Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / TTOR | Atheist Activists Deception | Steven Anderson Renounces Young Earth Creationism

Transcript

TTOR | Atheist Activists Deception | Steven Anderson Renounces Young Earth Creationism · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 0:30
  Hello there everyone. If you're watching this video
• 0:33
  then you are part of the tto, our army and army.
• 0:37
  That is building itself up one subscriber at a time.
• 0:42
  And as you can see from the title and thumbnail of today's
• 0:45
  video today, we're going to be talking about Wikipedia and more
• 0:49
  specifically how the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis was
• 0:54
  changed to try to hide the fact that abiogenesis is part.
• 1:00
  Of biological evolution. Now, if you go to the Wikipedia
• 1:06
  article for abiogenesis today, which you can see right here on
• 1:11
  the screen, you read the following and biology
• 1:15
  abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by
• 1:20
  which life has arisen from nonliving matters.
• 1:22
  Such as simple organic compounds, the prevailing
• 1:26
  scientific hypothesis. Is that the Ian from nonliving
• 1:30
  to living entities on Earth was not a single event.
• 1:33
  But a process of increasing complexity involving the
• 1:37
  formation of the habitable planets.
• 1:39
  The Prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules molecular
• 1:42
  self-replication self-assembly, Auto catalysis and the emergence
• 1:47
  of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made
• 1:50
  for different stages of the process.
• 1:53
  This is all well and good but up until very recently the
• 1:57
  abiogenesis article here Wikipedia said that abiogenesis
• 2:03
  was not a single event but an evolutionary process of
• 2:07
  increasing complexity but someone went in recently and
• 2:11
  change the article so that says but a process instead of but an
• 2:16
  evolutionary process. I first made this discovery of
• 2:20
  the change while I was filming my recent video apologia
• 2:24
  response to my video with flawed argumentation and strong man.
• 2:28
  Fallacies Now in case you don't believe me that the Wikipedia
• 2:33
  article used to say the abiogenesis was an evolutionary
• 2:37
  process. Let me direct you to places
• 2:39
  where I can prove that. This is true back in March of
• 2:43
  2022. I put out a video titled apology
• 2:47
  is stipulations for debating Kent hovind are
• 2:49
  self-contradicting. And censorious the video is put
• 2:53
  out on March, 19, 20 22, which is over a year ago.
• 2:58
  And if you blow the Up to full screen around the six minute, 30
• 3:02
  second, Mark of the video. You will see that the
• 3:05
  abiogenesis article on Wikipedia back then said the abiogenesis
• 3:10
  was not a single event but an evolutionary process of
• 3:15
  increasing complexity but it wasn't just back.
• 3:20
  Then that the article said it back in January of this year.
• 3:24
  I pulled out a video titled Godfather lies about Evolution
• 3:28
  page on Wikipedia. Dia displays creationist
• 3:31
  derangement syndrome. And if you go to roughly the
• 3:35
  737, Mark of this video, you will once again, see the
• 3:39
  abiogenesis article on Wikipedia on the screen.
• 3:42
  And if you blow my video up to full screen, you'll see in the
• 3:46
  first paragraph that it says that abiogenesis was not a
• 3:50
  single event, but an evolutionary process, IE a
• 3:55
  process of gradually increasing complexity.
• 3:58
  So all the way, Up until recently the abiogenesis article
• 4:04
  on Wikipedia said, the abiogenesis was an evolutionary
• 4:07
  process and not a single event. But then as I was filming my
• 4:12
  apology a response video that I did, recently, I discovered that
• 4:16
  someone on Wikipedia had actually changed the article so
• 4:21
  that it no longer said that abiogenesis was an evolutionary
• 4:25
  process but rather it's just a process.
• 4:29
  Now, I have a theory on why this change was made.
• 4:33
  Now this theory is just speculation on my part and it
• 4:37
  can be wrong, I'm open to that possibility but this is what my
• 4:42
  theory is. All Godfather here who I had the
• 4:47
  argument with on my video Godfather lies about Evolution
• 4:51
  page on Wikipedia I had an argument with him over this
• 4:55
  whole topic and if you go to his Twitter profile he identifies
• 5:00
  himself. Not only as a religion skeptic
• 5:03
  and a liberal and not only has being pro-choice IE he's for the
• 5:08
  murder of babies in the womb, but he also identifies himself
• 5:12
  as a BLM supporter And an ally, presumably to the lgbtq
• 5:17
  community. So when you are so deranged that
• 5:22
  you're not only a religion skeptic and a leftist, but
• 5:26
  you're also a supporter of the black lives matter movement and
• 5:29
  presumably the Marxist organization called black lives
• 5:33
  matter. You're pretty deranged and you
• 5:36
  it is not Beyond you to go to a Wikipedia page to change the
• 5:40
  article so that it says what you want it to say and it doesn't
• 5:44
  Say what your opponent who's pointing to the article is
• 5:47
  telling you that it says. So back in January, when I had
• 5:52
  this argument with him, I pointed out to him repeatedly
• 5:54
  that the abiogenesis article on. Wikipedia said, the abiogenesis
• 6:00
  wasn't evolutionary process. Now one of the things he said to
• 6:05
  me on Twitter, which you can I think see in this video response
• 6:08
  or you could see it in the one before that I made to him.
• 6:12
  He claimed that I had edited. The article on Wikipedia to make
• 6:16
  it say that it was an evolutionary event.
• 6:20
  Abiogenesis. Course, the problem with this
• 6:22
  is, I've never once in my entire life, edited a Wikipedia article
• 6:27
  and up until recently the abiogenesis article on
• 6:31
  Wikipedia, always said that abiogenesis was an evolutionary
• 6:36
  process, but at some point in the last few months after whole
• 6:41
  Godfather here and I had our back and forth.
• 6:45
  At some point, the Wikipedia article magically change.
• 6:50
  So that says the abiogenesis is just a process instead of an
• 6:54
  evolutionary process. My suspicion is that Godfather
• 6:59
  either edited the article himself to make it say a process
• 7:04
  instead of an evolutionary process, or he got in contact
• 7:09
  with the moderators of Wikipedia and convince them to change the
• 7:13
  article. So that it said, That
• 7:15
  abiogenesis was just a process instead of being an evolutionary
• 7:19
  process. My suspicion is that one of
• 7:23
  those two things happened. Now, of course you can still
• 7:27
  prove through Wikipedia, but abiogenesis is part of evolution
• 7:32
  because when you go to the evolution page on Wikipedia
• 7:35
  which is about evolution in biology and you go to The
• 7:40
  evolutionary history of life section, you see a sub section
• 7:44
  titled, or Ian of life. And in the further information
• 7:47
  line, there is a link to the abiogenesis article, so
• 7:51
  abiogenesis is part of biological evolution, according
• 7:56
  to the evolution article on Wikipedia.
• 8:00
  Of course, at some point in the future, I know that Godfather or
• 8:05
  whichever atheist religious skeptic who's triggered by me
• 8:09
  pointing these things out. I know that they're going to get
• 8:12
  this article change to so the Genesis is not listed under the
• 8:17
  evolutionary history of life section under the subsection of
• 8:21
  origin of life. I know that change is going to
• 8:24
  happen because they already edited the abiogenesis article.
• 8:28
  But it doesn't matter if they do this or not, if you're an
• 8:33
  atheist or an evolutionist out there and you think that
• 8:36
  removing the word evolutionary from the abiogenesis article and
• 8:40
  you think that removing the hyperlinked abiogenesis from the
• 8:44
  biological evolution article is going to prove that there's no
• 8:48
  connection between evolution and abiogenesis.
• 8:53
  You are sadly mistaken. The thing about Wikipedia
• 8:58
  articles is that for the most part, when it comes to
• 9:01
  Scientific topics, the things that are written in them, are a
• 9:05
  reflection of whatever the current consensus is on those
• 9:09
  topics. So I'm pretty sure if I do an
• 9:13
  internet search on any real quality, search engine that I'm
• 9:17
  going to find all kinds of Articles.
• 9:19
  Talking about how abiogenesis is part of evolution and I'll be
• 9:23
  able to prove if those articles that it is and Stead of
• 9:26
  appealing, merely to Wikipedia. I was appealing to Wikipedia for
• 9:30
  the longest time because it was something that was easy and I
• 9:33
  evolutionist use all the time and they didn't have to do any
• 9:36
  real research to find these things.
• 9:39
  But if evolutionists and atheists are going to change
• 9:42
  Wikipedia to hide, the fact that abiogenesis is part of
• 9:46
  evolution. Well then we're going to have to
• 9:49
  take a different approach in proving the point that
• 9:52
  abiogenesis is part of evolution.
• 9:56
  But I just wanted you guys to see in this video that because
• 10:00
  of yours, truly hammering. The point home that abiogenesis
• 10:04
  is part of evolution and the Wikipedia articles on Evolution
• 10:08
  and abiogenesis. Proved it well because I did
• 10:11
  that the atheists and evolutionists went to the
• 10:13
  abiogenesis article on Wikipedia and removed.
• 10:17
  All references to Evolution from the article because well I was
• 10:21
  hammering them with it. Hello there everyone.
• 11:41
  If you're watching this video then you are part of the tto,
• 11:45
  our army and army. That is building itself up.
• 11:49
  One subscriber at A time. And as you can see from the
• 11:53
  title and thumbnail of today's video today, we have a doozy of
• 11:58
  a topic one. That's very interesting,
• 12:00
  especially since I've covered this particular topic, this
• 12:03
  particular, man, I should say in videos in the past, but we'll
• 12:08
  get to that later for now I want you to know that this is the
• 12:12
  first tto. Our video being filmed in 4K
• 12:16
  resolution. I just got a new gaming laptop
• 12:19
  that does 4K gaming, rather easily.
• 12:22
  I mean this is the most high-powered computer I've ever
• 12:25
  met. It can run PS2 games and 4K,
• 12:28
  smooth as butter, which my previous computer that I was
• 12:32
  recording videos on struggled to run certain PS2 games at 720p on
• 12:37
  the emulator I use. But apparently the problem was
• 12:40
  my computer and not the software, not the game files and
• 12:44
  consequently, this helps tto our videos as well.
• 12:47
  Because tto, our videos previously could not Be filmed
• 12:51
  in higher than 1080p resolution. Now I can film in 4k with no
• 12:55
  problem and I have much better processing power on my videos
• 12:59
  and it also allows my shotcut video editing software to work a
• 13:04
  lot better than it did on my previous computer, apparently
• 13:07
  that software was built for higher-powered computers like
• 13:10
  this. But anyway now that you know
• 13:13
  this is the first tto our video to be filmed in 4K resolution.
• 13:17
  I'd like to get into the video by introducing you to Something
• 13:21
  that I started last year that should be of interest to you
• 13:24
  content creators out there and that would be quarter quarter,
• 13:28
  which you can see right here on screen is an open-source, Altec
• 13:32
  alternative to YouTube that I founded and started almost an
• 13:36
  entire year ago and it's very similar to YouTube in terms of
• 13:41
  features and functionality, and a little bit of the user
• 13:45
  interface. So you'll see things like full
• 13:49
  HD video upload. Capacity, including 4K video
• 13:53
  uploads with certain encoding servers and there's also live
• 13:59
  streaming and free restreaming and public playlists an
• 14:03
  easy-to-use. Comment moderation system.
• 14:06
  But there's also features that you won't find on YouTube such
• 14:09
  as quarter bucks, which is an Insight currency that you earn
• 14:13
  by getting views on your videos. And you can use the quarter
• 14:15
  bucks that you earn To promote your individual videos or your
• 14:20
  entire channel on the front page of the site.
• 14:24
  There's also video chat rooms that you can create where
• 14:27
  basically you can do video calls with your friends family,
• 14:30
  co-workers followers fans, Etc. And in addition to that, you can
• 14:34
  also live stream to your channel from these rooms so quarter in
• 14:38
  terms of features and functionality Rivals, YouTube in
• 14:41
  a lot of ways and exceeds YouTube in some ways, but also
• 14:47
  quarter Champions freedom of speech.
• 14:49
  You don't have to worry about not being able to talk about
• 14:52
  certain topics without getting banned from the side of your
• 14:55
  videos removed, like you currently do on YouTube on
• 14:59
  YouTube. There are certain topics that
• 15:01
  you can't talk about it all without your video, games struck
• 15:03
  down, or your channel getting struck down on quarter.
• 15:07
  No, such thing. You can talk about any of those
• 15:10
  topics that YouTube won't let you talk about and you can say
• 15:14
  and do whatever you want, as long as it's legal, because
• 15:17
  Covered and protected by the First Amendment of the United
• 15:20
  States of America, which is where this quarter side of mine
• 15:24
  is based out of. So if you're looking for a
• 15:28
  YouTube alternative, that Champions, freedom of speech and
• 15:32
  is feature-rich and functional, I would encourage you to join
• 15:35
  quarter today. Now, let's get into the topic of
• 15:39
  today's video, which is Pastor Steven Anderson the hate
• 15:42
  preacher, as he's known as by some people.
• 15:46
  Now, Steven And I've talked about many times in the past,
• 15:49
  but today we're talking about, Steven Anderson D, converting
• 15:54
  from Young Earth creationism. He's now claiming that he
• 15:57
  doesn't believe in a young Earth.
• 16:00
  How did I learn this? Well, two weeks ago, the content
• 16:05
  creator Faithful Servants of Christ.
• 16:07
  John Cragen, he put out a video titled, Steve and Anderson
• 16:12
  slipping into atheistic and evolution, like heresy, and it
• 16:16
  is at the one Minute and 18. Second Mark of John's video
• 16:20
  where we pick things up. So that's pretty much atheism or
• 16:26
  not. She'll say it's science.
• 16:27
  Falsely so-called I speak as a former atheist by the word to
• 16:30
  all right. Sorry about that little
• 16:32
  Interruption there but yeah that's Atheism in a nutshell.
• 16:35
  And what you're about to hear from Steve Anderson is just
• 16:38
  reeking of evolutionary type of theology.
• 16:41
  So in this clip I'm going to show Steve Anderson actually is
• 16:44
  denying young Earth creationism what the word of God teaches in
• 16:47
  Genesis chapter 1 you know Genesis chapter 1 and 2 where
• 16:51
  God created the Earth in six days he's denying young Earth
• 16:53
  creation. ISM.
• 16:54
  Check this out. Now, here's the thing, you know,
• 16:57
  people talk about evidence for a young Earth and and, you know,
• 17:01
  Matt and I probably disagree on this a little bit, you know, I
• 17:04
  don't believe any younger. I don't believe any younger.
• 17:07
  I don't believe any younger. I don't believe any younger, I
• 17:12
  don't believe any younger. So as you can see, in that clip,
• 17:17
  we see video footage of Steven Anderson, from some kind of sit
• 17:21
  down. He did with Matt pal claimed
• 17:24
  that he does not believe. Believe in a young Earth.
• 17:28
  And I will say right now that I could not find the original
• 17:32
  video that John is getting this clip from.
• 17:37
  I couldn't find it on YouTube, I couldn't find it on search
• 17:39
  engines. I even commented on this video,
• 17:42
  two weeks ago, asking him where he got this interview from, and
• 17:46
  that I wanted to look at the clip for myself as part of my
• 17:49
  own video, and I even emailed him on the email address that's
• 17:53
  listed on his official website. I got know, I heard back from
• 17:56
  John on this, so I would have loved to show you the original
• 18:00
  Source material instead of playing the clip from John's
• 18:04
  video here, because that's just how I roll.
• 18:06
  But I couldn't get access to the original interview that this
• 18:10
  clip was from. So we're going to have to roll
• 18:12
  John's clip but Steven Anderson as you saw in the clip clearly
• 18:17
  said that he does not believe in a young Earth.
• 18:20
  Now I find that to be incredibly fascinating because if you've
• 18:25
  been following the The history of Steven Anderson as a preacher
• 18:28
  and Pastor, you know that he has literally defended a young Earth
• 18:33
  and proclaimed himself to be a younger fur and the past.
• 18:38
  Now here on the Wayback machine, we have an archived version of a
• 18:42
  2010 sermon that Steven Anderson gave titled, the exact age of
• 18:48
  the Earth. The video in particular is
• 18:51
  called the exact age of the Earth, Baptist sermon
• 18:55
  independent fundamental Mental preaching.
• 18:58
  Now we are going to watch the first 3 minutes and 39 seconds
• 19:02
  of this video. And we're going to see Steven
• 19:04
  Anderson Well, defend a young Earth and Proclaim himself, a
• 19:08
  young, Earth creationist by definition this morning.
• 19:14
  This arm is gonna be a little bit different and I preached a
• 19:17
  variety of sermons. And, you know, I don't, I don't
• 19:19
  want to be a broken record, I don't just preach the same type
• 19:22
  of things over and over again. I like to preach a variety of
• 19:24
  different types of messages. They're all different things
• 19:26
  that you need in your spiritual diet.
• 19:28
  The Bible says that the pastor is supposed to be apt to teach.
• 19:31
  And so, it's my job to teach you the Bible and to preach to you
• 19:35
  guys word, exhort you to rebuke you.
• 19:38
  And also to teach you with all Doctrine and long-suffering.
• 19:41
  Now, God's word is Is all profitable for Doctrine.
• 19:46
  Now, even the parts of the Bible that some people might labor
• 19:49
  label, as the boring part, or it's not that important.
• 19:52
  The Bible says, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and
• 19:56
  is profitable for Doctrine. Even for instruction in
• 20:00
  righteousness. Okay, the Bible says that it's
• 20:02
  all profitable. Now, we read through this list
• 20:04
  here. And in Genesis chapter 5 of all
• 20:07
  these different people, they lived they died.
• 20:10
  They had children. That's how old they were.
• 20:12
  And you might wonder why Is that important?
• 20:15
  Well, it is very important and I'm going to preach on a
• 20:17
  subject. Going to approach this subject
• 20:19
  from several different angles but I'm going to preach a sermon
• 20:22
  this morning proving to you the age of the Earth.
• 20:24
  How old the Earth is right now, only from the Bible.
• 20:28
  Because there are so many people out there, who rely on so many
• 20:32
  study tools, and so many history books, and all this man-made
• 20:36
  things. And therefore, this is going to
• 20:39
  be a Bible record of how old the Earth is directly from the
• 20:44
  Bible. Now, the other thing is that
• 20:47
  many people when they approach this subject of how old the
• 20:49
  Earth is, they will actually have a preconceived idea going
• 20:53
  into it and they'll try to dr. The numbers to fit that
• 20:57
  preconceived idea. For example, you know, the
• 20:59
  dispensationalist wants to teach that there is basically exactly
• 21:04
  four thousand years between Adam and Jesus Christ between the
• 21:08
  creation of the world in Jesus Christ and therefore they will
• 21:10
  dr. The numbers to make it add up to
• 21:12
  exactly forth. Thousand Years, pretty much
• 21:16
  every single Theologian that I've ever seen.
• 21:19
  And by the way, let me just say this.
• 21:20
  Before I get into this, you're not getting something that I'm
• 21:22
  regurgitating from someone else. This is all my personal Bible
• 21:26
  study. I did not get any of what?
• 21:28
  I'm going to preach from man, I got it all straight from the
• 21:30
  word of God. Most of my study when I was 17
• 21:32
  years old and then last few days I delved into this again, and
• 21:36
  just revisit it all studied it. No Theologian.
• 21:40
  No. Commentary by my side.
• 21:42
  No, Google. Just this.
• 21:44
  Is studying the Bible, but from what I've been taught Through
• 21:47
  The Years, pretty much everybody who teaches and preaches on this
• 21:50
  subject. Pretty much changes, or corrects
• 21:53
  the Bible at some point. And that's why I say that
• 21:56
  everybody I've ever heard preached.
• 21:57
  This is wrong because they all will say, the King James Bible
• 22:01
  is wrong. In certain verses and they'll
• 22:03
  change the meaning of versus. They'll twist the meaning in
• 22:06
  order to make the numbers, add up to what they want them to add
• 22:08
  up to their preconceived idea. This is going to be a King James
• 22:13
  owner. Lie, here it is.
• 22:16
  I King James only a Bible preacher, who believes that
• 22:20
  every word in the King James Bible is correct.
• 22:25
  That's what you're going to get this morning and I don't know
• 22:27
  what, I've never heard this anywhere else and maybe it's
• 22:30
  been preached elsewhere. I'm sure it's been preached
• 22:32
  sales work but I've never heard it.
• 22:34
  I've always heard everybody changing and correcting and
• 22:37
  twisting to fit their preconceived idea.
• 22:39
  I have no preconceived idea. I don't care how old the world
• 22:42
  is. I just want to prove it from the
• 22:44
  Bible, how old it is. And let me tell you this, by the
• 22:46
  way, the world is approximately 6,000 years old and I'm going to
• 22:51
  prove that from the Bible. So as we saw in that clip, from
• 22:56
  this old sermon of his Steven Anderson back in 2010, literally
• 23:01
  taught from the pulpit, as the man of God, that he proclaims
• 23:05
  himself to be still to this day that the Bible teaches that the
• 23:10
  Earth is 6,000 years old. And he says that he got all the
• 23:15
  information to come up with this number from nothing.
• 23:18
  The King James Bible, he believes every word that the
• 23:21
  King James Bible says, and he condemns everyone else who says
• 23:25
  that the Earth is much older than what the Bible says,
• 23:28
  because they're twisting the scriptures to make it fit, their
• 23:31
  preconceived ideas. I'm on board with Steven
• 23:34
  Anderson at this point. As a matter of fact, we don't
• 23:37
  just have this video. If you go to the faithful Word
• 23:41
  Baptist Church website today, you can still find the essay,
• 23:45
  the footnotes, essentially for this, sir.
• 23:48
  Sermon by Pastor Steven Anderson.
• 23:51
  We're going to read a couple parts of it.
• 23:54
  Steven Anderson wrote, the Bible gives us all the information we
• 23:58
  need to know certainty the number of years from the
• 24:01
  creation of the world until events at the very end of the
• 24:03
  Old Testament from their modern history can tell.
• 24:07
  It's within a couple years of accuracy, the number of years
• 24:10
  from then until now this essay conclusively proves that the
• 24:14
  Earth is approximately 6,000 34 years old, plus, or minus no
• 24:20
  more than 25 years. Of course, it's been 13 years
• 24:24
  since this sermon and notes came out.
• 24:26
  So the age of the Earth, according to Steven Anderson is
• 24:28
  6257 years old, most Bible, scholars and theologians come up
• 24:34
  with a lower number right? Around six, thousand years or
• 24:37
  lower because they either don't take the biblical record for
• 24:39
  what it actually says. Or they have a doctrinal agenda
• 24:42
  of keeping the number under 6,000 in order to prop up their
• 24:46
  dispensational teachings. Therefore, they rest the
• 24:49
  scriptures in order to come up with the answer, they want.
• 24:52
  However, anyone who approaches the Bible with an open mind and
• 24:56
  believes every word must come up with a higher number somewhere,
• 25:00
  right? Around six thousand two hundred
• 25:02
  and forty-four years old others. So called Christians and
• 25:06
  theologians make statements like seven to eight thousand years
• 25:09
  old or millions of years old. This is nonsense and easily
• 25:13
  proven false by this essay. Now, you go down to the very
• 25:18
  bottom of this essay. Steven Anderson says, in the
• 25:22
  notes, this essay, these calculations and the Bible
• 25:25
  references used on my own work with nothing with the Bible
• 25:28
  itself. In the holy spirit to guide me.
• 25:31
  None of this information was taken from any book commentary
• 25:34
  or chart I have ever seen. So as we can see 13 years ago,
• 25:39
  almost exactly 13 years ago, Steven Anderson literally had a
• 25:44
  sermon where he That the Earth was 6240 four years old and he
• 25:52
  used nothing but the Bible to prove this age.
• 25:55
  Steven Anderson taught and believed in a young Earth 13
• 25:59
  years ago and he pointed out that if you just read the King
• 26:03
  James Bible in a straightforward and contextual Manner and you
• 26:06
  don't reinterpret it to make it fit, your preconceived old
• 26:10
  Earth, creationism beliefs or any other preconceived beliefs,
• 26:14
  you have you will come away if the Conclusion that the Earth
• 26:17
  and universe is 6257 years old. Now, cooked by the current day.
• 26:24
  So what changed? Steven Anderson, mr.
• 26:26
  King, James Bible preacher who just believes what the King
• 26:29
  James Bible says and doesn't reinterpret it in light of what
• 26:32
  other people say. How come you're now saying that
• 26:36
  you don't believe in a young earth when you literally have a
• 26:39
  sermon on your own website that says that you do, Why are you
• 26:45
  saying now that you don't believe in an old Earth?
• 26:47
  I mean you said 13 years ago and proved 13 years ago that the
• 26:51
  Bible taught a young Earth and you pointed out 13 years ago
• 26:55
  that the only way to come to. Any other conclusion is to
• 26:58
  reinterpret the Bible in light of your preconceived beliefs or
• 27:03
  in light of the majority opinion of the scientific and academic
• 27:06
  community. So what changed, why are you now
• 27:09
  saying? You don't believe in a young
• 27:11
  Earth is it? Because We're friends of Kent
• 27:14
  hovind back then and after you figured out what a lying
• 27:17
  adultery, he was you decided not only to sever your relationship
• 27:21
  with him. But also cease believing the
• 27:23
  young Earth is that what's going on or have you been corrupted?
• 27:28
  And are you saying that the King James Bible is no longer
• 27:31
  sufficient for determining the age of the Earth and universe?
• 27:36
  And therefore, you're going to conclude that the Earth and
• 27:39
  universe must be much older than what the King James Bible says.
• 27:44
  Now, I'm not a King James onliest, like, Steven Anderson
• 27:47
  claims to be, but I do believe that the King James Bible is
• 27:51
  every bit as authoritative and inerrant as any other solid
• 27:55
  Modern English translation of the Bible.
• 27:58
  So, I actually believe that you can arrive at the Young Earth,
• 28:02
  creationism position using nothing, but the King James,
• 28:05
  Bible. So when I see a King James only
• 28:08
  as to claims that, the King James Bible is supreme over all
• 28:12
  other Bible translations and who 13 years ago, claimed with
• 28:16
  proof, strong proof that the King James Bible taught a 6,000
• 28:20
  year old Earth and universe. When I see that same guy 13
• 28:23
  years later now saying oh yeah, I don't believe in the young
• 28:26
  Earth, even though on his website it says that he does.
• 28:32
  Yeah, I'm at a loss for words. Then again, Steven Anderson
• 28:37
  denying, the biblical truth of a 6,000 year old Earth and
• 28:41
  universe and embracing the heresy of old Earth,
• 28:44
  creationism, that's not exactly a surprise to me, if you go to
• 28:49
  my bit, shoot playlist, Steven Anderson exposed, you'll see
• 28:53
  that I've made many videos about Steven Anderson in the past.
• 28:57
  For example, almost four and a half years ago.
• 29:00
  I did a video called called Steven Anderson claims that NIV
• 29:04
  Bible users are not saved. That's right guys.
• 29:07
  This guy is literally such an idiot and a moron that he
• 29:11
  actually thinks your salvation is determined by which version
• 29:14
  of the Bible you read and not by the actual message of the
• 29:18
  Gospel. There's also Steven Anderson's
• 29:24
  replacement theology that I debunked in a video titled
• 29:27
  debunking Steven Anderson's replacement theology.
• 29:31
  There's also the video I did with car, where Steven Anderson
• 29:34
  Justified, the begging the question fallacy by appealing to
• 29:39
  a New York Times article. And then there's my last video
• 29:42
  in the playlist, Steven Anderson rejects God being on the
• 29:46
  present. So, Steven Anderson is
• 29:49
  definitely a heretic because he teaches Is replacement Theology
• 29:53
  and he rejects God being omnipresent, but he also appeals
• 29:58
  to logical. Fallacies to justify his King
• 30:01
  James only position. And he also determines people's
• 30:06
  salvation by what Bible translation they read and not by
• 30:10
  the actual doctrines and Faith statements that they hold.
• 30:15
  So in light of all this stuff I've made about Steven Anderson
• 30:18
  the past, is it any surprise that he Has walked away from the
• 30:23
  6,000 year old Earth and universe.
• 30:25
  That is King. James Bible teaches and is now
• 30:28
  embracing to some extent. Older of creationism.
• 30:31
  Is that really any surprise at all to anyone?
• 30:35
  It's not a surprise to me once you embark on heresy walk,
• 30:41
  especially if you embark on the heresy of old Earth,
• 30:44
  creationism, you are likely to start embracing all other kinds
• 30:48
  of heresies, as I've documented in my book.
• 30:51
  Another Inconvenient Truth to defending young Earth
• 30:54
  creationism when you reject the biblical truth of a 6,000 year
• 30:59
  old Earth and universe. And you start embracing old
• 31:02
  Earth, creationism. You are far more likely than
• 31:05
  most Christians to start walking in all kinds of heresies.
• 31:10
  I've seen biblical inerrancy, be denied by various older of
• 31:14
  creationist apologists as a result of their rejection of
• 31:18
  young Earth creationism. And I've seen all other Kinds of
• 31:21
  heresies get embraced by older of creationists, but then again,
• 31:25
  hey, if you're going to deny what the Bible says on Origins,
• 31:29
  well, you might as well finish the project and start denying
• 31:32
  other things that the Bible clearly teaches.
• 31:35
  As we saw for my bit shoot playlist, we already had
• 31:40
  evidence of Steven Anderson being a confirmed heretic before
• 31:44
  I came across this video by John, but after watching his
• 31:48
  video and seen Steven Anderson's old sermon on Topic.
• 31:52
  It just becomes a cherry on top of the sundae.
• 31:55
  For me, Steven Anderson does not believe what his King James
• 31:59
  Bible teaches regarding the origins and the age of the Earth
• 32:03
  and universe. Despite the fact that he claims
• 32:06
  to be a King James Bible believer, who puts the King
• 32:09
  James Bible above everything else in terms of authority and
• 32:13
  with that being said I don't really have anything else to
• 32:16
  talk about in this video. So I will see you in the next
• 32:20
  one to Toodles.