does it, you praise him as the goodiest of good goods that can be. And you wonder why atheists aren't convinced.
That’s what I was thinking!
In the beginning John 1:1 in the Greek and in the beginning with Genesis does mean the beginning of the word going forth and creation.
Yes, it absolutely is compatible.
I still don’t know how!
@@thomasglass9491 That's because you are incapable of understanding that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. I am a Theist and when I want to learn Science, I study Science. It's that simple.
@@robinrobyn1714 The Bible is not per se a scientific book but it talks about the creation and how God did everything, evolution is not compatible. Also, evolution is no science, but pseudoscience.
@@thomasglass9491 Where did you study Judaic Hermeneutics? Because the Tanakh has varying levels of understanding.
As for Evolution, which I believe and always have, David Berlinski disagrees with you. And before you even go there- he's not a Christian. He's an Agnostic Jew. He takes serious issue with Evolution. He is not uneducated either. He has a Ph.D from Princeton.
@@robinrobyn1714 Terry Morteson in his book, Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin. He examines that topic and searched what the jews prior to christianity and the early church believed. The majority of the early church believed in a literal Genesis that favors the YEC interpretation (well except from Origen and his school of allegory, which is consider a heresy and the hellenistic jews who are not orthodox).
Has David Berlinski brought evidence for evolution? Because since darwin there has been zero evidence, just theories.
For the topic being about evolution, they didn’t talk about evolution lol wish they addressed some of those issues
@N/A ahh good point
Why are short-earth creationists all so stuck on temporally-limited causality? Is God limited to working within human understandings of linear history?
Bereshit is defined as "in the beginning". You can look it up in any Hebrew language source.
Also, kione Greek does, indeed, have indefinate articles. Many variants in NT manuscripts that are inconsequential are those involving the incorrect indefinate article (a apple, instead of an apple, etc...Greek works the same as English in this regard) as well as spelling variants (color vs. colour). These two types of examples "count" as texual variants but do not change the meaning of the text.
Ross is such a master debater that all he has to do is the same thing over and over: states his personal interpretation as if it’s objective fact and then acts confused when he gets challenged
This was not doc's interpretation. He quoted the Bible. Michael on the other hand, interpreted freely. I 'll ask you the question : is God limited in Creation? Do you believe the ressurection of Jesus or did that took billion of years too? Do you believe , that when Jesus says in revelation , we will be ressurected is a lie or is it truth? Will that be billions of years too?
@@rebeccad6840 the answer to your first question is n/a and the answer to the other questions is no
@@rebeccad6840 wrong, he quoted his interpretations. You didn't notice, because you agree with him. Like when he dishonestly told Michael, "that isn't the scriptural view," that was a lie. In reality, that just wasn't *Ross's interpretation* of what the scriptural view is. They literally disagree about what the scriptural view IS.
@@rebeccad6840 No Ross interpreted freely. Like when he assumed that Adam was the first man on the earth because the bible ways "there was no man to till the ground"
focusing on the "no man" part, but ignoring the "to till the ground" part.
He also showed he doesn't understand how analogies work. I don't know where he gets that analogy's only work forward in time. When your comparing two things an alalogy only works backwards in time because we don't know the future.
Also when he said that the mountain tops could still be seen even though the flood covered them. The problem with that is a little thing called gravity. Water flows to the lowest point because of it, unless he's suggesting God kept the water from flowing off the mountain tops, but the bible never says that happened.
@@rebeccad6840absolutely no one is arguing that God couldn’t have done *anything*
It’s arguing that God set in place natural scientific laws. Evolution may be a mechanism made and lead by God
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:46-47
Great verses.
Although I agree with Dr. Ross in that I hold a young earth creationist view, I think he did a great job presenting his information, but a poor job interacting with his opponent.
In my opinion, he had plenty of sarcastic remarks and face gestures that weren’t very professional. During cross examination, I noticed Michael’s goal was for Ross to validate his view, while Ross’s goal was to to simply discredit Michael! Not the best approach as it seems more like a fear tactic.
Overall, great debate, and just proves that even very smart men don’t always have the right answers! God bless!
I don’t really understand the opening argument.
Even if Gensis 1 does say ‘in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’, how would that contradict evolution and/or suggest a young earth? It literally says nothing about the age of the earth.
Elsewhere it says he created male and female from the beginning. If it took millions of years before different sexes evolved, wouldn't that contradict the statement? And if Adam and Eve were the original humans and we have a short genealogy then that contradicts a long age.
I have great respect for both of these individuals but I would like to ask Michael Jones if the beginning of John's gospel as it begins with "in the beginning" should be reinterpreted as well in the similar fashion he feels that Genesis 1:1 should be reinterpreted
John Walton's view of Genesis has been refuted in _Review of John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology_ by Nathan Mastnjak, John Day's _From Creation to Babel_ pages 4-5 and here's an excerpt from William Lane Craig's criticism:
"Walton has a particularly difficult time with the firmament which God creates. He thinks that the ancient Israelites believed that there literally existed a solid dome in the sky - the firmament - which held up the waters which are above the earth. So he says if we take Genesis 1 as an account of material creation, then it implies the existence of something “that we are inclined to dismiss as not part of the material cosmos as we understand it.” There is no firmament in other words. He says we can “escape from the problem” by interpreting the text purely functionally. It doesn’t really mean that God created the firmament in the sense of bringing this thing into existence. Here I think Walton has very clearly allowed modern science to intrude into his hermeneutics. The issue isn’t whether the firmament is part of the material cosmos as we understand it. The issue is whether or not the firmament was part of the material cosmos as the ancient Israelites understood it. Trying to justify a functional interpretation by appealing to the non-existence of the firmament in modern science is an example of concordism, which you will remember is allowing modern science to enter into and guide your exegesis. This is a view that Walton himself rejects. I find it tremendously ironic that Walton, after inveighing against concordism earlier in the book, should find himself guilty of this very hermeneutical fallacy himself in saying that because the firmament doesn’t exist according to modern science therefore we should think that this narrative is not about material creation but functional creation."
@N/A The functional/material distinction is the main point of Walton's argument. He says rather then Genesis speaking of material creation, it's speaking about assigning "functions" to various entities. The paper I cited shows this is a false dichotomy and John Day's book makes the point that Gen. 1:11 implies material creation of vegetation while it's "function" as food isn't mentioned until Gen. 1:29-30.
As for the solid dome, the Ancient Israelites certainly believed it was real. See Day's _From Creation to Babel_ pages 2-3.
@@thehopelessdeterminist even in English it's obvious this is functional, just read it, God created light for and luminaries TO SERVE AS SIGNS
Yeah... The problem with this argument is that Walton is not using his argument as a hermeneutic. The fact is he did the hermeneutic prior when he said the verse calls the sky a solid dome. His comparison is only to make a further argument that either the Bible is making a literally false claim or it is not about it's not a claim about the material. That's not a concordance approach to hermeneutics.
@N/A it's a school of knowledge pertaining to interpreting the Bible. So what I was saying is that John Walton gave an interpretation of the passage, that it refers to the sky as a solid dome. He then argues that the implication of this interpretation is either at the Bible makes a literal false statement or it is not talking about the creation of a material solid dome sky, but instead refers only to its function.
@N/A well John Walton would argue that the Bible making a literal false statement is problematic. But his point isn't that it could refer to a solid dome sky. It's that it does, but that this reference could either be a material reference or a functional one. The material reference would be a literal false statement, but the functional reference would not.
English is limited in expressing what God create and made. Both words are used differently in the entire Bible. Bara (create) is specifically creating out of nothing. Subsequently the other things that came to existence was made from already created things e.g Adam was made from the earth ….
Michael Jones was right
Then why does gen 1:27 use bara for creation of man. You also have to ignore many other verses. Or if you read isaiah 43. Verses 1 and 7, is it creating out of nothing there?
@@405servererror A simpler way to know the difference between created(bara) and made(asah) is when something is new God created it but not when God made things.Things that God made were not new.Things that God created were new. Now read Exodus 20. and notice God made it in six days he did not create it.So it was not new.Old earth
@@405servererror you didn’t read the text well. The text in question about man isn’t about actualization of its existence but in preparation of it. God creative processes in this regards is in his mapping of human existence in one man which was actualized in making of Adam. Note: the text says
27. So God created mankind (species) in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 NIV
Let me add little knowledge I have here: note: I’m not imposing my view or opinion on anyone. It remains what I think and which I used mostly in explaining to people who need to know.
When it is time for Adam existence, God made him from existing materials then putting what will animate and what will help him replicate himself in him. We know a Man contains XY chromosomes (X- Female) and (Y-Male) {male and Female) he created them. When Woman was made from Man, God took from the Man’s side (X) and made a woman. God by his supernatural power doubles female chromosome (XX) to enables her able to produce part of herself (X) in forming her kinds along with the Man. No matter what the man give from (XY): Male (Y) or Female (X), the woman is readily able to match and produce their kinds either a new (XX) or (XY). All these happens making process called reproduction. Reproducing what God already made or produced.
Gerald Schroeder has a great interpretation of the 6 days of Genesis.
They should add a disclaimer of how mr.ross got his doctorate and what it was in.
You’re gonna say this and then not tell us what it is or how he got it?
Dr. Marcus Ross did an excellent job in this debate. May God continue to be with him and his loved ones.
what, and not with Jones?
@@PC-vg8vn unfortuntaely, Mr Jones did not adhear to the TEist strengths. Trying to put a theological argument forward only to support TEism will always fail when confronted with sound theological doctrine from the Bible. Mr Jones should have avoided that approach...he was never going to survive the problems associated with his view from that angle. It also doesn't help when one is up against a Dr of Paelentology who also happens to be a very well doctrined academic theologically and a YEC. Big ask to defeat this kind of opponent. Mr Jones gave it a great shot, but even from his opening statement, the huge theological flaws in his speech were clearly evident from the outset.
@@adamedgar5765Agree fully. I though Dr Ross' analogy of an argument or reasoning being like cotton candy i.e. it tastes great but in the end there's nothing there, sums up the point you make well. On the whole Dr Ross' arguments were far more scholarly sound than Mr Jones' "mostly, could be and maybes."
@@adamedgar5765 💯
@@PC-vg8vn Jones' theology and understanding on Genesis is woeful and flies in the face of what was believed by nearly all of the early church fathers of the first few centuries, and most importantly affirmed in scripture. Jones had to constantly rely on modern scholars opinions to affirm his inaccurate interpretation of Genesis.
Cheers, ex-atheist.
With Dr. Ross all the way 100% 👍😊 God bless all who are sincerely searching for the truth - REGARDLESS of where it may lead 🙏
Michael seems to have forgotten when the text was written in its original language there were only 2000 words so many have different meanings depending on how its used to a larger degree than it would be today. I hope at some point he changes his ways and retracts what he's been teaching.
I have a question, one that puzzled me a lot when i was atheist, Who married Cain and Seth if ther where not other people?
Some sibling or first(or whatever degree) cousin?
I think 18:07 is very interesting and could claim an answer in genesis. Not saying this part is 100% true because I would need to study it myself but could help you.
I’ve always kind of chalked it up to they were then old enough to marry their sisters. It doesn’t tell us how long until they got married and also, scripture does not usually mention the birth of daughters.
Thankful for the charity and clarity here, alongside the obvious love for God and his revelation in this Word and in the world. Model debate, thank you!
It would seem to me that Adam represents the first human who exists within the specific construct of time or history. That is, the first to be a man and not an ape.
“Let us make man in our image” should be a clear and concise end to that idea of thinking.
@@ThatsTheFamthat’s kinda what I was thinking too. Like Adam was made in the image of God and I believe he was immortal until the fall. He was in a state of glory until sin perverted that.
The point about the light source was enlightening
Listening to Michael Jones is frustrating. I like his position on somethings and I think he does a good job on his defense of God as creator. But listening to this, when scripture plainly says that Satan, the devil, the accuser of the brethren was the Old Serpent, and in other places, and he shakes his head. It seems like he wants to claim that he believes the authority of scripture, but then he denies the plan reading of the text.
Because "the plain reading" is normally out of historical context.
Great job from both Mike Jones and Rick Ross. I thought Ross crushed it.
Excellent debate...IP totally won this
Perspective is an interesting thing. IP had to totally dance around scripture in order to justify his positions. Whereas Carter used scripture as his basis and confidently won this debate.
@@TheSaintFrenzy Show me where IP did not use scripture as his basis?
I find his opinion unconvincing. His opinion to me always sounds like he thinks God has to bend the knee to the laws of nature or that he’s subject to them. He takes specific verses bluntly and then other loosely to fit his worldview. He believes the science then works backwards which is why his interpretations seem odd.
@@Checkmate777 no rather the law of nature has to bend the knees to God, basically God working through the ordinary, God working through nature, what we see in nature is God's work, so he trying to show evolution is compatible with God and does not deny the existence of God at all
@@justinpartogi disagree. I think the whole continuity and narrative of the Bible is destroyed when you disregard Genesis as history. If you don’t believe the Bible just don’t believe the Bible. No need to pervert it. God is not a deceiver or confuser. Especially to a THEORY that doesn’t have any actual proof other than fossils and animals that look similar.
Hate to be this way but I honestly think there is room for the truth in this case to be somewhere in between these two options
Jim,.....No, the truth is the complete opposite of what these two ungodly atheists has laid out. These guys have zero Biblical understanding.
@@seedsower678 How can it be the opposite of both?
@@Jim-Mc ,.....Because they are both basically saying the same thing, and neither of them understands the Bible.
The 100% fake manmade theory of evolution is the exact opposite of what the Bible states and is a 100% antigod/antibible/antichrist religion. Anyone who is actually a Christians would say what I have just said and stand 100% against this fake manmade theory and against every blind, lost, and deceived person that believe and holds to it.
No actual Christian would never debate this but just say that anyone that thinks that Godless mans theory of evolution could even possibly be true is not a Christian but is an atheist.
The entire church is filled with atheists, absolutely not Christians.
@@Jim-Mc I'm genuinely curious what could be the opposite of both and be a Christian belief. I personally agree though that the truth lies somewhere between the two. I've always joked that I'm a middle aged earth creationist, or middle earth creationist. There are clearly holes in the evolutionary model, but also plenty of observable holes in a YEC model. Also, it seems laughable that God existing outside of time and space, was super anal about creating the universe in 24hour time periods when the very universe he's creating has an extraordinarily relative structure for measuring time. It's a nonsensical proposition.
@@thebestSteven Wish there was a specific model I could point to as an alternative. But for instance I definitely think there is room for mistranslation of the time period between the Creation and the days of Noah. And relatedly I think there is a lot of material evidence for (practical) global flooding about 12,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas period which also coincided with many people migrating from the Caucasus, where Ararat happens to be. So in short, much older than 6,000 years, but with regard to humans I don't buy the hominid narrative of hundreds of thousands of years at all. If you disregard the specific lengths of time and focus on the sequence, the Genesis narrative begins to make a lot more sense both symbolically and physically.
Ross wants to believe the 'days' in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days but ignores the very definition of what a day is - a single turn of the earth on its axis in the light of the sun. His is a completely illogical position.
That definition of a day isn't in the text. You're reading that into it.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 If that is true, then why do YEC use the same definition of a day back then as a day is today?
If back in Genesis a "day" was just the difference between light and dark, then you cannot say it was the same length of time as we call a day right now.
@@karozans What I have said is true. The OPs definition is objectively NOT in the text.
I can't speak for all YECs.
I only speak to the truth of the Scriptures, which are easily understood by their plain meanings, when a little common sense is applied.
God fixed a set period of time, begun by a morning and finished by an evening, which He called a "day". He created the light and separated it from the dark (Gen 1:3-4) during the first day. On the fourth day, He created the sun, moon and stars to be additional lights for additional purposes (Gen 1:14-19). Each of the seven days are described in the EXACT same way, with an evening and morning, the light being day and the dark being night, both before and after the sun and moon were created to be the ruling lights of day and night, respectively. It could not be more plain that these were seven literal, 24hr days.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 Although I agree with you about 24 hr days.It is important to know and understand the difference between the words created and made.Claiming that these words are used interchangeably is just not so. Moses is really trying to get us to understand this in Genesis 2:1-4 so that we will read Genesis 1 and the rest of the OT properly. Gap Theorists understand this and they are correct about the difference between bara and asah in hebrew.God mostly made things in Genesis 1 and it is very important to notice what God made and what he created.
@@abelcainsbrother If you are theorizing some kind of millions-of-years long gap in Genesis, then you are reading that into the text. It's simply not there. It seems you are trying to reconcile modern Scientism with the Genesis account. You cannot serve two masters. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Crazy how it's just genesis that we've had wildly incorrect translations of for the best part of two thousand years. I can rest easy now, knowing the ancient authors of the bible had a scientifically accurate understanding of birth of the universe and life on this planet. Big weight off, thank you.
Lol nop even science is not even accurate on the age of the earth, they calculated the age of the earth with assumptions that everything was constant which may be incorrect
No one is arguing that genesis is a scientific account of creation, nor that the authors knew about modern scientific theories. Genesis is not a literal account of creation, it is an allegorical account that tells philosophical and theological truths about creation. You can believe in natural revelation through the sciences and also believe in the deep, philosophical and theological revelations of scripture. None are incompatible.
He missrepresented the certainty of that translation of Genesis 1:1 by the way.... it CAN be interpreted that way, but doesn't have to be.
Smh...Ross please sir..I love you but please be reasonable and not just ignore abd deflect..very very one sided....
This may come off as an incredibly stupid question, but so far Im not sure where I stand on this issue and im trying to learn more about the YEC perspective.
What confuses me moat about it is don't creationists believe the Genesis 1 account of creation are used to estimate an age for the Earth and universe of about 6000 years? So what do they think about all the bones of animals and artifacts found by scientists and archeologists that come from say 10000 years ago? Even Marcus seems to acknowledge this at around 38 minutes when he shows events that happened more than 6000 years ago
How do creationists reconcile believing the earth is 6000 years old with artifacts and bones being found from even further back? This is one things I can't wrap my head around.
Either God intentionally created everything with age, or during Noahs flood, nuclear decay sped up exponentially. These are the 2 (equally stupid) arguments ive heard.
This was good. Thanks.
no one will talk about the fact that his name is Ross and he is a paleontologist????
Lol! Nice spot there xD
Christians should not use much time to look at friends who's focus is to make sin funny and acceptable. Hopefully that's why. Unfortunately I was not where I should be at that time myself, and got your point....
😂😂😂
Oh holy crap, that's my old professor! He has a few more gray hairs 🤣 I might have some too
Very good questions too.
Is it just me or is Michael's voice cracking throughout this? I'm glad this debate happened. Neither of these guys seem completely comfortable with in-person debate. Good practice, at the very least.
His voice cracks regularly in every debate I’ve ever seen him in lol
I watch lots of Michael’s livestreams. His voice frequently cracks. That’s even when he’s joking around with his friends. I don’t think it means anything. My voice cracks a lot too. LOL!