REPLY TO INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY - TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism
Let's jump right into things. Here is the original video = https://youtu.be/8AoLYeFi2ms I will be answering all 10. For some reason he goes in reverse starting at 10 and going to 1. I will be going the other way and I will be referring to Inspiring Philosophy as IP.
1:) I.P. said it is possible that (IN THE BEGINNING) should not even be at the start of Genesis 1.1.
Reply; Thats fine, lets say for argument sake you are 100% correct and ill even give you that. I can answer this with a question - What does Jesus say about ADAM AND EVE? He said "
Matthew 19:4 "Have ye not read, that he which made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female?" Clearly we can see that even if it was removed in Genesis 1 it still applies regardless. More on this later...
2:) IP says that there are places in scripture where "bara" doesn't mean creation out of nothing. Therefore we cannot take with face value that bara in genesis directly means Creation - He uses the example of how psalm 51:10 the author asks God to create in him a new heart. But clearly he isn't given a new physically created heart.
Reply: IP is trying to make the argument that IF Earth was already existing and then God came along and created it to function properly, then it really doesn't mean that the world was Created at that moment. Now, again lets give this to him ok? Let's say Gods spirit was traveling over his prior Creation He made and He saw Earth and decided to make it functional and separated dry land from water. This still doesn't change the argument about WHEN did this happen. If he tries to argue that these "days" are massive undisclosed amounts of time then it undermines the Sabbath itself, since it is clearly a single day we are supposed to rest and set aside. Not an undisclosed period of time, or 1,000 year period like a lot of people grasp at (When Peter says that for God one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day, he's talking about the timeless attribute of God, not that whenever day is mentioned in the Bible, it can mean 1000 years). Again I believe IP is trying to reconcile deep time evolution into scripture when there is no reason too. Literally the entire order of Creation is the exact opposite of evolution anyway (Water before dry land, plants before sun, Earth before sun, etc..). So just tossing an Old Earth in doesn't actually solve the problem as a theistic evolutionist. Just learn the science and you will see that it only comes down to interpretation of the data.
Lets focus on "Bara", it is used a total of 54 times in scripture. 42 times it directly means to "create", 3 times it means "creator", 1 time it means "done or complete" - referring to something created, and only in 8 other places does it mean something outside of that, and none of these appear anywhere near Genesis it seems.
Let's look at Genesis and see how often Bara is used and then ask ourselves if we should believe bara meaning something other than Originally Created - Of course we see it in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Again IP says this is not a creation event but rather taking a previously created thing and making it function properly. Then we find it in Genesis 1:21 "So God created (bara) the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Now, were these Creatures already here and existing? Did God just make them function properly now? Let's look at more and see if bara should be used in Genesis for functionality or creation = Genesis 1:21 "So God created (bara) mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female He created (bara) them." It seems like we have another Creation event out of nothing. We can see this throughout scripture when referring to mankind, "Deut; 4:32 "Ask now from one end of the heavens to the other about the days that long preceded you, from the day that God created (bara) man on earth:" Or how about in Genesis 5:2 where is specifically says "In the DAY when they were created (bara). So we have man who was not existing, just like animals and just like the Heavens and the Earth, then all of a sudden, in a single day all different things being created (bara) in Genesis 1. We see this in Psalms 89:47 "You have created (bara) all".
Now if there was an Old pre-existing Earth, then why would the text say "Bəreshit" at all in literally every known existent Biblical text on Earth? Bəreshit (בְּרֵאשִׁית, literally meaning = "In the beginning"). If the Earth was already existing then there would be zero reason for the text to say "In the Begining" and since this is mentioned throughout scripture even by Jesus himself who said "God created them both male and female in the Beginning". Then it seems clear, Genesis 1 was "The Beginning" of Creation of Earth and the Heavens and not a later rehashing of a function of a prior creation. Then it could no longer be consider "Beginning". This is cleared up in Genesis 2, so you do not have to just trust if Genesis 1:1 if it had Bəreshit, because we can see in Gen 2:4 "These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth, when they were created (bara) in THE DAY that YHWH God made the Earth and the heavens". The text in other places in scripture really does seem to imply that Genesis 1:1 is referring to a single day Creation of the heavens and the Earth. Romans 1:20 Paul tells us directly that people are without excuse, seeing Gods power and glory in his creation FROM THE BEGINNING". it says directly "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky." Clearly mankind was created and have existed since the beginning of this creation. This verse would not be true if the Earth were billions of years old, since man would not have existed since the beginning to see the Earth and sky.
3;) Genesis 1:28 IP says that Eden was Blissful and perfect, yet this verse tells us man has dominion over animals and subdue which is harsh and not perfect.
Reply; First of all God gave us dominion and control over Earth and the creatures that live in it. We are above them, and they were created for us. How is this at odds with a perfect Creation? I guess its a subjective argument because if you feel that riding a horse, using an ox to plow land, birds to carry messages, sheep for their wool. Then yes it is harsh to use them for this but it hardly would make Paradise a harsh world because of it don't you think?
Were Biblical slaves abused? They were never supposed to be mistreated, yet the word in scripture in regards to a slave would be to subdue. Well subdue in the dictionary has a few meanings, yes it means to conquer and bring into subjection but there was no nation or people to conquer. But it also means to "Bring land under cultivation" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subdue What was Adam doing in Eden? Well he was cultivating. So clearly the text goes along with that definition of the word because no text anywhere refers to Adam having an altercation with anyone else at any time, even with animals. How about animals? Yes, we can use an ox to till the land and use a horse to ride, because we have dominion over them and we can subdue them. Is this evil? Not at all. This does not take away from God calling things "good" after he made them nor that Eden was a paradise. Man was not killing them to eat either, the first death we even see is after the fall of Adam, while they were naked hid from God and thus because of sin something must atone for it. Thus death was required for life and we see the first death of an animal used to cloth man. We clearly see all life was vegetarian and we see no mention of death ever anywhere in scripture. The matter of fact Isiah mentions that the next life will be akin to how it was in the pre-fall world where "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them." Isaiah 11:6.
God wants us to be good to animals and kind. He that killeth an Ox is the same that killeth a man." Isaiah 66:3. We also see in Proverbs 12:10 "The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel."
Man was never even permitted to Eat animals till after the flood. Clearly if God told Adam to subdue animals then Adam started abusing and killing them he would be doing something wrong. The text is pretty clear, but sadly vague. This is why IP is able to play semantics because stories are brief and vague to some extent. Clearly IP interoperation comes from his view of evolution and how evil it is in a world of killing that can only evolve through death and suffering and survival of the fittest. This midset is what is at odds with scripture, that is why he is trying to reconcile what he believes these words mean in the context.
4:) IP says how can there be a day and night in Genesis 1; 14-19 Days and night can only exist with a sun and earth. Yet the sun did not exist.
Reply; Think about it like this. The Bible tells us in the next life there is still a Sabbath right? It is FOREVER. And the Sabbath is the 7th (day). Yet how can their be days with no sun? Clearly the Bible says God melts away the sun and he is the light of the world. So we will no longer have a solar illusionary.
2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent."
2 Peter 3: 12-13 "At that time the heavens will be destroyed by fire. And the sun and moon and stars will melt away with much heat. We are looking for what God has promised, which are new heavens and a new earth."
So it seems to me that "days" exist with or without a rotation of the Earth nor the suns existence. God Created time regardless of our subjective opinion of how fast it ticks based on where we are on this planet or on another planet. God created a day to be 24 hours from the beginning here on Earth and days are made for us just like seasons are so we can know and understand seasons and sabbath. God was on this Earth during this time and God is light, so it was his presence that was supplying the light we read about, just like it will be again his light in the next life, sun or no sun, night or no night.
5:) IP mentions JER 4:23-26 where God took a disorder cosmos and made it function properly. We talked about this earlier. Ok fine, as I said we can argue over semantics and ill even award you with this. The next logical question then is when was this? You will find the answer again falls on YEC, timeline. So I do not understand how the argument helps IP because Creation of life and everything else is still pointing to YEC and all within days of each other. Even IF Earth and the Heavens were existing long before the other events of creation.
6:) IP says Genesis 2:4 is 1 of 2 creation stories. He even goes as far as to say that Adam and Eve were not the first two people.
Reply; No idea what humans existed before Adam and Eve unless you read Jewish lore and read about Lilith (Adams first wife). Eve is called Eve because she is the mother of all living. Kinda odd for her not to be first, don't you think? But lets focus on the 2 creation stories in Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2. He is correct there are two creation stories, one Eve was made with man, the other she was made from his rib. Chapter 1 is an overview, a laid out plan in regards to the Creation of Man, It's a story about WHY God created mankind.
Whereas Chapter 2 is God actually focusing on the creation specifics of man, and gives the details of the process. It is not focused on Why He created everything, nor the specifics of other things like the planets, or animals, because God created all of it - for mankind, and mankind is the focal point of this story. Remember, God created the Earth for mankind and we are the important part of this story and God wants us to know that.
So the reader of Genesis 1 is of a distant observer listening to God explain to his children in a very simple way the overall creation of the universe, Earth, and life regarding WHY He created mankind - (purpose)
As where Genesis 2 zooms in for a close-up on the “man” God created everything for, including some details of the process. We can see that Eve was taken directly from Adam's side - making females equal to men right from the start. God could have easily taken a hair from Adam to make Eve but this would have been interpreted that women are above men. Or he could have taken a small bone from the foot of man, but this would have placed women beneath men. So God wanted us to know that we are all equal and scripture cannot be twisted and interpreted wrong regarding this subject. You will also notice that God chose a rib, the only bone in the body that regrows after it is damaged or removed.
God is named 32 times in 31 verses in Genesis 1, and every time He’s the subject of the sentence; acting, intentionally building something “good.” Notice Chapter 1 describes “why” God is going to Create all things “for” man - “Fruit is for man’s food and good pleasure”. The animals were created so man will know his special status—and place, that he’s made for more and created above the beast of the field and to have dominion over them. Man did not evolve from them in scripture, they are brought to him and he names them and rules over them. So Chapter 2 is about the actual event occurring without the “WHY” involved.
Trying to say that God breathed into Adam and gave him a soul and this is what elected him as something special like some christians believe. Well this fails when you discover that soul is just the body. It say's God Breathed the breath of life into the first man (Adam) and he BECAME a living soul. This is a creation event of man, not a special election of Adam being different from other humans alive at this time.
7:) Genesis 4... The Tree of life obviously granted some form of life extension powers, why else even call it the tree of LIFE? Man was created perfect, but had to be removed from this tree after the fall as if he had kept consuming its fruit he would have remained youthful. This is why an angel was sent to guard any man from going near it, as to try to obtain longer life. It was probably most likely possible Adam could die falling off a cliff, but he was biologically unable to age and die being made "perfect". How does this argument go against YEC though? We clearly see Earth was Created for man, and we are the focal point of creation in scripture and God gave us a perfect world to live in disease free and it was only sin that brought death into the world. Maybe I am wrong here but I believe IP wants to tell us that death and discord was normal because that is what evolution teaches and he is a theistic evolutionist. I do not believe the two theories are really compatible, it has to be either 1 or the other. But I do not like the division it causes between theists. I think Creation is what separates Christians from non-christians. Remove creation and now the only difference is you go somewhere when you die. Remember without the "bad news" of the fall of man, then there is no "good news" of redemption. "For through one man, sin entered into the world and death by sin". If Genesis fall of Adam was not literal then nothing about Salvation even makes sense. How can there have been death before Adam then? Seems clear cut in my opinion.
8:) IP says YEC all believe the entire Bible literal (Kinda ridiculous claim). The fact that the Bible even has a single parable means it cannot be 100% literal. Not to mention there are psalms-poetry, allegories, proverbs, metaphors etc.. the entire thing doesn't have to be literal to determine if some parts are or are not. That is where the science and statistical probability come into play.
9:) Genesis 8:4-5 IP says the tops of mountains see. Yet Genesis 8:9 says waters upon face of whole Earth. Which is it? First of all, why is this a YEC problem? Or is this a Global flood argument ? Either way let's lay out the story so you can see... Here is IP argument, showing that they contradict.
First we see...
Genesis 8:4-5 "on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."
But then later we see...
Genesis 8:9 "But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark."
Ok, perhaps this can be answered by there being two different authors. A priestly source and perhaps a scribe of Noah... https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood1-t-bible_2/
Regardless, here is the timeline;
The time the ark grounded on a mountain side on the 17th day of the 7th month, until the tops of the mountains were seen on the 1st day of the 10th month and until the dove was released the second time and bought back the olive leaf was approximately 4 months (the 11th month 11th day.) It was only after that, God told Noah he could leave the ark because the ground was dry enough. But from a botanical perspective it also means, that any grass, seeds or plant fragments that had survived the months of flooding, have now had several months to germinate or sprout on a warm moist earth, thus producing a lush, albeit short in height, coverage of planet earth, making for plenty of food to eat for the animals, without having time to produce thick jungles to impede rapid migration around the planet.
Look, we do not have to bicker over if scripture is trying to tell us if there was a global flood or not, we know there was. Worldwide low genetic diversity in all life has proven it = https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html They were unable to find anything in their made up geologic column, so they had to retrofit the data after the fact. The fact is mtDNA mutates fast and all observable pedigree mutation rate studies validate this. Considering the study was focused on the Co1 gene in the mitochondria then we can be certain that it also ticks fast and this evidence points to a recent global bottleneck in ALL life (Fish, birds, animals and humans). Everything tested has low genetic diversity, contrary to evolutionary expectations.
10:) IP says Abraham and Sarah Didn't have kids over 100, including his father nor anyone that Abraham had ever know. Also the Masoretic text shows us that Abraham would have known old people. How can we reconcile this?
Reply; Easy. The Masoretic text alone cannot answer this, that is why. We must look at the difference between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint and every other ancient text regarding the post flood genealogies =
Since Jesus himself read from the Septuagint I think he would have noticed if the dates were wrong. Since he did not, then we have to assume that its the Masoretic text that is wrong since it is the only 1 that doesn't align whatsoever.
This means Abraham would not have known Shem or any of the patriarchs that were living to their 400s, and the verse now makes sense. The matter of fact Abraham himself was born to Terah when he was 130.
Not this -
Below is from the Greek Septuagint. Names are a little different, as they have not been translated yet like in the Masoretic. Shem = Sem, Salah = Sala, Eber = Heber, Reu = Ragau, Serug = Seruch, Nahor = Nachor and Tarah = Tharrha
First, it should be remembered that Abraham did not think it impossible to sire a child by Hagar at age 100 (Genesis 16). In fact, by insisting that Abraham engage in conjugal relations with her maid, Sarah exhibited confidence in his ability to raise up an heir. Remember Abraham had his first son at 86, we read that well after entering the land of Canaan at the age of 75 Abraham was “childless” with “no offspring” (Genesis 15:2-3). He had 6 other kids later (Genesis 25:1-6; 1 Chronicles 1:32)! Zimran, Joktan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah were born sometime after Abraham was 86. Even though Inspiring philosophy believes that Abraham did not have kids after the age of 86 but rather they were all born before Isaac because Isaac would’ve gotten the inheritance which he didn’t. But I am going to go by scripture rather than assumption based on something else. So clearly in scripture we having Abrahams first kid being born when he was 86 and more kids later at over 100 years so age. So clearly this is NOT why would he be laughing at the prospect of him having another kid at 100. This would just be just a years after he just had a kid anyway, literally just 14 years earlier. Clearly it was Sarah's barrenness and inability to have kids and the joy it brought him to hear the good news that made him laugh at the idea. This is solidified in the fact that he continued to have many more kids after she died with other women (Genesis 24, 25:1-2). Abraham was more than 140 when Keturah bore him six sons.
Ellicott's Commentary Regarding Abraham laughing at God—The Jewish interpreters regard Abraham’s laugh as one of joy, and Sarah’s (Genesis 18:12) as one of unbelief. We may, however, well doubt whether there really was this difference between them; but our Lord confirms the View that joy was uppermost in Abraham’s heart (John 8:56).
Benson Commentary - When Abraham fell on his face, and laughed — It was a laughter of delight, not of distrust. Now it was that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ’s day; now he saw it and was glad; (John 8:56;) for as he saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac, and said, Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old? — He doth not here speak of it as at all doubtful, for we are sure he staggered not at the promise, (Romans 4:20,) but as wonderful, and that which could not be affected but by the almighty power of God.
Adam Clarke Commentary - Abraham fell on his face, ויצחק vaiyitschak, and he laughed; and to the joy which he felt on this occasion our Lord evidently alludes, John 8:56; : Your father Abraham Rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was Glad. And to commemorate this joy he called his son's name Isaac.
Matthew Poole’s commentary regarding Abrahams “laugh”, was through admiration and holy rejoicing at so great a blessing, not through unbelief, as Sarah did, Genesis 18:12,13, as appears from Romans 4:19, 20. And though the outward act was the same in both, yet God discerned their differing dispositions and intentions therein.
Now, a couple of things to mention here, first of all, Abraham responds to God's promise with laughter. Now in chapter 18, we're going to discover that when Sarah hears this promise from God, she will also laugh. God will actually confront her for her laughter. He will rebuke her for her unbelief. But since there is no such rebuke here towards Abraham, it shows us clearly that Abraham's laughter was of good intentions and not of shock because of age. But because his wife who was barren was now able to conceive and explains why Sarah who was barren laughed out of unbelief. Because they both laughed, God tells Abraham that when Sarah has a son, he should name his son, Isaac. Isaac's name literally means laughter. Also consider Abraham was able to beget sons long after that as well (25:1-6). Clearly his age was not a problem but Sarah and her barren body since His own father was 130 when he bore him.
If you are still not convinced of a joyful laugh then consider there are several factors that may come into play as to why the text may be portraying Abraham as was somewhat baffled at the idea of having a child at the age of 100. It is theoretically possible that Abraham simply was failing in health at this time. This would not be surprising, considering his son experienced a serious failing in health about 44 years before he (Isaac) died (Genesis 27:1). Probably a similar genetic health problem his father passed on could have been what made Abraham unable to father any more kids at 100. But this is just a hypothesis because as I said, it seems clear that he had a kid literally just 14 years before that and considering that his father begat him at 130, and that even his own grandson sired a child at 100, Abraham’s statement about him being 100 years of age when Isaac was promised likely could easily be interpreted in light of a physical condition at the time rather than his actual age.
The main reason Sarah was so perplexed and laughed while Abraham was laughing with Joy at the promise of a son (Genesis 17:17) defiantly had to do with his wife’s physical condition. Genesis 18:11 states: “It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women''. Luepold, 1942 state; Sarah’s “periods had ceased with the so-called change of life and with them the capacity to conceive…. Capacity for procreation and conception was extinct.” Abraham knew it would take a miracle for her to conceive a child (Hebrews 11:11).
The truth of matter is that Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. This fact is known because of the inspiration by which Stephen spoke and Luke wrote (Acts 7:4). So someone of old age was completely compatible with the times of Abraham for a man of his age to have a kid.
- Abraham had been able to “raise up an heir” at the age of 86 (Genesis 16:16).
- He then had six other sons by Keturah after he was 86.
- Also, Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was 91 when Joseph was born, and over 100 when he begat his youngest son, Benjamin.
All of this information leads me to believe that Abraham’s amazement at the pronouncement of Isaac at age 100 was due to some other factor than just his being 100 years of age and most likely to the fact his wife was barren and he knew it and the laugh was of joy.
- Abraham’s bewilderment was due largely to his wife’s inability to conceive since her onset of menopause (18:11).
- Perhaps the emphasis is more on a new manifested physical condition, and not his actual age (with his age being used to “describe” his failing health).
Where these Patriarchs real people? Well considering Egypt itself is named after Noah's Grandson, and Jesus himself referred to Adam and Eve as real people and Noah is considered a historical figure today. Then Yes, there is new scientific evidence to validate their old ages... Watch https://youtu.be/tidITbzkK6E
Geneticists even today like Dr. Aubrey De Gray who is a secular evolutionist admits that the human genetic potential in us all is 1,000 years. Now why is that? Why does it align so well with scripture? How come all this new evidence keeps landing perfectly on YEC timelines ? it didn't have too, yet it did in multiple different fields of science and independent research.
The “young” earth view is a deduction from a number of biblical teachings, not a starting point. It follows from the Biblical big picture that God created a perfect creation that fell because of sin. Without this “bad news”, the good news of the Gospel with the redemption from sin lacks any foundation. This alone makes Genesis a historical event.
I believe they were literal days based on how often yom is used in references too literal 24 hr days and also according to Exodus 20:9–11, God used the six literal 24 hr creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the 6th day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God is not a God of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33, so why would day 1 and 2 be millions or billions of years and every day following that literal 24 hr days and no mention of these first 2 days being so vastly different than the rest? Obviously in Daniel 8:26, when yom was not being used in reference to a 24 hr day, the text made very sure we “the reader” knew it.
The Hebrew day begins in the EVENING thus Genesis 1 teaches the days had an "evening and morning"
So yes this word can be used for (a time), (age) or (season), BUT that is ONLY when this word is in the plural form, which is ימים (yamim), and should simply be translated as "day"! Not time, age or season, as this can lead to incorrect interpretations of the text.
The word היום (hayom) is the word יום (yom) with the prefix ה (ha) added and it literally means "the day," but we would translate it as "today."
Also, the Bible is very clear when it says “In 6 days God created the heavens and the Earth.”
We also see in Exodus 31:17 “It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ So we again see literal 6 days, why? For a sign on when to work and when to rest.
We also track genealogies to prove YEC in scripture and also consider what those who wrote it believed and today their very calendars say the year is 5780. All signs via scripture point to a literal 6 day creation.
I also ask you to consider this. Isaiah 45:18 “For thus says the LORD--He who created the heavens; He is God; He formed the earth and fashioned it; He established it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
So if God created the Earth to be inhabited, then what is the point of God creating Earth to sit uninhabited for eons??
Anyway, using just Hebrew text, a case can be made on both sides, thus why the argument still exists to this day.
Those that argue against the literal day, use the fact that there was no sun yet, thus how could a 24 day exist?
This is Answered by me saying, in the next life there will be no more sun either. Remember scripture says, God will melt away even the sun in 2 Peter 3:10 / Revelation 22:5 & Revelation 21:23. Does this mean literal days are over and there is no more sabbath then? Of course not, The Sabbath is eternal Exodus 31:16 / Isa 66:23
In the new earth, 'all flesh' will come to worship God on the Sabbath.
Even God himself is bound to His own law and also keeps the Sabbath. (Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Acts 18:4, Hebrews 4:4, Matthew 27:59; 28:1) and yes even the Angels still do a "lawful" work (Matthew 12:11, 12 & Psalm 103:20) on the Sabbath of ministering to fallen man and protecting them from evil. So even in the next life when there is no Sun, yet there are still literal days and sabbath!!
We can objectively determine how “yom” should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew “yom” is used a total of 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number, is used 410 times, almost always indicates an ordinary biblical 24-hour day. There are only a few instances where “yom” and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. So why believe the exception over the norm? It makes no sense that in a single paragraph where yom is used 5 times as a literal 24 day to just assume the 2 other versus do not mean the same. This is not a logical conclusion to come to or deduce from the text, and why I do not believe their argument is sound.
The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time. So it makes it clear that even though yom is the word, it needed to make the distinction that it is not an ordinary 24 hr day. Or else way go out of the way to explain that it isn't!?
All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian and jewish history. The real division came from early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation. Thus all of Genesis 1 is allegorical and not to be taken literal and why today the Catholic church so readily accepts evolution over Creation.
If you want more details on why the Masoretic text was change read below;
The Samaritan Pentateuch, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, the Greek Septuagint (XXL-A and XX-B), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate, including apocryphal books like Enoch, all concur with one another that Genesis 11:10–26 has years that the Masoretic does not include. The fact that Terah and Shem’s age match in every single one of the ancient biblical texts solidifies the debate.
If that is not enough, even historical non-Biblical works by Demetrius (Greek, third century BC), Eupolemus (Hebrew/Greek, second century BC), Flavius Josephus (Hebrew-based, first century AD). Theophilus of Antioch (wrote Apology to Autolycus), Theophilus, Africanus, and Eusebius. All agree the ages of the post-flood generations had an extra 100 years added on starting after Shem and going to Nahor (who was 79, not 29). This tells us that when we look for corruption in a body of work, the odd one out is always the corrupted version. The Masoretic stands alone in this category. Therefore there should be an additional 780 years added onto the Masoretic timeline of Genesis 11:10–26 genealogies.
Eusebius in the early fourth century AD cited the Masoretic’s numbers but rejected them as having been deliberately changed by the rabbis. He was the first to notice this and make it public. Jerome (late fourth century AD) appears to be the first ancient author outside of rabbinic circles to even accept the MT’s shorter primeval chronology as valid.
The Masoretic texts (MT’s) complete altered chronology is first found in the Seder Olam Rabbah (ca. AD 150), Scholars agree that it was Seder Olam who reduced post-exilic history and I will explain that story next. When Ussher came along and did his chronological calculations, he only used the Masoretic texts which had the altered reduced ages, therefore this is how we got the date of a 6,000-year-old Earth today.
Since it can be shown that all other biblical texts including the Septuagint and Masoretic’s remaining years of Shem and Terah all matched in Genesis 11, this serves as a double witness to the original figures that the only alteration made of the birth ages of the first child is in the MT between Shem and Terah. The reconstruction was on purpose and deceitful to make Shem out to be Melchizedek. Let me explain…
The Apostle Paul connected Jesus to Melchizedek who was a priest of the Most High God! Abraham the patriarch reverenced Melchizedek by paying a tenth of the spoils of the slaughter of Chedorlaomer to him! This single point infuriated the Jews both in the first century and still even today!
So by deceitfully changing the chronology, it allows Shem to pass on the priesthood of Melchizedek to Abraham and not Jesus! Therefore making Paul a lair and taking the position of High Priesthood away from Jesus and giving it to Shem! So to force Shem to become Melchizedek they had to remove the 100 extra years from the descendants of Shem to Nahor and then wala, now they created their own historical narrative. Even though not a single scripture in the Bible anywhere says that Shem was Melchizedek or even alludes to that idea.
It all breaks down like this. Up until the end of the second Jewish war in 135 AD, actually changing the numbers in the Bible text was an academic concept and no one had dared to alter the sacred Hebrew scriptures. However in the city of Zippori(In the past it was called Diocaesarea, it was at the heart of the Galilee province). By 150 AD the Jews began corrupting their synagogue scripture genealogies dates.
However by 160 AD The book “Seder Olam Rabbah” was written by Rabbi Yose ben Halafta, and he had different views of a messiah. You see, the city of Zippori became the intellectual and scholastic center of Judaism in Canaan after Hadrian defeated the Jews in 135 AD. Since Rabbi Yose ben Halafta had such an influence and believed the messiah was not Jesus but rather had his hopes on “Simon Christ” (who was widely believed to be the messiah at this time). Rabbi Halafta’s work and beliefs were shared broadly. His work had most believing “Simon Christ” would usher in the “days of the Messiah”, and conquer the Romans and refute the sect of the Nazarenes who wrongly thought Jesus was.
At Zippori, only a very small number of Hebrew manuscripts existed and this is why when the texts were altered, all future replications brought the alteration with it. “The 2d century saw the rise of the rabbis at Sepphoris/Zippori. These sages perpetuated and participated in the reconstruction of Pharisaic attitudes and ideals.
Then came Rabbi Halaphta who was a leather-worker and leading Tannaʾ of the third generation, active from around [after] 120 C.E., and teacher of Judah I. He is the chief authority for the accepted Jewish chronology as fixed in the work of Seder Olam Rabbah ("The Great Order of the World") chronology detailing the dates of biblical events from the Creation to Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia. So of course these altered ages were accepted by the people. By 160-180 AD: The few existing Hebrew manuscripts were corrupted by Rabbi Yose ben Halafta and other leading Jews
“The traditional Hebrew text, called the Masoretic Text, achieved its standard form early in the second century AD.” (Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Masoretes, 2000 AD)
So again in closing. To determine what ages work, I use the principle of witnesses (statistical probability or p-value). Meaning, if you have two models and none agree with one and the majority agree with the other, then those that agree most likely are the most accurate and true version. I also considered that the oldest would be more valid than the more current. Therefore I feel the strongest evidence we have that the KJV bible has an error in the timeline from the Masoretic translation is that all the other Biblical texts agree with one another in the total ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 11. From Shem all the way to Abram on when they died. Also in the years of Shem and Terah agree, proving that something happened to the middle patriarchs in the Masoretic text. The only difference in any of these texts are in the Masoretic and it’s concerning the age of the birth of their first child.
Regarding other evidence, we have a direct series of events showing us that from Yose ben Halafta who authored “Seder Olam Rabbah” at the city of Zippori to the corrupting of the Hebrew Masoretic Bible at Zippori to the Mishnah (Series of interpretations passed down in oral form) which was finally out in print in 200 AD. Then this was passed to the Tiberian Masoretes 250-900 AD who preserved the corruption in print down to the present day KJV. This is why the vast majority of current Bibles have the missing ages since the majority are all translated from the Masoretic text. Yet the older manuscripts do not contain the errors.
So when you see what IP says "why would the Bible say that Abraham is full of years? When others are 400 when he is still alive" Now it all makes sense, the Masoretic is wrong and that is the confusion IP is having.
I just found a blog post and in it are more arguments. I notice that IP really believes there were other people before Adam, referring to the Fallen ones. This is resolved by looking at genealogies specifically in Genesis 5.
Only “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations”, (Genesis 6:9). The word “generations” is the Hebrew word, toledoth. Its primary meaning is “descent” or “family lineage”.
Noah was free of sinful angelic heritage. His family line was perfect. Thus only he, his sons and their wives were exempt from extermination of the world wide flood, Unless the masses repented. Which none chose to do.
HERE IS A LIST OF THE PURE SETHIC FIRSTBORN
ADAM and Eve =====> ABEL (murdered by Cain)
``===> SETH + Sister
ENOS + Sethic wife
CAINAN + Sethic wife
MAHALALEEL + Sethic wife
JARED + Sethic wife
ENOCH + Sethic wife
METHUSELAH + Sethic wife
LAMECH + Sethic wife
Last =======> NOAH + Cainite wife !
of the \\
Pure Sethic =====> 3 sons -- mixed seeds -- HYBRIDS -- Japheth, Ham, Shem
"These are the three sons of Noah: and of them, was the whole earth overspread" (Gen.9:19)
Since all the Adam’s first born were mentioned all the way up to Noah, we can be very sure that, except for Noah, their wives were of their own bloodline (Seth's). Many of the other sons and daughters of each firstborn had become fallen sons and daughters of God. For anyone to simply say that Enoch (or anyone for that matter except Noah) was the last of the pure seed, I can only say the person is only presuming, he has no Scriptural evidence. First of all, a genealogical record, is similar to a family tree. It will show its offshoot as long as it is genetically feeding on the same sap of life, that is, a direct descendant of Seth who bore the image and likeness of Adam (Gen.5:3). As long as Seth's descendants of a firstborn marry within the Sethic race, the next firstborn (offshoot) will have his name in the family tree. But if this firstborn marries outside the family race, his firstborn will never be listed in the family tree as the sap of life is no longer the same kind.
Notice what Moses wrote in (Gen.5:32).: "And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth". Why did Moses write it that way, unlike what he wrote of all those others before Noah? Also, why was the name of Noah's first born mentioned last and not first? It cannot be so difficult for us to see that there was a change in the "sap of life" for God had Moses wrote: "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread" (Gen.9:19). And later in the Book of Acts were written this that God "...hath MADE OF ONE BLOOD (that is, the one bloodline [kinship, descent] from Noah and his wife) ALL NATIONS OF MEN FOR TO DWELL ON ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH..." (Acts 17:26).
So, up to Noah himself, his lineage was all free of sinful angelic seed. His family line was perfect. However, because Hybridization of mixed marriages causes genetic disturbances and abnormalities. Noah descendants were soon to take a hit. Notice that every firstborn Seth-ite from Adam to Lamech gave birth to sons and daughters. That shows that all of them married a pure seed (Seth-ic) woman. But it was not so with Noah. He had only sons. This proves that his wife was not of pure seed (Seth-ic) woman.
Hybridization causes genetic disturbances/abnormalities. Notice that every firstborn Sethite from Adam to Lamech gave birth to sons and daughters. That shows that all of them married a pure seed (Sethic) woman. But it was not so with Noah. He had only sons. This proves that his wife was not a pure seed (Sethic) woman.
Gen.6:9 tells us "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God" . This verse tells us the kind of person that Noah was. No wonder "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Yahuuah" (Gen.6:8). Not only was he a just (righteous) man, but he was also perfect, and He walked with God. The word "perfect" used in this verse is translated from the Hebrew word "tamim" which means "without blemish" in terms of breed or pedigree. Hence, the Scriptures clearly show us that Noah was a "pure breed" Sethites, and not a hybrid.
I have been asked this question: "If Noah was a pure seed, and he, knowing the will of God concerning mixed marriages), why did he not marry a pure seed like the rest of the other sons of God?" The one who asked me this question believed that Enoch was the last of the pure seed. But he himself was unable to answer his own question as to why Enoch did not marry a pure seed either. Such a question we do not know the answer for, perhaps they were really hot. If Noah did take a pure seed and all his descendants had the same revelation to also take pure seed to wife (throughout all generations), then we would have a race of pure Sethic people on the earth today as all the Serpent/nephilim hybrid seeds were destroyed in the Flood. And with only Sethic people on earth, there would not have been wickedness, evil, etc. manifesting on the earth today. But it did not happen that way.
As sin had already entered the human race in the garden of Eden, pure seeds or not, mankind did continue to commit sins or make wrong choices. We see "that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose" (Gen.6:). These were pure seeds. They knew the will of God concerning mixed marriages. Yet, they mixed married. So the question, "Why did they mix/Marry?" is irrelevant and silly. Just as the Fall of mankind did not catch God by surprise, the same is also true in Noah taking a seed not of his own race (Rom.8:20).
Since antediluvians are our first parents, they were all “men of great renown” with great intellectual power. So the Hebrew word "nephilim" does not just mean great “physical stature” but also deviant character as well. In fact a concordance tells us the word "nephil" comes from the root "naphal" which means "to lie" or “to overthrow”. The Hebrew word nephilim (plural) literally means“giants” or “tyrants, a bully.” Hence nephilim means not only “great stature” but also “wicked men.” I believe that the "sons of men" and the "sons of God," were two “classes” of humans who lived during the antediluvian (before the flood) era: "the sons of God" were the righteous descendants of Adam, through Seth which included Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah (Gen. 5:4-32). In fact Adam was the first human "son of God" (Luke 4:38) and Jesus says that righteous people are “sons of God” (Matthew 5:9), hence, biblically, the expression “the sons of God” refer to righteous people. In contrast, “the sons of men” or “the daughters of men” were the opposite, they were the apostate and wicked descendants of Cain (Gen. 4:16-24). Hence, Genesis 6:1-2 depicts the intermarrying of the righteous descendants of Seth and the wicked descendants of Cain resulting in the rapid moral decline of the human race (Gen. 6:5) so that if God did not intervene, humans would have destroyed themselves by their Giant strong, violent, tyrant and super intelligent wickedness. I believe these are a group of people that IP may be thinking lived before Adam and or during the same time. I could be wrong, I need to find a video where he talks about this subject because this blog was vague.
I believe Inspiring philosophy can only remain a theistic evolutionist because he does not know the new scientific data supporting YEC. Dr. Jeanson's Replacing Darwin Made Easy is where everyone should start. Once you learn the model, there is little doubt YEC is the way to go. It is easy to reconcile main stream thought and just go with the flow because its easy and that is what OEC seems to do. Is this bad? No, who wants to be the minority and hated? Thats illogical. Also, who wants to learn subjects that do not interest them such as genetics and biology if they have no desire? This is why most remain in the evolutionary camp, its easy to say sure, evolution is true and so is Biblical Creation. End of debate. I should try that next time I debate actually and just see the look on the opponents face. :)
I believe IP would easily take up YEC if he saw the science side of the topic. I hope he watches the two videos I listed earlier and gives feedback on why he thinks they are wrong.