CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE UNCOVERED! Does Gen2 Contradict Gen1?

[milsimaustralia]

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the error committed by God in Genesis 1. During the 3rd yom (day) he created vegetation and seed bearing plants and in the text Moses states they had enough time to bear fruit and seed...but wait up...doh!...God forgot to create the Sun until the fourth day...How is it that photosynthesis was unnecessary?...just how long is a yom? too long from 3rd to 4th the plants die, too short the plants don't bear fruit...conundrum?

[DrAndrewC]

@milsimaustralia You're highlighting a perspective issue of the Genesis 1 text. The Sun, as part of the 'heavens' in Gen 1:1, was already in existence prior to Day 3. The Big Bang occurred around 13.7B years ago and our earth came into existence around 4.5B years ago. We know there was both Early and Late Heavy Bombardment which helped to establish the right gas mix to form our atmosphere. Originally opaque, the atmosphere later became translucent - giving the impression that the Sun appeared.

[milsimaustralia]

@DrAndrewC giving the impression the sun appeared to who? Perspective issue! The answer also fails to attend the fact that one would still require sunlight for seed bearing vegetation to exist...it is improbable to say the least that vegetation evolved to seed bearing status [sic] in the time after the degassing which formed an atmosphere (after which water condensed and fell as rain to partially form the oceans) and the bombardments (depositing water) but before the Sun could be seen...

[DrAndrewC]

@milsimaustralia I agree with you that the sunlight was sufficiently visible through the opaque atmosphere for the earliest life to commence. This would have taken place after the Late Heavy Bombardment around 3.8 billion years ago. The perspective of Genesis 1 and 2 moves from (i) outside earth > (ii) on earth > (iii) the plot for the Garden of Eden.

[milsimaustralia]

@DrAndrewC the perspectives theory sounds interesting if a little unsatisfying as is the sufficient sunlight modification given the advanced nature of seed bearing plants. I'm wondering though do you need to justify Genesis 2 at all given that vegetation would not have covered 100% of the surface of the earth and God probably just found a place where it was not growing to form Adam from the dust...the readings especially verse 8 and 15 seem to contradict the "created at eden plot" perspective

[DrAndrewC]

@milsimaustralia The Gen 1 actually states that God created sources of light as one of His first creative acts BEFORE He created vegetation. Secondly, I think you're right about the plot for Eden not being previously vegetated. That was actually the point made in the video.

Even if you take a Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary view, you still have to work with the established dates: Universe sprang into existence 13.7B years ago; Earth formed around 4.5B years ago; & the first life-forms 3.8B ago.

[milsimaustralia]

@DrAndrewC I didn't actually agree with the Eden plot scenario, but rather maintain that verse 8 & 15 contradict the idea. On the light created in 1:3, surely in your scientific creation that was the big bang? The initial light -super heated particles?? the explanation from verse 14~18 is too specific to just be a swap out, ie. sun and moon and stars replace the first light ...verse 18 specifically states "to separate light from darkness" to use 1:3 as a light source for yom 3 is a temporal knot

[DrAndrewC]

@milsimaustralia Actually, the Big Bang is described in Genesis 1:1. The Sun, Moon, and Stars did not replace the light sources for earth. The atmosphere would have changed from diffused light through an opaque atmosphere to the light we enjoy today through a translucent atmosphere. The term "Big Bang" was actually coined to ridicule the Biblical model of Creation. You can find more detailed explanation of this at reasonsdotorg.

[milsimaustralia]

@DrAndrewC One seems content developing the idea of diffuse light penetrating what was a noxious oppressive atmosphere, feeding vegetation that couldn't have possibly existed unless direct sunlight shone through. The entire point of the discussion is the paradox of seed bearing vegetation existing before the "Earth" could see the Sun.  You are familiar with the term eisegesis-this is an example. In your view Gen 1:1 is a summary and specific event? And the light in 1:3 the Sun and stars?

[DrAndrewC]

@milsimaustralia You've made certain assumptions which I have not asserted. Genesis 1:1 refers to a specific event, generally referred to as "The Big Bang".

[milsimaustralia]

@DrAndrewC "As explained previously, Genesis 1 is an introductory overview of the creation account written from the perspective of Earth generally" These are your words. The perspectives theory you reading into the texts must still produce a lineal appreciation for creation events. Unfortunately the theory is turning out to be more of a pulp fiction than explanation- none of the perspective shifts have explained the presence of advanced vegetation before adequate sunlight, the paradox stands.

[DrAndrewC]

@milsimaustralia Genesis 1 is indeed an overview of the creation period. It begins from the perspective of space then moves to the perspective of earth. The 6 creation events are indeed sequential and logical. The perspective of Genesis 2 is from the plot marked out for Eden and gives the detail of Creation Day 6 mentioned in Genesis 1.

[Xander293]

O.k I get it. But stil I find it strange that God said of every plant you can eat but what God realy ment was something else.

[Xander293]

God gave mankind ( man & women ) every seedbearing plant on earth to eat after they where created both. Why would God say something like that when before Eve ( women) was created God already told Adam ( man ) not to eat from a particular three?

And keep in mind that the whole earth included Eden.

Eden was created before women ( Eve ) so when God said in Gen 1 of every seedbearing plant you can eat Eden was already created.

[DrAndrewC]

@Xander293 As explained previously, Genesis 1 is an introductory overview of the creation account written from the perspective of Earth generally. This therefore includes the establishment of Eden. Genesis 2 then gives the detail of the establishment of Eden and the creation of man and woman from the perspective of Eden. This is a similar literary relationship of an Executive Summary to the document it summarises, or a lengthy chapter title to the chapter it heads.

[GerryCapoVideoVault]

Wow.. how about Timothy 2:11-14 and timothy 2:9-10?? woman is less than men.

[DrAndrewC]

@GerryCapoVideoVault Those Scriptural texts do not say that a woman is less than a man. The Bible reveals that both men and women are equally created in the image of God. It also reveals that God has ordained differences between men and women. Together, men and women complement each other.

[Xander293]

Why does Gen.1 say that al the crops & threes are alowd to eat from?

And Gen. 2 says there is a three not to eat from?

[DrAndrewC]

@Xander293 Because Genesis 1 is written from the general perspective of earth whereas Genesis 2 is written from the perspective of the plot set aside for Eden. Therefore, while there were plants generally on the earth, the Garden of Eden had not yet been planted, thus - Gen. 2:5 ¶ When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. Gen 2 shows Eden's start.

[DrAndrewC]

@SamUKest89 Because the New Testament has superseded the Old Testament and the premise of your assertion is an obsolete Old Testament precept.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Andrew, I am done debating in 500 character increments.

If you wish to perform your Holy duty as a Christian, as outlined in 1 Peter 3:15, please respond to the email I sent you.

If you want our debate to remain public, I have no problem with you posting our email exchanges on your website, or on youtube. But an intelligent debate in one-sentence exchanges is impossible.

[DrAndrewC]

@SamUKest89 Because the New Testament has superseded the Old Testament.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Actually, no it doesn't. Therefore your question is a non-sequitur.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

(Andrew, could you please approve my comments a little more quickly if at all possible? I can't remember which ones I replied to... lol. You don't have to approve this comment lol. thank you...)

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Dear Andrew, you've completely stopped approving and publishing my responses to your statements. Obviously that is dishonest, but what can I do?

You may post this one, to confuse any onlookers, but you will know the truth

It's a fundamentally unfair debate. One in which you have the capability of NOT POSTING any of my statements to which you don't have a good response.

Very unchristian. Oh well

The only thing that matters is that you KNOW your ideology is INDEFENSIBLE in the real world.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain No actually, in Australia, around midnight, we generally turn off our computers and go to sleep. That's what I did at least.

:)

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Lol ok, no problem. You just stopped point blank and I misunderstood.

Hey, do you mind if we move the debate to email format? Having to limit my comments to 500 chars is killing me, and its fragmenting the conversation into multiple tangents.

We've brainstormed quite a bit so I figured we could better iron out our differences if we could outline them more clearly.

What do you think?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Sure thing. First, please show me where in the Bible it says that Jesus will torment billions of people? Once you show me where it says this, I can answer you.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

You are right! Jesus doesn't torment billions of people! My mistake.

All the Muslims go to heaven!

All the Jews who reject Jesus go to heaven!

All the Atheists go to heaven!

All the practitioners of voodoo, black magic, pagan rights and satanism go to heaven!

How silly of me to think that in Rev14:10 and Mat 13:41 St John and St Matthew were telling the truth!

Of the 50 billion non-christians that have died in the last 2000 years NONE are in hell, because Jesus would never torment people!

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Neither Matthew 13:41 nor Revelation 14:10 say what you claim. Matthew 13:41 states that God will use angels to separate the wicked from the righteous. Revelation14:10 pertains to an episode in history which you seem to be ignoring.

You have made claims about Jesus Christ and the Bible which you have not substantiated yet you have sarcastically questioned the truthfulness of Matthew and John.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Yes, the angels will separate the righteous from the wicked? And what will happen to the wicked? THEY WILL BE CAST IN A FURNACE OF FIRE WHERE THERE WILL BE WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH!

YOU are the one questioning the truthfulness of St Matthew, I am quoting word for word exactly what Matthew is saying.

The "unsubstantiated claims" are not by me. It's St Matthew making them!

Quote: "Those who do iniquity will be cast in a furnace"! (kinda how Hitler cast Jews in a furnace)

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain But you made two fundamental claims about this passage which you have not substantiated. I totally believe Matthew's record that the wicked will be held responsible for their choices. This makes God's provision of Son to bear the punishment for our sins all the more glorious and wonderful. I might agree agree with you that God could be seen as needlessly cruel if He hadn't provided an escape from the eternal torment for our sins. But thankfully, God has provided salvation.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

The "escape from eternal torment" which God has provided is not good enough.

About 70% of humanity does NOT accept Jesus and end up in eternal torment. That is just a fact.

If I designed a parachute that only opens about 30% of the time I'd be a REALLY BAD designer.

And if I had the power to make a parachute that opens all the time but CHOSE to make one that only opens 30% of the time, that would make me EVIL.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Actually, God's offer of salvation is not 30% successful - it is 100% guaranteed!

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

It's 100% guaranteed for the 30% of the human race who happens to accept Jesus as their Savior.

For the 70% who DON'T accept Jesus it's 0% guaranteed.

Are you truly so idiotic that you would quibble over 3rd grade maths?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Are you?

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

No I am not. The fact that AT LEAST 70% of humanity is not Christian is an irrefutable fact. And the simple arithmetic derived from that is undeniable.

If you attempt to deny an irrefutable mathematical fact, you sound idiotic. If you respond to my pointing that out by saying nothing more than "are you?", and ignoring the substance of my statement, that also doesn't say much about your moral and intellectual fiber, or about the validity of your initial argument.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Actually you have no where proven your assertion (note the difference between an assertion of an opinion and an argument) and yet you keep repeating it. Neither have you taken into account Revelation 7:9.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

The fact that there are billions of non-Christians in the world is not an assertion. It's a fact.

That "only by accepting JEsus can you go into heaven" IS indeed an assertion, but it's not mine. You made that assertion, as per the statements made in the Bible....

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain But that's not your assertion. You are asserting the number of people you think in your opinion based on your unqualified reading of the Sacred Text that God will condemn most of the world's population to Hell. God will judge. He will reward. He will bring justice. There still remains a much better question.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

I have taken 7:9 into consideration, you just didn't respond to that with anything other than a nonsensical "I would agree with you if you weren't wrong" non-statement.

Rev 7:9 refers to how Jesus treats those who worship him. How is that relevant to the question of what he does to those who don't?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Actually it's a numerical statement which checkmates your underlying premise.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Yes, I am ignoring the episode in history because it's irrelevant. What St John is telling us is that Jesus went down in hell and watched as people were being TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE

That is what St John tells us. It's not me saying it

The circumstance around this Biblical fact are not relevant. Just like the circumstances around WWII are not relevant. Hitler remains evil for killing millions, and Jesus remains evil for tormenting billions

UNLESS, hell is a metaphor. Is it???

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain "Jesus went down in hell and watched as people were being TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE" - That is not what John is recording at all. The historical background DOES matter - and it especially mattered to John's original audience who were being tortured by their persecutors.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

"he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb."

HE WILL BE TORMENTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB.

That is EXACTLY, word for word, what the Bible says.

Are you saying that this is just a "feel-good" white lie that John told his persecuted audience to make them feel better?

Is it not actually the truth?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Do you know who this is describing? Do you who this is written to? Do you understand the persecution the original audience were enduring which puts this passage in context?

I think you should be asking a much better question.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Ok, so you are saying that this passage of the Bible is not the truth. It's just a fairy tale told to people who were suffering very much and enduring persecution. I understand.

It's very noble of St John to make up this story to make them feel a little better in their plight.

Thanks for clearing that up. For a moment I thought the Bible was the word of God, lol!

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain You're continued mis-citing of my comments is very revealing. I have not at all said what you have cited. John actually gave a prophecy of what was about to happen to those who had repeated and violently opposed God's grace and forgiveness which was then fulfilled in the lifetime of his original audience. You seem to be completely ignoring this historical fact.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Wait, I don't understand. Did Jesus descend into hell to watch as people were being tormented with fire and brimstone, yes or no?

If he did, then he's evil.

The historical context doesnt change that, no more than the historical context of world war 2 doesn't change that Hitler was evil

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain No he didn't. Could you PLEASE cite the BIBLICAL reference for "Jesus descending into hell". You have repeated this assertion several times and linked it to the premise of your attack. But are you sure that this is a Biblical concept which you objecting to. Rev. 14:10 certainly doesn't say that Jesus descended to hell to watch people being tormented, yet you continue to claim that it does.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Dear Dr AndrewC, in Rev 14:10 and in Matt 13:41-42 it says that Jesus will send angels to hunt down non-christians and throw them into hell, and will descend into hell himself to watch as they are being tortured for eternity

Are John and Matthew liars and/or incompetent idiots and/or pathetic charlatans, or are they accurately delivering the Word of God?

If the Bible is true, then Hitler killed 6 million, and Jesus tortures billions for eternity

So, who is more evil, Hitler or Jesus?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Those references you've cited don't say what you claim. In fact, the word "torture" doesn't even occur in the Bible. Therefore, you are grossly misrepresenting Scripture. Perhaps your question is: Does the Bible teach that God will judge all people at the end of the age? And maybe your next question might be, Should the length of punishment for a crime be proportional to the crime it took to commit the crime?

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

You are RIGHT! Those verses don't say "torture", they say "torment". That is completely different!

To be exact they say "Torment with fire and brimstone, and the smoke from their torment rises for ever and ever". It also mentions that "there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth".

So let me rephrase my question:

If the Bible is true, then Hitler killed 6 million, and Jesus TORMENTS (not tortures, sorry about that) billions for eternity

So, who is more evil, Hitler or Jesus?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Actually being in torment IS quite different to torturing. Again, where does the Bible say that the Lord Jesus will condemn billions of people. And thirdly, Hitler was evil and had NO right to harm anyone. Jesus Christ only ever did or does good but DOES have the right to do with His Creation whatever He pleases.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

You are saying that "being tormented with FIRE so that the smoke from your torment rises for ever" (as says Rev 14:10 says) is different from the concept of "torture".

Is that your position?

And if I say that tormenting someone with fire and brimstone is basically the same thing as torturing someone with fire and brimstone, then I would be making a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION?

Really?

Come on! You misspoke and dug yourself into a hole! Stop digging! People are laughing at you!

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain It is a GROSS misrepresentation to claim that the Lord Jesus Christ would randomly TORTURE people in the same way that Hitler did.

The metaphors for eternal punishment beg much more appropriate questions rather than the ones you're "asking".

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

I am not saying that Jesus tortures people in the same way that Hitler did!

Jesus is infinitely worse!

Hitler only tortured people for a few years. Jesus tortures people for eternity.

But wait! You said the magic word. METAPHOR!

So hell is NOT a real place! It's a METAPHOR. Is that what you're saying now?

How about the story of Noah's ark in which God systematically executes EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM ON EARTH, did that really happen or is that a metaphor?

Adam and Eve? Real or metaphor?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain First you mis-cite Holy Scripture, then you mis-cite me. I never wrote that Hell is a metaphor. Hell is very real. The metaphors used to describe anything do not mean that the thing they are describing is not real, actually on the contrary, metaphors help us to understand the reality of what they are describing.

I think should therefore be asking far more pertinent questions.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Above you said that "torment with fire and brimstone" is a metaphor for eternal punishment

So, if I understand, you are saying that hell is real. Eternal punishment is real. But the imagery of "furnaces, fire, brimstone" are metaphorical

You are saying that billions get punished for eternity, but NOT literally with fire and brimstone, just by something JUST AS BAD as fire and brimstone, which is depicted metaphorically as fire and brimstone.

So? What's the difference. That's still evil

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain No, you're the one claiming that Scripture teaches that "billions" will be tormented for eternity. I've never made that claim. If you are protesting that God has a right to judge His creation, I do share in your protest. I think you should be asking a better question.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

OK!!! If you reject my claim that billions will be tormented for eternity, why don't you tell me how many will be tormented for eternity?

There are billions of jews, muslims, atheists, buddhist, etc. Will they go to heaven or hell?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain You're asking the wrong questions of the wrong person. If you're asking me who will be saved or condemned for eternity, you are asking the wrong person - I am not the Judge.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

You are not the Judge, but apparently you know the Judge on a first name basis.

You specifically made the claim that only by accepting Jesus as your Savior can you get to heaven.

If you wish to retract that and say that YOU DON'T KNOW if that's the case because you're not the judge, that's fine.

Otherwise, IT'S JUST A FACT that billions DONT accept Jesus, therefore BY YOUR DEFINITION they will be tormented for eternity.

WHICH IS EVIL

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain It seems that you are saying it is "wrong" "immoral" and "evil" for God to judge. Ironically you are using an intrinsically Biblical worldview with these definitions to condemn the very worldview you are using. Ironic.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

I am most definitely NOT using a Biblical worldview to determine that tormenting people is evil! As I said in a different post, the concept of morality had long been established by Socrates, Plato, Lao-Tzu, Siddharta, Confucius etc, centuries before Jesus showed up, when Jews were still stoning to death their misbehaving children as per the Mosaic Law that Jesus would abolish.

So you are simply factually incorrect in claiming that morality is intrinsically Biblical.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Is it moral to leave those guilty of heinous crimes unpunished? (This is not a Biblical question, it is a philosophical one.)

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

First. Not accepting Jesus is NOT a heinous crime that should be punished with eternal torment. Just a side thought.

Second. NO, it's immoral to leave crimes unpunished. Criminal actions should be punished.

Hitler should be punished for killing people.

Jesus should be punished for locking people away for ever and tormenting them.

God should be punished for mercilessly murdering every single first born child in Egypt.

Heinous crimes SHOULD be punished.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain It sounds to me like you are confusing why God would judge anyone. God will judge each person fairly and justly upon the basis of the criteria He has given. The time it took for someone to commit an offense is irrelevant to the length of the punishment they must receive in order for God to rule justly. The sin of self-worship is far more serious than you seem to realise. God has created us with the freedom to choose whether we accept or reject Him. Our eternal destiny is ours.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Also, I didn't mis-cite holy scripture. Tormenting and torturing are two words for the same basic concept. Stop whining.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain I disagree. Someone's painful past may torment them without torturing them.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

"Someone's painful past may torment them without torturing them". Yes. In that context, that is correct.

In the context we are talking about now. NO.

"tormented with fire and brimstone" or "tortured with fire and brimstone" are the same basic thing.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain I disagree.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Ok, you're down to "I disagree" and "No".

Can I interpret that as a concession that you actually have no case? Can I interpret that as an admission that Jesus is evil?

Or do you have anything meaninful to say?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Not at all. Answering "Yes" or "No" to a Yes/No question seemed straightforward. As I've repeatedly said, your questions are not really well thought through. You are failing to ask the really important question around this issue.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

By "important" you mean "that you have an answer to"

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain No I don't mean that. I actually really mean that in your rantings you have failed to ask the truly supremely important question.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain I disagree.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Wait, so Hitler had no right to harm us but Jesus has the right to torment us because he created us?

NO HE DOESN'T

He might have the POWER to torment us if he wants to because he allegedly is so powerful. But that doesn't mean he has the RIGHT to.

And regardless of whether he has the right to or not, the fact that he CHOOSES to exercise his "right" to torment people MAKES HIM EVIL.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Why doesn't the Creator have a right over His creation? You've made an assertion not an argument.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

My initial question is not whether Jesus has the right to torment us or not.

My question was, and remains, since HE DOES torment us (whether he has the right to or not) doesn't that make him evil?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain No.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Ok. So you just asserted that tormenting people for eternity is not an evil act.

You are immoral in the most fundamental way

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Ironically you are forming your opinion of morality from the Bible in order to rage against the Bible.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Actually no, the concept of morality and ethics was first formulated by Socrates about 600 years before Jesus was born. Lao-Tzu, Confucius and others also independently formulated philosophies regarding good and evil 500 years before Jesus.

The fact that FINALLY Jesus figured out the same concepts that humanity had known for centuries doesn't impress me one bit.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Wow, could you please show me from where you are citing me stating what you are emphatically claiming I wrote. In trying to dialogue with you I am continually finding that you are mis-citing Scriptures, mis-citing me, hurling insults, being sarcastic, abusive, and disrespectful. Are you modelling your concept of morality? If so, it is apparent that we have two completely different concepts of love, justice and morality.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Yes, we definitely have different concepts of morality.

I believe that eternal punishment for ANY finite infraction is immoral.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Because we are created with an immortal soul the consequences of our life choices are borne for eternity. If a person chooses to reject the Eternal God and practice temporal self-deification there are eternal ramifications. Thank God that He sent His Son into the world to die the death we would otherwise endure for eternity if we do not have Christ as our Saviour.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Actually my next question is NOT about the length of a punishment compared to the length of the crime.

My next question to Jesus would be "Why is it a crime to not be a Christian? Why do you have to torture (oops, I meant torment) billions?"

And my question for Hitler would be "Why is it a crime to be a Jew? Why did you have to kill millions?"

The central question remains. Who is more evil, Hitler for killing millions, or Jesus for torturing (oops, I meant tormenting) billions?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain The Bible doesn't make the claim that you have to be a Christian in order to go to heaven, but it does say that there is only way to be made right before God and to find peace with Him. This is through faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work in suffering and dying on the Cross for us.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

You wrote. "The Bible doesn't make the claim that you have to be a Christian in order to go to heaven". Yes it does. "There is no way to the Father but through the Son". Case closed.

If you don't accept the Son (like for example how Jews & Muslims dont) then you don't get access to the Father.

In the same comment in which you DENY that, you then REAFFIRM it, hoping that if you phrase it in a nicer way, and throw in a sob story about dying on the cross it would change the essence of the matter

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Actually, again, no it doesn't say you must become a Christian to go to Heaven. It does however teach that salvation is only possible by receiving Christ as Saviour. This is starkly different to virtually claiming that salvation is a matter of which 'religious club' a person belongs to. The record of Matthew, which you righty point out as being true, reveals the heart of God to save people through His Son, Jesus Christ. You claim Him to be infinitely evil but I disagree.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

Ok, I accept your definition of Salvation. "Receiving Christ as your Savior". Fine!

By that definition, anybody who DOESN'T accept Christ as their Savior will NOT BE SAVED.

Therefore billions of non-christians go to hell every generation. Agreed?

THAT IS EVIL.

Setting up a system whereby only a fraction of humanity gets to go to heaven is cruel. Just like setting up a system where only a fraction of the Jews don't end up in concentration camps is evil.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain OK, then I suggest you sit down before reading Revelation 7:9.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

So, it jsut says that those who accept Jesus are saved. So what? that doesn't say anything about what happens to those who dont.

Tormenting those who don't worship you remains evil

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain I would agree if your assertion was correct.

[UseYerEFFINBrain]

And it's incorrect because........?

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Because your statement is actually a premise which you have framed as an independent emotional objection rather supporting it with the truth. God's judgment is just and fair, yet you seem to completely misunderstand this.

[DrAndrewC]

@UseYerEFFINBrain Your basic assertion is fundamentally flawed. If an immortal soul is offered eternal salvation, divine forgiveness, reconciliation with God, divine adoption, a gloriously resurrected body, if they will make GOD the God of their lives- yet they reject this gracious offer, they risk the eternal consequences of their choice. It would be infinitely immoral of God ignore such choices of His free-moral agents. Hell was prepared originally for Satan (Matt. 25:41), not us.

[whoopiman]

You say that the word 'yom' is an unspecified period of time. Are you saying that the six days it took god to create the earth aren't days as we know them? If so, how do you explain Gen: Chapter 1, verse 5? "And god called the light day and the darkness night, and the evening and the morning were the first day." Sounds like god's definition of a day is the same as ours now. Also, if what your saying is true, and these aren't contradictions, then it certainly is confusing.

[DrAndrewC]

@whoopiman Words in Scripture are not uniequivocal ("one meaning always"), rather they are equivocal (equal to the context in which they occur). For example, the word: "father" in Scripture can mean- father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather, great-great-great grandfather. In this instance, you have correctly noted that what we call "a day" isn't established until Gen 1:5 (Day #4). Therefore the six creation "days" are different to what we call 'days' of 24 hours.

[91BROWNIE91]

In genesis 1 it says God created man male and female and gave them dominion and told them they could eat of every tree bearing fruit on the entire earth. Then in genesis 2 the Lord God creates adam and tells him to eat of every tree inthe garden accept for the one of them. Then he created eve. It's the same thing with the flood. God said bring the animals in by 2's. Lord God said by 7's. It seems like there are two different "creators" otherwise the passages don't make sense.

[DrAndrewC]

@91BROWNIE91 The ancient Hebraic writing style used in the Bible will often give a summary passage then proceed to give some of the details within that summary. You have noted 2 such examples. Genesis 1 gives the overview of the 6 creation events from the perspective of earth while Genesis 2 gives the details of creation event 6 from the perspective of Eden. The prohibition not to eat of the tree in Genesis 2 is not a contradiction but is more detail.

[DrAndrewC]

@91BROWNIE91 Similarly with Noah's animals. It wasn't 2 of each kind in one place and 7 of each kind in another, rather it was 2 of each unclean and 7 of each clean.

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

Yawn. 1 star.

[starvethesumo]

dr. corbett, i commend for adressing this topic bc so many people often interpret it wrong, but my only objection to your video is when you said that in the Bible, the word day could be interpreted as an epoch. please answer me this, if day means epoch then why in Gen. 1:3, 8, 13,19, 23, 31 does it say, "And there was evening, and there was morning---the first day, second day, etc...?

[DrAndrewC]

starvethesumo - It is debated among theologians precisely what that expression means. It only occurs in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2:4 the same Hebrew word "yom" is translated "week". In other parts of the Older Testament "yom" is translated according to the context by varying expressions of time. The expression "evening and morning" does not ordinarily signify 24-hours. It is therefore regarded by many Hebrew Language scholars as referring to an unspecified period of time. God is the Creator!

[DrAndrewC]

If your question relates to an aspect of Jewish Moral Law, then I suggest asking a Jewish Rabbi, but since the New Testament teaches that the Old Testament was a shadow of the New Testament (Heb. 10:1) and that the Old Covenant (with its penalties) has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13).

[adlerbr12]

So what about these obvious contradictions

[DrAndrewC]

Each of these issues are resolved by realising that Genesis is the overview, written from the perspective of earth while Genesis 2 is an aspect of detail from the Gen 1 account written from the geographically specific location of Eden. Because these issues are actually largely addressed in the video, it gives the impression that your vitriol and personal abuse comes without actually having watched the video.

[SamUKest89]

@DrAndrewC do you agree that homosexuality and adultery should result in death? if not you are against the bible

[DrAndrewC]

SamUKest89, since I am a Christian, which New Testament reference about this issue do you have in mind (because I can't think of where in the New Testament it actually says what you claim)?

[adlerbr12]

more bullshit and lies

1. Man was created equal, male and female. Gen.1:27.

Woman was created as a companion to the man only after he rejected the animals. Gen.2:18-24. 2. Man was created after the plants. Gen.1:12, 26. Man was created before the plants. Gen.2:5-9. 3. The birds were created out of the water. Gen.1:20. The birds were created out of the land. Gen.2:19. 4. The animals were created before man. Gen.1:24-26. The animals were created after man. Gen.2:19

[DrAndrewC]

You've mis-read the Text. Genesis 1 is the overview of Creation from the perspective of earth while Gen2 is from the perspective of Eden. In Genesis 1 the animals were created prior to man. In Genesis 2 the verb tense agrees with this. The Text reads in Gen 2 that God created Man then brought to Adam all the animals that He HAD made. Your citation of Gen 1:20 is just a plain misquote! It doesn't say God made birds from the sea. Again you have misread the verb tense in Gen 2:19.

[adlerbr12]

5. On the first day, God created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:3-5. On the fourth day, God again created and separated light and darkness. Gen.1:14-18. 6. God encouraged reproduction. Gen.1:28. He said it was an unclean process. Lev.12:1-8 (Note that bearing a daughter is more unclean than bearing a son). 7. God was pleased with his creation. Gen.1:31. God was not pleased with his creation. Gen.6:6.

[DrAndrewC]

On point #5, this is not what the Text says therefore on the basis of your misquote there is no contradiction. On #6 you have misquoted Leviticus 12. The Text does not say that reproduction is "unclean". It appears that you have failed to appreciate that a woman needs rest after giving birth to a child. On #7 again you have misquoted the Text. It doesn't say what you claim it says therefore there is no contradiction.

[adlerbr12]

BULLSHIT LIAR here are more contradictions 8. Adam was to die the day he ate the forbidden fruit. Gen.2:17. Adam lived 930 years. Gen.5:5. 9. The name of "The Lord" was known in the beginning. Gen.4:26; Gen.12:8; Gen.22:14; Gen.26:25. The name of "The Lord" was not known in the beginning. Ex.6:3. 10. God preferred Abel's offering to Cain's. Gen.4:4, 5. God shows no partiality. 2 Chr.19:7; 2 Sam.14:14

[DrAndrewC]

#8 you have failed to understand what "death" means, see Romans 5:12 & 6:23. Adam did indeed die. The postponement of his physical death was actually a demonstration of grace. #9 The writer (Moses) knew God by this Name & used it describe His activity, is not a contradiction. #10 You have at least misquoted the different contexts of these passages since one refers to actions (which God does distinguish between) and between people with whom He treats justly and without partiality.

[MrSnowCore]

If chapter 2 is about eden, then Adam and Eve are not the first human beings ever created!.

[DrAndrewC]

Why?

[DrAndrewC]

@MrSnowCore Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are describing the same event from different perspectives in much the same way that a Heading and a Paragraph sound similar but one is an overview and the other has more detail. Genesis 2 is written from the perspective of Eden which makes Adam and Eve the first humans.

[MrSnowCore]

@DrAndrewC Then the order of creation is still the other way around.

[DrAndrewC]

@MrSnowCore Not at all. (Perhaps watch the video.)

[adlerbr12]

your so full of shit , your just trying to make it fit, your just like all of the religious fanatics , A BIG LIAR.

[DrAndrewC]

Why? What are the flaws in pointing out that Genesis 1 is an overview from the perspective of earth in general, and that Genesis 2 is the same account from a geographically specific location, namely: Eden? Ridicule is not an argument.