Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know, or desire to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires
The whole bible is called into account when trying to debate on these issues. Te idea that we can understand and know Gods purpose in his word by taking a few scriptures and then trying to argue for them is kinda ridiculous. Thats why hovind does a better job. All of this is about belief. We all have our belief and experience and knowledge. Whom does Ross seek to know what the bible says. I believe it is obvious that he looks to man and himself.
Ross is using human logic. Notice how often hovind actually mentions scripture and reads it and shows how it is applied. Ross has put God into a box that makes him feel safe and secure. Hovind is accurate in saying he doesn't need a guru or modern "science" to prove what was said. The bible doesn't need to be proved but believed and used to prove what we see in nature. Why are people so scarred of God making the earth in 6days. They want to compromise with the evolutionists. Gods Wisdom not man
It's easy to see that Hovind bases his belief on faith and Ross bases his belief on his own scientific discoveries. Hugh Ross is leaning on his own understanding. Proverbs 3 warned us about that
Kent Hovind is a criminal and idiot. People should not listen to idiots as if they are experts. Proverbs 13:20 "Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm."
@antiatheistical Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena. Science (& its theories) cannot comment on the supernatural, as it rests on methodological naturalism. Scientific theories are NEUTRAL on whether or not a god or supernatural realm exists. Its how Dr. Francis Collins - who led Human Genome Project - is a devout evangelical christian & accepts evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky (Orthodox) & Dr. Ken Miller (Catholic) prominent evolutionary biologists.
"Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena. Science cannot comment on the supernatural..."
-The Big Bang theory (supposably) is natural and it was super - ultimately creating life. The Big Bang and evolutionary theory constantly comments on the supernatural. Spontaneous life is supernatural. Like Christ.
A theory is an uncertain belief, or a system of ideas. It's ok to believe in a theory, but believing it's a fact becomes your religion.
@antiatheistical Incorrect. The Big Bang theory is NOT an appeal to the supernatural. Scientists describe each step of it with a natural explanation. In what way do they "constantly comment on the supernatural"? Spontaneous life (abiogenesis) is NOT evolution. Evolution ONLY covers biodiversity, NOT how life began. And you're confusing the colloquial word "theory" with a scientific theory, which I've defined. Strawmanning isn't going to help your argument.
@gmn545 Your removing my original statement into a point of semantics, tangents, and misconceptions. Do you believe evolution is fact or fiction? Or do you just have a difficult time with the word "belief"? I admit I have a difficult time with the word "religion" but I adhere to it's definition.
@antiatheistical No I'm being very clear about what things are, as you've appealed to setting up one strawman arguments. I don't "believe" evolution is fact; I accept that it is since it's observable. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies within a population, over time. We see it happening. Again, if all the evidence points towards it, it's not a matter of belief but acceptance. When you don't have any evidence (see my example of Peter walking on water), all you have is belief.
@gmn545 Stating that I have set up a strawman argument is unreasonable and in fact a strawman argument in itself. Debaters tend to make this move when they have run dry of proof of their argument.
My original statement stands that you took issue with. Evolution is a religion. You don't believe in evolution or God? You can't stick to the issue and you can't even tell me what you believe. Make a decision - other than redefining the word belief.
@antiatheistical No, you in fact set up a strawman, by continuing to define "theory" in an incorrect way (even after I defined it) and by mischaracterizing the Big Bang by grouping evolution in with it. Your original statement of "evolution is a religion" has been addressed and refuted, since it does NOT appeal to the supernatural for explanation(s). And by asking me "you don't believe in evolution or God?", you're making a false dichotomoy, since millions of theists accept evolution.
@antiatheistical Also, I've already told you where I stand (if you bothered to scroll back): I'm agnostic. And I'm not redefining the word "belief"; you're simply being incredulous to the valid point I brought up in evidence being a requirement for acceptance, while beliefs (or "faith") don't require evidence. Why are you having trouble understanding such a simple thing?
Good. We agree that facts are facts. A theory is an uncertain belief, or a system of ideas. Science has to be able to reproduce the situation theorized in order to be called fact. You cannot reproduce the big bang or a dinosaur evolving into a bird (for example.) And since you BELIEVE the theories of evolution you in turn have established a belief system - which is a religion.
But you are correct - not all evolutionists are atheists.
@antiatheistical A scientific theory is an analytically structured & designed to explain a set of empirical observations (i.e. facts). Evolution (changes in allelic frequency within a population) is observable. "Macro" evolution is observed as well - speciation. The Big Bang model explains all aforementioned evidence in my previous comment. I don't "believe" this; I accept it due to all the evidence points towards it and none away from it. Your definition of religion is also wrong. Cont'd...
@antiatheistical And no I haven't swapped the word. Beliefs don't require evidence; acceptance of scientific theories DO require them. You have no evidence to show that Peter walked on water, yet you believe it. "Prophecies" are subject to self-interested interpretation. The gospel of Matthew's "prophecies" are a perfect example of that. Matt. 2:14's "out of Egypt I have called my son." That's taken from Hosea 11:1 which explicitly states ISRAEL is the "son"; it's not talking about a messiah.
@gmn545 Mathew 2:14, is talking about the messiah and so is Hosea 11:1, Jesus is out of egypt and out of israel, being the line of David. Your misconception of scripture is what doesn't add up in this equation. I am not blasting you, we all do it. Jesus was ,is and is to come, his is the messiah and was predicted. Sorry to but in on another conversation but, your point isn't a point at all. God Bless Rory S. Russell rebornrussell@gmail.com
@rebornrussell Matthew 2:14 is citing Hosea 11:1 as a "prophecy" when in fact, it isn't one. Hosea 11 as a chapter (starting from the first verse) is about Israel as a nation; it's not talking about the messiah. Can you cite one Jewish source (since it's an OT book) that says this verse refers to the messiah? Learn to read verses in the context of the entire chapter. Sorry Rory, but your misconception of scripture isn't helping antiatheistical in this argument...at all.
That is what religion is. Some people BELIEVE in God. Other people don't BELIEVE in God.
As defined from a simple dictionary: Religion - "A BELIEF in a worship of superhuman controlling power. A personal God or gods."
Since atheism removes the almighty powerful God from an Atheist's life it leaves only himself to claim what is right and wrong in his life. Thus worshiping himself.
@antiatheistical But the atheist doesn't consider himself a "superhuman controlling power" or a "god". So your analogy falls apart. Atheism is lack of a belief in god, thus not a religion. Evolution is a scientific theory regarding the diversification of life on earth; it's not a religion. Science and its theories by definition rest on methodological naturalism; it's NEUTRAL on the idea of a god. The case for evolution being a "religion" already FAILED in Peloza vs Capistrano (1994). Sorry.
Evolutionist can't test the Big Bang theory and/or recreate it. Individuals must take the words of evolutionists (man) that the Big Bang theory happened. Therefore it is a belief. Evolutionist believe in the "Big Bang". It's their religion - belief system.
I test the Earth with my belief of God. Evolutionist test the Earth with their disBELIEF of God. Thus we disagree because you don't believe what I believe.
@antiatheistical The Big Bang theory and evolution aren't the same thing. One's cosmological physics, the other is biology. And no, people don't "believe" the Big Bang on the "words"; they accept it due to the evidence - e.g. Hubble's Law; cosmic microwave background radiation; general relativity; ratio of the lighter elements in existence (deuterium, lithium, helium), etc. And since when did "evolutionist" = atheist? Millions of christians, jews, and hindus accept evolution.
the Christianity is now trying to be scientific and up to date coz if they wud stick to old believe of Christianity, it wud be easily deciphered by new generation due to massive evidence from different branches of science.
but in the end or in futures to come, science wud prevail and bible is no longer the book of truth but a book of mythical stories.
Genesis does not have to be subjugated to philosophical scientific view points..It is pretty straight forward....Theres nothing in Genesis that needs to be changed to accomodate to the assumptions....NO COMPROMISE....and Kent Hovind Stands firm.....
@Americant47 Yeah that's what I love about this. Either way they are right in the big picture. I'm kind of where William Lane Craig is on this subject. I really don't know. I mean God could have easily made the universe, like Adam, with an appearance of age, or the universe could indeed be billions of years old. Either way minor details, but still interesting. I seem to side with Hugh Ross a little more though. And I agree, my belief in God is both a logical belief and a spiritial belief.
I cant seem to find the next part of this debate. There is truely no way to question the brillants of either of these two men, though....is it just me or has John Ankerberg played a much larger part in this debate which is supposed to be a Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate. Also hasnt he seem to be a bit hostile towards Kent Hovind with the cutting off many of Kents responces and clearly agreeing with Hugh. Also showing his clear bias with his "moving alone" which has prevented Kents responces
It is really hard to say that either person is "wrong" per say...but Hoving seems to have a more genuine interpretation while Ross is almost "fishing" for scientific (and extremely complex) twists on the bible text. In fact almost every verse used in this debate has a "unique" or "new" spin on the verse to get its "true" meaning for Ross to use in his arguement. It's borderline arrogance when one has to "correct" God's diction and reword verses to make it fit one's own arguement...just saying.
@kfcguy1999 I disagree. Watch Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham. With Walter Kaiser and Jason Lisle. Walter Kaiser is a Theologian, and discusses how the days of creation do not have a 24hr meaning. He goes into great detail about it. You have to keep in mind way back when Moses wrote Genesis the word "day" had many different meanings; it still has many different meanings. I don't think Hugh Ross is "fishing" for anything. Many people read the the creation differently. Hugh could just as easily be right.
@kfcguy1999 That would be because the Bible isn't scientific and Hugh is trying to reconcile his scientific knowledge with his Biblical belief - it' a waste of intellectual effort - I feel sorry for him as they are incompatible.
Hovind's interpretation of the Bible relies a lot on his opinion (he repeatedly says 'I believe'/'the god I worship'). Presumably he doesn't believe in the Bible as much as he says he would believe in stoning people who work on the Sabbath.
@kfcguy1999 There are no twists in ross stories he is straight foward. I mean stop being so ignorant. He has said a lot of things back up with scientific evidence and has reffered to a lot of scholars agreeing with him. What's ignorant is kent that wouldnt even lookd at a paper the nice guy was showng him and that is so narrow minded debates wouldnt matter. He wasn't a teacher or biologist, hes ignorant and bought his PHD. I mean just look at hoe ross proves him wrong and kent changes topics..
I did not know weather to thumb up or down. I appreciate all the effort getting it here so "thumb up". I don't know which is more crazy Hovind or Hugh?
Like it or not the bible is not simple. I can not imagine some of my more illiterate friends being required to understand it and believe or burn.
@pumpstations it is like a step by step program. Fist, some1 gives you the gospel of Jesus Christ. John is a fairly easy book to understand. Even in the last verse, we are told that the very reason for the book of John is so that some1 can read it, and that reading it you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and thereby be saved. Second, When someone is saved, they receive the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost then teaches the saved person God's Word. Praying and applying encourages understanding
@wauft I appreciate the kind words. I was Christian for many years. I understand the bible at least as well as any other church member and better than most that I knew. That is one reason I left the church. Blind faith is no faith at all. If it actually does come to the pearly gates, at least I can say I tested the water. I was not just a cow, following a pack. I have always questioned authority. I see no reason to stop here.
I will say, after just reading the Bible I agree with all that Kent Hovind believes and teaches. How Huge Ross sees and believes is way to intense. What I read plainly from the Bible is easy to understand, Each day is what it is, 24 hours, 6 days of work and 1 day no work. God created it all in 7 days. How the heck do you get millions of days and other exaggerated meanings is just crazy and purposely deceiving to me.
I like it by now all the ignorant creationists have got angry and left which means all the educated comments don't get spammed or thumbed down.
Personally I don't believe in god, but if I were to, it would definitely be along the lines of Hugh Ross. Hovind would believe Harry Potter was fact if you wrote 'The Bible' on the front cover.
Kent is a true believer. He teaches the clear truth of the Bible. He's being picked on for standing on the Bible!! That's scary. Especially if you claim to be a Christian.
@wutangtigerstyle Well, you can judge the man. I appreciate how he stands on the authority of the scriptures. As all Christians should (hermeneutics 101-assume the Bible is authoritative) He doesn't cherry pick. Hugh Ross is a very liberal theologian. That totters on the side of atheism. Very dangerous position indeed for HR.
@wutangtigerstyle --Considering the blatant destruction of the minds of our kids in the illegal public schools, Hovind has the right to be...right. Jesus was quite stern too bro! In fact, I remember something about him whipping some people selling stuff on the Sabbath in a temple. I haven't seen Hovind break out a whip...have you?
@waluum Haha I have been watching this discussion, along with Hugh Ross vs Ken ham, for 9 hours straight today and counting. They are both truly incredible interpretations of the book of Genesis. It it makes things seem more clear to me. And I know the videos aren't 9 hours long, but I take notes and rewatch as well. Along with readng the bible scriptures discussed. This is very compelling stuff.
Oops...and Hovind also shot himself in the foot. He said that Yahshua was in the grave for 3 days. He can's count.! He was in the grave 3 days AND 3 nights. You cannot get 3 days and 3 night from good Friday and Sun-Day morning. As far as the argument goes, I'm with Hivind, but they both have some serious studying to do, and get rid of western gentile Christianity and search the original Hebrew from a Caraite Jew who ONLY believes in the pure, unmolested Torah.
Oh boy...Ross shot himself in the foot when he stated falsely that it matters not what day we rest. He is adding to Torah...a direct violation of Yahweh's commandment to never take away or add to the Torah.
@RefutingPolytheist --I'm NOT a Christian! That would make me part of Constantine's one-world religious lineage, which also celebrates the pagan dates of Easter and Christmas. I don't observe any of the pagan holidays. But that's OK, it's a common mistake bro! Maybe ask before assuming.
Hey brother, Just wanted to make the point that Constantine didnt start the Christian Faith. The disciples and followers of the Messiah inherited this title and wore it gladly.
"if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf" 1 Peter 4:16
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" Acts 26:28
"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" 11:26
@DonJay777 --I understand where you are coming from. My point is that your Bible says "Christian", even though the word did not become invented until some 300 years after Yeshua's resurrection. They were called believers. Yeshua would not agree with today's Christian church. I am Messianic Hebrew, and I believe in a pure Yeshua Messiah, free of Babylonian garb and western sensationalism. My Elohim is a Jew...not the rendition of a Bible translator.
@DonJay777 ---Replace "Christian" with "believer" and you will have restored the writings back to their original stste. Jesus was not a "Christian." He would have said as much. We either believe or we don't. To be Christian is a broad term as there are over 4,000 Christian religions all claiming to be the only true sect. Which one is it? Someone is wrong. Which denomination is He coming back for? I can assure you it won't be the ones putting the first writings on the back burner.
@DonJay777 --One should recognize the fact that only the book of Matthew (Mattithyahu) still exists in the original Hebrew text format. It's called "Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew." No other NT book is known to exist in It's original form. What text did the translators use to translate from? Nobody knows! But they were all Christians for sure. This explains the use of the word. Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew sets some corrections in our current copy. It leaves out Joseph from the lineage of Yeshua.
@DonJay777 --Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew also leaves out the Trinity. Who added it? Even Matthew knew Yahweh was one being and not separate entities.Our current copy is a violation of torah. We are not allowed to take away or add to scripture. Un til the original writings surface, some things are left for conjecture by scholars. Sadly, ALL NT writings are not matched with OT ones, which Yeshua always referred to. There is no new covenant...just a renewed one. Nobody is left out...just added.
@ReadyPrepper "Even Matthew knew Yahweh was one being and not separate entities." This statement proves you don't understand the doctrine of the trinity. No trinitarian has ever taught that...you should rightly comprehend a concept before rejecting it
@ReadyPrepper "No Kidding!" usually means "I know." So if you know that trinitarians DON'T define the Trinity the way you describe it: "...knew Yahweh was one being and not separate entities," then why in the world did you put it in those words? What's the point? I believe that denial of the trinity is a most serious heresy. If however you have trouble grasping what the trinity doctrine is I recomend the book "the forgotten Trinity" by James White as an introduction. This concludes my rant.
@selviskk Read Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew texts. It is the only surviving original written in Hebrew. It is devoid of mentioning a trinity. The Trinity was added during translation. You can thank the catholic church for that one!
If you are interested in a response add me as friend and I will send you one. The Trinity was in no way added to any translation and was certainly not an invention by any church.
Those are mere conspiracy theories. We have manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel from hundreds of years before the Roman Catholic church even existed. There is not one shred of evidence of manipulation of those manuscripts. Furthermore, we have no "originals" whatsoever. We have copies, the earliest of which are Greek.
@DonJay777 --Most people confuse me with being Christian. I was most of my life. Not any more! I am Hebrew. I have "crossed over." People just don't realize that Hebrew is not genealogical, but by association instead. Abraham was a Babylonian when Yah brought him out of it. He crossed the Euphrates and it was the first Mikveh (baptism). He "crossed over" and was now Hebrew. I too left Babylon (religious government). I am now Hebrew. That does not make me a Jew. To be Jew is by blood.
@DonJay777 --"Let's Celebrate Christ not Constantine."
... First, Christ is not a name, but a title meaning "Anointed one." The Greeks used this term to refer to all their gods. His Name is Yahshua. Yahshua is a Jewish name. Yahshua was a Jew, and was never referred to as Christ, as His mom and stepdad were not Joseph and Mary "Christ." Again...who added "Christ?" Not a Jew I can guarantee you. Someone is hiding the original copies. I believe they will miraculously surface soon.
Hey brother, Just wanted to make the point that Constantine didnt start the Christian Faith. The disciples and followers of the Messiah inherited this title and wore it gladly.
"if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf" 1 Peter 4:16
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" Acts 26:28
"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" 11:26
@wutangtigerstyle --Both! His interpretation "negates" the written Word, therefore, becoming an addition to, or "substitution" to the written Word. His interpretation is from a humanistic viewpoint, which exposes him as having a corrupted foundation of the subject, which, in my mind, raises a red flag as to his true motives. On the flip side Hovind isn't perfect, but he has this creationism thing nailed down. The evidence is irrefutable.
I am of the position that Kent Hovind's position on how old the earth is, is correct. However, it is not heresy to believe that animals died before the fall. Salvation pertains to man and not the animals. Christ came in to circumvent MAN'S death and not the animals. However, I do think that it is heresy to say that man would have died regardless. I am also of the position that Calvinism is heresy because it makes God worse than the devil. Ross believes Calvinist nonsense of predestination.
@awgu There is no way that Hovind won this debate. His only argument against Ross was that you have to be smart and knowledgeable to understand the Bible fully.
I blve Hovind speaks the real truth..God wanted us to have a system of life.....rest.....rejuvination.....He could do anything anytime..and create anything any ways he wanted...But he was showing us what is best for us to have a good life and life long harvest..and what is good for his beloved earth....and the most beloved his Children US....
both of these cats are brilliant.....i understand both dispositions on creationism and theology however at the end of the day people are still drawn to Christ and as long as that is i have no problem.
God said he would write the commandments. Exodus 34 1
But changed his mind and told Moses to carve them. Exodus 34 27
One interesting commandment is the one where all the male worshippers of God must assemble three times a year to form an army before God. So that god can expand their borders. Exodus 34 23 24
If you should see someone working on the sabbath, put them to death.
ross's "original" is the heretical alexandrian texts. catholic manuscripts that were known to be junk and not used. sinaiticus and vaticanus. some found in a trash can in the vatican. this would be the same N.T. manuscripts ankerberg speaks of
dang kent hovind is freakin tight.i cant wait for him to get out of prison 8 years from now.hes gonna come bak even stronger.i bet hes hitting and studying them books like crazy being locked up in that little cell
Kent Hovind tells it the way GOD says it is. It's simple for everyone to understand , fools distort it for their own glory & ego .. look at me i know something you don't i have a PHD .. GOD does'nt care if you have a PHD. The goverment had to lock Kent hovind in prosion to shut him up because he was speaking the truth ,just like JFK and many other's.the majority did the same to GOD himself JESUS for speaking the truth but instead they murdered him.GOD have mercy on the scoffer's and me Amen.
@TheGrassisnice no, its written in stone in egypt. dont be scared of facts. take your next vacation to the tomb of seti the first in abydos, and have the tour guide read the walls for you. "ISIS MARY" AND "the sun as THE GREAT CARPENTER" 3500 years before the bible was written. sleep in on sunday and save your money for an education.
@jazzmaster1972 . I don't need a tour guide to tell me what a fact is , Let me share a fact with you , God created the heaven's and the earth. Thats a fact and please keep your money you don't need to fly to Ireland for my advise on facts . God bless
@jazzmaster1972 HAHA my brother if you knew what your talking about or in your terminology if you were educated you would know the holy day is really on saturday not sunday .sunday is a pagan day haha your a funny guy ,Amen
@turi73 egyptians called isis mary "the great virgin".3500 years before the bible was written.
:D
thats a fact . let me know if you need more facts. how about the fact that the popes hat is a fish head facing the sky, like pisces. . still not convinced? that is a giant obelisk in the middle of the vatican. also known as a sundial.
@jazzmaster1972 so just because they called isis the great virgin it means that virgin mary is isis?now your gonna go on saying that Jesus and horus were both bron on the 25th of december or what?? and so what about catholics.dont hold my people accountable for the paganistic adulteries these popes,jesuits and vatican people have done in the name of Jesus
@turi73 how are the stories in the bible unique if elements of the stories in the bible,
can be found in egypt , turkey, china, india, and every other ancient civilization, more than 300 years before the bible was written? what gives gives you such confidence?
when i read what u write, you are simply cutiting down what i say, you never present facts.
@jazzmaster1972 elements???you want historical facts about the resurection,you wants facts about the how the epistles of john are reliable.your not just looking at stories.your looking at historical accounts.you simply dont want to give the bible a chance.and to assume that it is completely wrong,you have to deny many historical evidence
@jazzmaster1972 basically your denying all the historical evidence just because of these claims.paul is actually considered reliable by secular historians.he is also backed by historians in the last first century and beginning second.like igantius and polycarp.what your doing is considering the symbolic meanings over the real data
@TheGrassisnice ..amen my brother, and the scriptures say - "'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)
Ross is so much more educated and intelligent than Hovind it is disturbing. Hovind has NO idea what he is talking about when Ross talks about science. He has a few pre-prepared remarks that actually don't even address Ross' comments.
This is a perfect example of a scholar (Ross) trying to discuss anything with an uneducated scam artist (Hovind)
@MrJmm999 Hugh Ross is a christian and belive's God created the heavens and the earth ,,, Hovind & Ross are just debating how long it took God to do it. you're just prejudice towards hovind like all other youtuber's ..you forget they are both talking about science in the bible . So what are you talking about ? Hovind is a credit to creation science so please take your prejudice somewhere else.
@TheGrassisnice Yes..scientifically uneducated tax cheats who get their wives involved in their tax fraud are wonderful spokesmen for creation science. Hugh Ross is an actual educated scholar. Hovind has his doctorate in EDUCATION from a diploma mill that actually does not have any professors. It is a correspondence college. I guess you agree with Hovind on Apricot pits curing cancer?
@TheGrassisnice I have no problem with theists who don't outright lie about what science says and does not say. Ross is trying to resolve his religious beliefs and scientific facts and make the 2 fit without bastardizing either one. Hovind presupposes the bible is perfect and then LIES about science if science and the bible don't jive.
the order of these clips are all jacked up. for starters, the title of this vid says "part 7, disc 2 of 2". yet the title in the video itself says "disc 2 of 3"??? get this shit straight or delete it off youtube
@widener25 who knows. Sometimes video clips "disappear" when they offend the wrong person and his/her beliefs...or maybe the user just didn't post it...who knows.
@widener25 I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be working. The text only says that God rested on the seventh day. If we are in the seventh creation day, all that is meant is that God is resting from creation.
@widener25 The text says that God is resting from creating, not man resting. The text has no closing statements of evening and morning. Therefore an interpretation of day in Genesis as a long period, fits historically, because we have arrived to now 2010 AD. God will close this day of rest when he creates a new Heaven and Earth (Universe)
@widener25 --If it's Saturday, then it's the Sabbath (Shabbat), then the answer is no. Sunday is day one...the first day of the week...not the seventh. If you are referring to the Day of the Lord, then working has nothing to do with it. Hard to know what 7th day you are referring to.
These guys are thinking on the linear mindset, instead of the circular, or "revolving" truth of prophecy. They both fail to realize that all the events they are speaking of are cyclical, and not one single, isolated event in the past. These "days" happen, and have happened, and will happen again. The end has always been told from the beginning...not in Revelation. They are in the right book (Genesis), yet they are blind!
I am done for the day at least replying back here. Thank you for your comments. If you'd prefer to message individually, go ahead and do that. God bless!
Kent Hovind makes more sense. He's right when he says that if it takes a guru to interpret the Bible for us, then the Bible is incapable of being understood. We don't need to be smart and have a Ph.D to understand the Bible. Psalm 119:130 says " The unfolding of Your words gives light, it gives understanding to the simple."
Ok....but following that line of toughts then going teachers at schools would also be gurus because they have to teach us what we do not yet know or cant understand. They had to interpret for us most of those books and infos. Why is it that the Bible had to be understood literaly? If God made some with the ability to understand it...then why cant the rest of us? Where does it say that the Bible has to be understood by yourself?
All I'm saying is that we don't someone to interpret what the Bible says. We can read it for ourselves. I know there are some things we don't know about it and we do need help to understand it, but look at what Hugh Ross says to interpret the Bible. You have to know Hebrew, know your grammar, etc. Why can't we just read the Bible and follow Jesus? Why do we need someone in the 21st century to interpret it for us???
Even another creationist can prove Kent wrong. LOL
gregrutz 1 month ago
if god was all powerful. why in hell would he have to rest?
cherryhollowboy 1 month ago
Stop thinking, stop learning and stop asking questions, just believe in the BOOK and fear me or burn in hell for eternity. Have a nice day.
God ;)
paddleboarding 4 months ago
@paddleboarding Don't put words in His mouth.
PLURIC 2 months ago in playlist Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate (disc 2 of 2)
They're both wrong but Ross realizes if you don't reconcile 'god' with current knowledge you'll wind up with Hovind and his dead religion.
MrRafaelblock 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Trin80ty
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know, or desire to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires
tot792 5 months ago
@tot792 So why aren't we invisible if we are in god's image?
gregrutz 1 month ago
Where is Part 7, Disc 2 of 2
Twinpact 6 months ago
A good pointer for trying to figure out who is closer to the truth, is look at which one they locked-up.
herculese220 6 months ago
The whole bible is called into account when trying to debate on these issues. Te idea that we can understand and know Gods purpose in his word by taking a few scriptures and then trying to argue for them is kinda ridiculous. Thats why hovind does a better job. All of this is about belief. We all have our belief and experience and knowledge. Whom does Ross seek to know what the bible says. I believe it is obvious that he looks to man and himself.
wallaceju 6 months ago
Ross is using human logic. Notice how often hovind actually mentions scripture and reads it and shows how it is applied. Ross has put God into a box that makes him feel safe and secure. Hovind is accurate in saying he doesn't need a guru or modern "science" to prove what was said. The bible doesn't need to be proved but believed and used to prove what we see in nature. Why are people so scarred of God making the earth in 6days. They want to compromise with the evolutionists. Gods Wisdom not man
wallaceju 6 months ago
@Trin80ty
It seems you are missing part 8 of disc 2, might you be able to upload that one too?
Thanks
marenwickwire 7 months ago
It's easy to see that Hovind bases his belief on faith and Ross bases his belief on his own scientific discoveries. Hugh Ross is leaning on his own understanding. Proverbs 3 warned us about that
CrossBearingServant 7 months ago
*You're
antiatheistical 7 months ago
Kent Hovind is a criminal and idiot. People should not listen to idiots as if they are experts. Proverbs 13:20 "Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm."
ddisil 7 months ago
Are you an atheist?
Thank you for your mature debate.
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena. Science (& its theories) cannot comment on the supernatural, as it rests on methodological naturalism. Scientific theories are NEUTRAL on whether or not a god or supernatural realm exists. Its how Dr. Francis Collins - who led Human Genome Project - is a devout evangelical christian & accepts evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky (Orthodox) & Dr. Ken Miller (Catholic) prominent evolutionary biologists.
I'm agnostic
gmn545 7 months ago
@gmn545
Your statement:
"Religion appeals to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena. Science cannot comment on the supernatural..."
-The Big Bang theory (supposably) is natural and it was super - ultimately creating life. The Big Bang and evolutionary theory constantly comments on the supernatural. Spontaneous life is supernatural. Like Christ.
A theory is an uncertain belief, or a system of ideas. It's ok to believe in a theory, but believing it's a fact becomes your religion.
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical Incorrect. The Big Bang theory is NOT an appeal to the supernatural. Scientists describe each step of it with a natural explanation. In what way do they "constantly comment on the supernatural"? Spontaneous life (abiogenesis) is NOT evolution. Evolution ONLY covers biodiversity, NOT how life began. And you're confusing the colloquial word "theory" with a scientific theory, which I've defined. Strawmanning isn't going to help your argument.
gmn545 7 months ago
@gmn545 Your removing my original statement into a point of semantics, tangents, and misconceptions. Do you believe evolution is fact or fiction? Or do you just have a difficult time with the word "belief"? I admit I have a difficult time with the word "religion" but I adhere to it's definition.
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical No I'm being very clear about what things are, as you've appealed to setting up one strawman arguments. I don't "believe" evolution is fact; I accept that it is since it's observable. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies within a population, over time. We see it happening. Again, if all the evidence points towards it, it's not a matter of belief but acceptance. When you don't have any evidence (see my example of Peter walking on water), all you have is belief.
gmn545 7 months ago
@gmn545 Stating that I have set up a strawman argument is unreasonable and in fact a strawman argument in itself. Debaters tend to make this move when they have run dry of proof of their argument.
My original statement stands that you took issue with. Evolution is a religion. You don't believe in evolution or God? You can't stick to the issue and you can't even tell me what you believe. Make a decision - other than redefining the word belief.
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical No, you in fact set up a strawman, by continuing to define "theory" in an incorrect way (even after I defined it) and by mischaracterizing the Big Bang by grouping evolution in with it. Your original statement of "evolution is a religion" has been addressed and refuted, since it does NOT appeal to the supernatural for explanation(s). And by asking me "you don't believe in evolution or God?", you're making a false dichotomoy, since millions of theists accept evolution.
gmn545 7 months ago
dichotomy*
gmn545 7 months ago
@antiatheistical Also, I've already told you where I stand (if you bothered to scroll back): I'm agnostic. And I'm not redefining the word "belief"; you're simply being incredulous to the valid point I brought up in evidence being a requirement for acceptance, while beliefs (or "faith") don't require evidence. Why are you having trouble understanding such a simple thing?
gmn545 7 months ago
Good. We agree that facts are facts. A theory is an uncertain belief, or a system of ideas. Science has to be able to reproduce the situation theorized in order to be called fact. You cannot reproduce the big bang or a dinosaur evolving into a bird (for example.) And since you BELIEVE the theories of evolution you in turn have established a belief system - which is a religion.
But you are correct - not all evolutionists are atheists.
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical A scientific theory is an analytically structured & designed to explain a set of empirical observations (i.e. facts). Evolution (changes in allelic frequency within a population) is observable. "Macro" evolution is observed as well - speciation. The Big Bang model explains all aforementioned evidence in my previous comment. I don't "believe" this; I accept it due to all the evidence points towards it and none away from it. Your definition of religion is also wrong. Cont'd...
gmn545 7 months ago
@gmn545
Your statement:
"...I accept it [the Big Bang model] due to all the evidence points towards it..."
My religious belief statement:
I accept Christ (God) due to all the evidence points toward the prophecies, history, and archeological finds of the Bible.
I would argue you have swapped the word "accept" and "believe".
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical And no I haven't swapped the word. Beliefs don't require evidence; acceptance of scientific theories DO require them. You have no evidence to show that Peter walked on water, yet you believe it. "Prophecies" are subject to self-interested interpretation. The gospel of Matthew's "prophecies" are a perfect example of that. Matt. 2:14's "out of Egypt I have called my son." That's taken from Hosea 11:1 which explicitly states ISRAEL is the "son"; it's not talking about a messiah.
gmn545 7 months ago
@gmn545 Mathew 2:14, is talking about the messiah and so is Hosea 11:1, Jesus is out of egypt and out of israel, being the line of David. Your misconception of scripture is what doesn't add up in this equation. I am not blasting you, we all do it. Jesus was ,is and is to come, his is the messiah and was predicted. Sorry to but in on another conversation but, your point isn't a point at all. God Bless Rory S. Russell rebornrussell@gmail.com
rebornrussell 7 months ago
@rebornrussell Matthew 2:14 is citing Hosea 11:1 as a "prophecy" when in fact, it isn't one. Hosea 11 as a chapter (starting from the first verse) is about Israel as a nation; it's not talking about the messiah. Can you cite one Jewish source (since it's an OT book) that says this verse refers to the messiah? Learn to read verses in the context of the entire chapter. Sorry Rory, but your misconception of scripture isn't helping antiatheistical in this argument...at all.
gmn545 7 months ago
That is what religion is. Some people BELIEVE in God. Other people don't BELIEVE in God.
As defined from a simple dictionary: Religion - "A BELIEF in a worship of superhuman controlling power. A personal God or gods."
Since atheism removes the almighty powerful God from an Atheist's life it leaves only himself to claim what is right and wrong in his life. Thus worshiping himself.
Evolution is a religion too.
antiatheistical 9 months ago
@antiatheistical But the atheist doesn't consider himself a "superhuman controlling power" or a "god". So your analogy falls apart. Atheism is lack of a belief in god, thus not a religion. Evolution is a scientific theory regarding the diversification of life on earth; it's not a religion. Science and its theories by definition rest on methodological naturalism; it's NEUTRAL on the idea of a god. The case for evolution being a "religion" already FAILED in Peloza vs Capistrano (1994). Sorry.
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545
No need to apologize. It's clear we disagree.
Evolutionist can't test the Big Bang theory and/or recreate it. Individuals must take the words of evolutionists (man) that the Big Bang theory happened. Therefore it is a belief. Evolutionist believe in the "Big Bang". It's their religion - belief system.
I test the Earth with my belief of God. Evolutionist test the Earth with their disBELIEF of God. Thus we disagree because you don't believe what I believe.
Facts are facts.
antiatheistical 7 months ago
@antiatheistical The Big Bang theory and evolution aren't the same thing. One's cosmological physics, the other is biology. And no, people don't "believe" the Big Bang on the "words"; they accept it due to the evidence - e.g. Hubble's Law; cosmic microwave background radiation; general relativity; ratio of the lighter elements in existence (deuterium, lithium, helium), etc. And since when did "evolutionist" = atheist? Millions of christians, jews, and hindus accept evolution.
Facts are facts.
gmn545 7 months ago
@antiatheistical no its not
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
Atheism is a religion.
antiatheistical 9 months ago
@antiatheistical no, it is the lack of religion. it is simply a belief that there is no god.
digitalblasphemy1100 9 months ago
the Christianity is now trying to be scientific and up to date coz if they wud stick to old believe of Christianity, it wud be easily deciphered by new generation due to massive evidence from different branches of science.
but in the end or in futures to come, science wud prevail and bible is no longer the book of truth but a book of mythical stories.
fleshy2000 9 months ago
Genesis does not have to be subjugated to philosophical scientific view points..It is pretty straight forward....Theres nothing in Genesis that needs to be changed to accomodate to the assumptions....NO COMPROMISE....and Kent Hovind Stands firm.....
Cherubim64 10 months ago
@ShITYouWannaKNO The universe is 13.7 Billion years old, call a 'day' anthing you want.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@ShITYouWannaKNO Praise Allah, Ra, Zeus, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc. Yes, may gods exist!
gregrutz 10 months ago
@Americant47 And Hovind is such a liar and a fraud. Any college science student can prove Kent wrong.
gregrutz 10 months ago
They're both wrong more or less but at least Hugh isn't being a douche about it. meh
HumaninSeoul 11 months ago
@Americant47 Yeah that's what I love about this. Either way they are right in the big picture. I'm kind of where William Lane Craig is on this subject. I really don't know. I mean God could have easily made the universe, like Adam, with an appearance of age, or the universe could indeed be billions of years old. Either way minor details, but still interesting. I seem to side with Hugh Ross a little more though. And I agree, my belief in God is both a logical belief and a spiritial belief.
mattkyle99 11 months ago
I cant seem to find the next part of this debate. There is truely no way to question the brillants of either of these two men, though....is it just me or has John Ankerberg played a much larger part in this debate which is supposed to be a Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate. Also hasnt he seem to be a bit hostile towards Kent Hovind with the cutting off many of Kents responces and clearly agreeing with Hugh. Also showing his clear bias with his "moving alone" which has prevented Kents responces
BigJCPatten21 11 months ago
The deranged vs. the deluded...
jerico641 11 months ago
Adam was a figment of primitive bronze age peoples imagination
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
It is really hard to say that either person is "wrong" per say...but Hoving seems to have a more genuine interpretation while Ross is almost "fishing" for scientific (and extremely complex) twists on the bible text. In fact almost every verse used in this debate has a "unique" or "new" spin on the verse to get its "true" meaning for Ross to use in his arguement. It's borderline arrogance when one has to "correct" God's diction and reword verses to make it fit one's own arguement...just saying.
kfcguy1999 1 year ago 11
@kfcguy1999 I disagree. Watch Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham. With Walter Kaiser and Jason Lisle. Walter Kaiser is a Theologian, and discusses how the days of creation do not have a 24hr meaning. He goes into great detail about it. You have to keep in mind way back when Moses wrote Genesis the word "day" had many different meanings; it still has many different meanings. I don't think Hugh Ross is "fishing" for anything. Many people read the the creation differently. Hugh could just as easily be right.
mattkyle99 11 months ago
@mattkyle99 Just change the meaning of the word 'DAY' to match your bible stories. LOL
Why did an all powerful God take 6 Days anyway? Silly.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@kfcguy1999 Well Christians used to believe that the Bible taught the earth was flat. We clearly understand it differently now.
The Bible itself is inerrant but our interpretation of it is not. It has been misinterpreted in the past and will continue to be into the future.
Lpettro 9 months ago
@kfcguy1999 That would be because the Bible isn't scientific and Hugh is trying to reconcile his scientific knowledge with his Biblical belief - it' a waste of intellectual effort - I feel sorry for him as they are incompatible.
Hovind's interpretation of the Bible relies a lot on his opinion (he repeatedly says 'I believe'/'the god I worship'). Presumably he doesn't believe in the Bible as much as he says he would believe in stoning people who work on the Sabbath.
COEXISTential 7 months ago
Is it me, or does the audience-member question at the end pretty much PWN Kent? I think it does.
COEXISTential 7 months ago
@kfcguy1999 There are no twists in ross stories he is straight foward. I mean stop being so ignorant. He has said a lot of things back up with scientific evidence and has reffered to a lot of scholars agreeing with him. What's ignorant is kent that wouldnt even lookd at a paper the nice guy was showng him and that is so narrow minded debates wouldnt matter. He wasn't a teacher or biologist, hes ignorant and bought his PHD. I mean just look at hoe ross proves him wrong and kent changes topics..
MsCcoG 1 month ago
I did not know weather to thumb up or down. I appreciate all the effort getting it here so "thumb up". I don't know which is more crazy Hovind or Hugh?
Like it or not the bible is not simple. I can not imagine some of my more illiterate friends being required to understand it and believe or burn.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations it is like a step by step program. Fist, some1 gives you the gospel of Jesus Christ. John is a fairly easy book to understand. Even in the last verse, we are told that the very reason for the book of John is so that some1 can read it, and that reading it you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and thereby be saved. Second, When someone is saved, they receive the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost then teaches the saved person God's Word. Praying and applying encourages understanding
wauft 1 year ago
@wauft I appreciate the kind words. I was Christian for many years. I understand the bible at least as well as any other church member and better than most that I knew. That is one reason I left the church. Blind faith is no faith at all. If it actually does come to the pearly gates, at least I can say I tested the water. I was not just a cow, following a pack. I have always questioned authority. I see no reason to stop here.
pumpstations 1 year ago
I will say, after just reading the Bible I agree with all that Kent Hovind believes and teaches. How Huge Ross sees and believes is way to intense. What I read plainly from the Bible is easy to understand, Each day is what it is, 24 hours, 6 days of work and 1 day no work. God created it all in 7 days. How the heck do you get millions of days and other exaggerated meanings is just crazy and purposely deceiving to me.
robtheman121 1 year ago
I like it by now all the ignorant creationists have got angry and left which means all the educated comments don't get spammed or thumbed down.
Personally I don't believe in god, but if I were to, it would definitely be along the lines of Hugh Ross. Hovind would believe Harry Potter was fact if you wrote 'The Bible' on the front cover.
sreynolds2 1 year ago
Intellectual giant Dr. Hugh Ross. Did I mention Dr. --- PhD in astronomy.
dalerob66 1 year ago
Intellectual midgets
conman300 1 year ago
Kent is a true believer. He teaches the clear truth of the Bible. He's being picked on for standing on the Bible!! That's scary. Especially if you claim to be a Christian.
dogooda12 1 year ago
@dogooda12
sarcasm, insults, fear, bragging... Kent does these things openly, is this christian or godly, or even productive? i think not...
wutangtigerstyle 1 year ago
@wutangtigerstyle Well, you can judge the man. I appreciate how he stands on the authority of the scriptures. As all Christians should (hermeneutics 101-assume the Bible is authoritative) He doesn't cherry pick. Hugh Ross is a very liberal theologian. That totters on the side of atheism. Very dangerous position indeed for HR.
dogooda12 1 year ago
@wutangtigerstyle --Considering the blatant destruction of the minds of our kids in the illegal public schools, Hovind has the right to be...right. Jesus was quite stern too bro! In fact, I remember something about him whipping some people selling stuff on the Sabbath in a temple. I haven't seen Hovind break out a whip...have you?
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper -nice one...
dogooda12 1 year ago
Great debate. I could watch this kind of discussion for a day straight. I wish the John Ankerberg Show ran each day for two hours.
Also, why does Veoh make you download a proprietary player to watch the full debate on their site? I'll stick with YouTube.
waluum 1 year ago 2
@waluum Haha I have been watching this discussion, along with Hugh Ross vs Ken ham, for 9 hours straight today and counting. They are both truly incredible interpretations of the book of Genesis. It it makes things seem more clear to me. And I know the videos aren't 9 hours long, but I take notes and rewatch as well. Along with readng the bible scriptures discussed. This is very compelling stuff.
mattkyle99 1 year ago
Oops...and Hovind also shot himself in the foot. He said that Yahshua was in the grave for 3 days. He can's count.! He was in the grave 3 days AND 3 nights. You cannot get 3 days and 3 night from good Friday and Sun-Day morning. As far as the argument goes, I'm with Hivind, but they both have some serious studying to do, and get rid of western gentile Christianity and search the original Hebrew from a Caraite Jew who ONLY believes in the pure, unmolested Torah.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
Oh boy...Ross shot himself in the foot when he stated falsely that it matters not what day we rest. He is adding to Torah...a direct violation of Yahweh's commandment to never take away or add to the Torah.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper
Really, do you rest on the Sabbath? Hmmm Christian?
RefutingPolytheist 1 year ago
@RefutingPolytheist --I'm NOT a Christian! That would make me part of Constantine's one-world religious lineage, which also celebrates the pagan dates of Easter and Christmas. I don't observe any of the pagan holidays. But that's OK, it's a common mistake bro! Maybe ask before assuming.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper
Hey brother, Just wanted to make the point that Constantine didnt start the Christian Faith. The disciples and followers of the Messiah inherited this title and wore it gladly.
"if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf" 1 Peter 4:16
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" Acts 26:28
"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" 11:26
Let's Celebrate Christ not Constantine
DonJay777 1 year ago
@DonJay777 --I understand where you are coming from. My point is that your Bible says "Christian", even though the word did not become invented until some 300 years after Yeshua's resurrection. They were called believers. Yeshua would not agree with today's Christian church. I am Messianic Hebrew, and I believe in a pure Yeshua Messiah, free of Babylonian garb and western sensationalism. My Elohim is a Jew...not the rendition of a Bible translator.
Shalom
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@DonJay777 ---Replace "Christian" with "believer" and you will have restored the writings back to their original stste. Jesus was not a "Christian." He would have said as much. We either believe or we don't. To be Christian is a broad term as there are over 4,000 Christian religions all claiming to be the only true sect. Which one is it? Someone is wrong. Which denomination is He coming back for? I can assure you it won't be the ones putting the first writings on the back burner.
Shalom
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@DonJay777 --One should recognize the fact that only the book of Matthew (Mattithyahu) still exists in the original Hebrew text format. It's called "Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew." No other NT book is known to exist in It's original form. What text did the translators use to translate from? Nobody knows! But they were all Christians for sure. This explains the use of the word. Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew sets some corrections in our current copy. It leaves out Joseph from the lineage of Yeshua.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@DonJay777 --Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew also leaves out the Trinity. Who added it? Even Matthew knew Yahweh was one being and not separate entities.Our current copy is a violation of torah. We are not allowed to take away or add to scripture. Un til the original writings surface, some things are left for conjecture by scholars. Sadly, ALL NT writings are not matched with OT ones, which Yeshua always referred to. There is no new covenant...just a renewed one. Nobody is left out...just added.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper "Even Matthew knew Yahweh was one being and not separate entities." This statement proves you don't understand the doctrine of the trinity. No trinitarian has ever taught that...you should rightly comprehend a concept before rejecting it
selviskk 1 year ago
@selviskk "...No trinitarian has ever taught that..."
No kidding!
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper I'm sorry I'm slow minded I didn't get your point
selviskk 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper "No Kidding!" usually means "I know." So if you know that trinitarians DON'T define the Trinity the way you describe it: "...knew Yahweh was one being and not separate entities," then why in the world did you put it in those words? What's the point? I believe that denial of the trinity is a most serious heresy. If however you have trouble grasping what the trinity doctrine is I recomend the book "the forgotten Trinity" by James White as an introduction. This concludes my rant.
selviskk 1 year ago
@selviskk Read Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew texts. It is the only surviving original written in Hebrew. It is devoid of mentioning a trinity. The Trinity was added during translation. You can thank the catholic church for that one!
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
If you are interested in a response add me as friend and I will send you one. The Trinity was in no way added to any translation and was certainly not an invention by any church.
selviskk 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper
-
Those are mere conspiracy theories. We have manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel from hundreds of years before the Roman Catholic church even existed. There is not one shred of evidence of manipulation of those manuscripts. Furthermore, we have no "originals" whatsoever. We have copies, the earliest of which are Greek.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@DonJay777 --Most people confuse me with being Christian. I was most of my life. Not any more! I am Hebrew. I have "crossed over." People just don't realize that Hebrew is not genealogical, but by association instead. Abraham was a Babylonian when Yah brought him out of it. He crossed the Euphrates and it was the first Mikveh (baptism). He "crossed over" and was now Hebrew. I too left Babylon (religious government). I am now Hebrew. That does not make me a Jew. To be Jew is by blood.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonJay777 --"Let's Celebrate Christ not Constantine."
... First, Christ is not a name, but a title meaning "Anointed one." The Greeks used this term to refer to all their gods. His Name is Yahshua. Yahshua is a Jewish name. Yahshua was a Jew, and was never referred to as Christ, as His mom and stepdad were not Joseph and Mary "Christ." Again...who added "Christ?" Not a Jew I can guarantee you. Someone is hiding the original copies. I believe they will miraculously surface soon.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper
Hey brother, Just wanted to make the point that Constantine didnt start the Christian Faith. The disciples and followers of the Messiah inherited this title and wore it gladly.
"if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf" 1 Peter 4:16
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" Acts 26:28
"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" 11:26
Lets Celebrate Christ not Constantine
DonJay777 1 year ago
@ReadyPrepper
adding to, or interpreting?
wutangtigerstyle 1 year ago
@wutangtigerstyle --Both! His interpretation "negates" the written Word, therefore, becoming an addition to, or "substitution" to the written Word. His interpretation is from a humanistic viewpoint, which exposes him as having a corrupted foundation of the subject, which, in my mind, raises a red flag as to his true motives. On the flip side Hovind isn't perfect, but he has this creationism thing nailed down. The evidence is irrefutable.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
I am of the position that Kent Hovind's position on how old the earth is, is correct. However, it is not heresy to believe that animals died before the fall. Salvation pertains to man and not the animals. Christ came in to circumvent MAN'S death and not the animals. However, I do think that it is heresy to say that man would have died regardless. I am also of the position that Calvinism is heresy because it makes God worse than the devil. Ross believes Calvinist nonsense of predestination.
Aryanissupreme 1 year ago
@Aryanissupreme Well theism basically employs the belief of determinism...
FreeTunes498 1 year ago
ross ftw (notice that an atheist is siding with hovind)
cbm0rr0w 1 year ago
Hovind won this debate. I'm an atheist and quite frankly the other guys position is essentially undermining the divinity of the bible.
awgu 1 year ago
@awgu There is no way that Hovind won this debate. His only argument against Ross was that you have to be smart and knowledgeable to understand the Bible fully.
jjgfun 1 year ago
i want more. any other debates like this on youtube?
crabsyman 1 year ago
bravo.. great debate.
crabsyman 1 year ago
yeah, where is part 8?!!!!
hurrikanesummers 1 year ago
I blve Hovind speaks the real truth..God wanted us to have a system of life.....rest.....rejuvination.....He could do anything anytime..and create anything any ways he wanted...But he was showing us what is best for us to have a good life and life long harvest..and what is good for his beloved earth....and the most beloved his Children US....
abin4u 1 year ago
@abin4u Huh? nature is what it is and life adapts to it, not the other way around.
slippy441 1 year ago
Three decent men are reasoning quite well.
gearzone2611 1 year ago
John Ankerberg is a cool guy man
zebra0456 1 year ago
I wonder if Dr. Ross believes that man is causing climate change
Ulai777 1 year ago
Where is part 8 2 of 2 guys?
cctman 1 year ago
ah, the 8Th day of creation well I hope it comes soon
stephens269 1 year ago
they both have science ties. neck ties.
alastairblakepeters 1 year ago
both of these cats are brilliant.....i understand both dispositions on creationism and theology however at the end of the day people are still drawn to Christ and as long as that is i have no problem.
Gathpoleza 1 year ago
God said he would write the commandments. Exodus 34 1
But changed his mind and told Moses to carve them. Exodus 34 27
One interesting commandment is the one where all the male worshippers of God must assemble three times a year to form an army before God. So that god can expand their borders. Exodus 34 23 24
If you should see someone working on the sabbath, put them to death.
Exodus 31 15
Numbers 15 32
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
ross's "original" is the heretical alexandrian texts. catholic manuscripts that were known to be junk and not used. sinaiticus and vaticanus. some found in a trash can in the vatican. this would be the same N.T. manuscripts ankerberg speaks of
filoIII 1 year ago
dang kent hovind is freakin tight.i cant wait for him to get out of prison 8 years from now.hes gonna come bak even stronger.i bet hes hitting and studying them books like crazy being locked up in that little cell
turi73 1 year ago
Hugh Ross may be great on science, but he doesn't understand hermeneutics. You use Scripture to interpret science, not the other way around.
gaugh753 1 year ago
Kent Hovind tells it the way GOD says it is. It's simple for everyone to understand , fools distort it for their own glory & ego .. look at me i know something you don't i have a PHD .. GOD does'nt care if you have a PHD. The goverment had to lock Kent hovind in prosion to shut him up because he was speaking the truth ,just like JFK and many other's.the majority did the same to GOD himself JESUS for speaking the truth but instead they murdered him.GOD have mercy on the scoffer's and me Amen.
TheGrassisnice 2 years ago
You're a fucking idiot...
obdami 2 years ago
I agree with you TheGrassisnice. People do like to silence the truth. Their day will come.
plcrank 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice AMEN is an egyptian SUN God.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 Has someone been watching the zeitgeist movie , you bold boy.Repent and read your bible .
TheGrassisnice 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice no, its written in stone in egypt. dont be scared of facts. take your next vacation to the tomb of seti the first in abydos, and have the tour guide read the walls for you. "ISIS MARY" AND "the sun as THE GREAT CARPENTER" 3500 years before the bible was written. sleep in on sunday and save your money for an education.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 . I don't need a tour guide to tell me what a fact is , Let me share a fact with you , God created the heaven's and the earth. Thats a fact and please keep your money you don't need to fly to Ireland for my advise on facts . God bless
TheGrassisnice 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice abydos is in egypt.
the egyptian s also called the SUN "the light of the world"
do you go to church on SUN-day?
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 HAHA my brother if you knew what your talking about or in your terminology if you were educated you would know the holy day is really on saturday not sunday .sunday is a pagan day haha your a funny guy ,Amen
TheGrassisnice 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice oh youre jewish? then you worship saturn. on SATur-n-day.
christians worship the sun
jews saturn
muslims the moon
pure unsubstantiated non sense.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 yea that would be true if the historical evidence of Jesus said it.but no.your watch zeitgeist and believe that nonsense
turi73 1 year ago
@turi73 egyptians called isis mary "the great virgin".3500 years before the bible was written.
:D
thats a fact . let me know if you need more facts. how about the fact that the popes hat is a fish head facing the sky, like pisces. . still not convinced? that is a giant obelisk in the middle of the vatican. also known as a sundial.
it is sun worship.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 so just because they called isis the great virgin it means that virgin mary is isis?now your gonna go on saying that Jesus and horus were both bron on the 25th of december or what?? and so what about catholics.dont hold my people accountable for the paganistic adulteries these popes,jesuits and vatican people have done in the name of Jesus
turi73 1 year ago
@turi73 i have given u facts.
you are free to think whatever u like
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 yes my friend.but in no way does tha prove that Jesus is the sun.have you tried reading the gospel of john in the bible??
turi73 1 year ago
@turi73 how are the stories in the bible unique if elements of the stories in the bible,
can be found in egypt , turkey, china, india, and every other ancient civilization, more than 300 years before the bible was written? what gives gives you such confidence?
when i read what u write, you are simply cutiting down what i say, you never present facts.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 elements???you want historical facts about the resurection,you wants facts about the how the epistles of john are reliable.your not just looking at stories.your looking at historical accounts.you simply dont want to give the bible a chance.and to assume that it is completely wrong,you have to deny many historical evidence
turi73 1 year ago
@turi73 once again , no facts, just babble from you.
fact#1= isis was called mary the great virgin.
fact #2=the sun was called the great carpenter
fact#3=christ is cristo in greek , means oil. oil can walk on water, metaphorically.
fact#4=the sun can walk on water too, metaphorically.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 basically your denying all the historical evidence just because of these claims.paul is actually considered reliable by secular historians.he is also backed by historians in the last first century and beginning second.like igantius and polycarp.what your doing is considering the symbolic meanings over the real data
turi73 1 year ago
@turi73 lay down a few facts for me. do it likr this ... fact #1..... fact#2...
ok
then well see.
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@jazzmaster1972 actually christ is king not oil im not sure where you heard that
zebra0456 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice i have something that will realy make you laugh if you think that was funny.
watch the naked truth on google video. see how funny you think that is.
Amen-ra
jazzmaster1972 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice ..amen my brother, and the scriptures say - "'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)
GaryLyons 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice agreed friend
Matthewray22 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice I think they put him in jail becouse he didnt pay taxes, and thats becouse his own glory and ego.
hugorular 1 year ago
@hugorular Thanks for the information i didn't know that ! your a very bright chap. Thanks again God Bless
TheGrassisnice 1 year ago
Ross is so much more educated and intelligent than Hovind it is disturbing. Hovind has NO idea what he is talking about when Ross talks about science. He has a few pre-prepared remarks that actually don't even address Ross' comments.
This is a perfect example of a scholar (Ross) trying to discuss anything with an uneducated scam artist (Hovind)
MrJmm999 2 years ago
Yeah, Ross is the man, he has solid arguments.
95TurboSol 2 years ago
@MrJmm999 Did someone say ham artist? Nah, I joke! Yeah, you are correct. Hovind is a self-glorified evangelical bible pusher...
shinrai13 1 year ago
@MrJmm999 Hugh Ross is a christian and belive's God created the heavens and the earth ,,, Hovind & Ross are just debating how long it took God to do it. you're just prejudice towards hovind like all other youtuber's ..you forget they are both talking about science in the bible . So what are you talking about ? Hovind is a credit to creation science so please take your prejudice somewhere else.
TheGrassisnice 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice Yes..scientifically uneducated tax cheats who get their wives involved in their tax fraud are wonderful spokesmen for creation science. Hugh Ross is an actual educated scholar. Hovind has his doctorate in EDUCATION from a diploma mill that actually does not have any professors. It is a correspondence college. I guess you agree with Hovind on Apricot pits curing cancer?
MrJmm999 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice I have no problem with theists who don't outright lie about what science says and does not say. Ross is trying to resolve his religious beliefs and scientific facts and make the 2 fit without bastardizing either one. Hovind presupposes the bible is perfect and then LIES about science if science and the bible don't jive.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
part 8 plz
yowmc2000 2 years ago
where is part 8 disck 2/2
wrxsti06v3 2 years ago
the order of these clips are all jacked up. for starters, the title of this vid says "part 7, disc 2 of 2". yet the title in the video itself says "disc 2 of 3"??? get this shit straight or delete it off youtube
m00ph00 2 years ago
iceAgeTHEORY ????? WoW what a dumb bitch O.O
eikedeus 2 years ago
Where is part 8 2 of 2?
widener25 2 years ago 24
@widener25 EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSSSSHHHHHHHTAND IT!
Why be smart? be dumb as me-there is no need to think!!!!!!!!!!! god did it for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sagabhcrew 1 year ago
@widener25 It's a bit late, but here it is. /watch?v=EFE3s30zICk&feature=related
Quintapus 1 year ago
@widener25 who knows. Sometimes video clips "disappear" when they offend the wrong person and his/her beliefs...or maybe the user just didn't post it...who knows.
kfcguy1999 1 year ago
So, if we are still in the seventh day, should no of us be working right now?
widener25 2 years ago 6
@widener25 The 6+1 is for remembrance of God's promise. We has bread and wine to remember the sacrifice of Christ. It's symbolic.
glocksout 1 year ago
@widener25 I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be working. The text only says that God rested on the seventh day. If we are in the seventh creation day, all that is meant is that God is resting from creation.
RAIDERJO76 1 year ago
@widener25 The text says that God is resting from creating, not man resting. The text has no closing statements of evening and morning. Therefore an interpretation of day in Genesis as a long period, fits historically, because we have arrived to now 2010 AD. God will close this day of rest when he creates a new Heaven and Earth (Universe)
liferelation 1 year ago
@widener25 --If it's Saturday, then it's the Sabbath (Shabbat), then the answer is no. Sunday is day one...the first day of the week...not the seventh. If you are referring to the Day of the Lord, then working has nothing to do with it. Hard to know what 7th day you are referring to.
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
These guys are thinking on the linear mindset, instead of the circular, or "revolving" truth of prophecy. They both fail to realize that all the events they are speaking of are cyclical, and not one single, isolated event in the past. These "days" happen, and have happened, and will happen again. The end has always been told from the beginning...not in Revelation. They are in the right book (Genesis), yet they are blind!
ReadyPrepper 1 year ago
Hugh Ross! Hugh Ross! :D
tm2cruz 2 years ago
I am done for the day at least replying back here. Thank you for your comments. If you'd prefer to message individually, go ahead and do that. God bless!
Ecoi1 2 years ago
I sent a message to you, I will be back to check and reply shortly.
Ecoi1 2 years ago
Ahh, wow, you type fast, hold on, haha.
Ecoi1 2 years ago
Kent Hovind makes more sense. He's right when he says that if it takes a guru to interpret the Bible for us, then the Bible is incapable of being understood. We don't need to be smart and have a Ph.D to understand the Bible. Psalm 119:130 says " The unfolding of Your words gives light, it gives understanding to the simple."
AstroFishLol 2 years ago
Ok....but following that line of toughts then going teachers at schools would also be gurus because they have to teach us what we do not yet know or cant understand. They had to interpret for us most of those books and infos. Why is it that the Bible had to be understood literaly? If God made some with the ability to understand it...then why cant the rest of us? Where does it say that the Bible has to be understood by yourself?
fmshazam 2 years ago
All I'm saying is that we don't someone to interpret what the Bible says. We can read it for ourselves. I know there are some things we don't know about it and we do need help to understand it, but look at what Hugh Ross says to interpret the Bible. You have to know Hebrew, know your grammar, etc. Why can't we just read the Bible and follow Jesus? Why do we need someone in the 21st century to interpret it for us???
AstroFishLol 2 years ago
You can't just read it because the English doesn't mean exactly what the Hebrew meant.
sjh7132 2 years ago