When we as a group of medical students asked our professor of anatomy about the historicity of Adam, he replied, “Well, someone had to have started it.”
Despite theological differences with Dr. WLC, as Dutch Reformed, I greatly appriciate his work and am thankful how he is being used by God for His Kingdom.
The problem with allegorizing Genesis 1-6 is that we’re never given what the significance of the details given in the creation account are. We’re merely told it’s an allegory to teach that God is the Creator and the story of the Fall. But why all of the details when a single sentence could have sufficed to tell us God created everything? What are the actual historical correspondences to the alleged symbolic details?
Not to mention the fact that there's even a genealogy from Adam to Noah. If it was all allegory it doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Adam and Eve weren't their original names, their original names were based on the original language at that time. Adam and Eve are just what they translate to in our modern tongue. But otherwise, they had to be real people.
@@ttff-bd2yfI think the question is about authorial intent. It does seem like an odd thing for someone to write in who didn't mean it literally, even if they weren't correct on the actual names and dates.
@@MrAwombatnot quite, although it would be for a modern westerner, an ancient Middle Easterner would have no problem with that. I’d recommend you look at Inspiring Philosophy’s series on genesis and ancient Egypt and the Bible’s video on genealogies
The biggest problem with this line of thinking (the "mytho-history" of Genesis) does not show up too strongly in Genesis, but in how the New Testament talks about the events of Genesis 1-11. They speaks as if these things actually happened in a literal way. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,..." Romes 1:22
But WLC does not seem to be proclaiming to be wise is he? I mean it's his theory but he is not condemning people for not holding his view. He does not sound prideful but I guess I really do not know 100%.
I know this is an old comment but i sincerely hope you spent some time thinking about how nothing in the video suggests the accounts of Genesis 1 - 11 didn't actually occur. . . and even the new testament references to them doesn't imply that the literal interpretation imposed on the text is what the NT speakers had in mind
I absolutely love the question and answer tags in this video. probably took forever, but it makes this video super accessible. I jumped to a bunch of questions right away. Thanks for that
More videos on this topic! I had some serious doubts about Christianity this year and your video on how your faith survived was massive in my resurgence of faith, for real... I'm still trying to better understand genesis and evolution.
Thomistic philosophy and Catholic theology deal with it perfectly in my opinion. Not selling out to modern science or to modern Fundamentalists. I have two videos on my channel that go over it if you're interested.
Thank you very much for breaking this video down into specific segments. When I send videos like this to my brothers in my men's group chat, the segment breakdown makes it really easy for us to discuss individual, specific questions.
Whatever one thinks about WL Craig, you have to admire someone who has the humility and the courage to change his mind and publicly revise his views for the sake of intellectual integrity.
Why are anthropomorphic verses about God in Genesis untenable? It’s unlikely Craig denies Christophanies, so why not Theophanies? Why assume God can incarnate as Jesus, but not appear in bodily form to Adam? After all, doing so wouldn’t entail that such a form is God’s natural form any more than a burning bush is His natural form. It wouldn’t diminish God to appear in an anthropomorphic form.
God be praised for the sovereignty in the timing of this video being published! I am sitting here working on my Bible Teaching for Jail Ministry tonight, on Genesis (Adam Eve Cain and Abel) and how that pertains to Sacrifice and Atonement, and this is going to help me answer questions I anticipate from the inmates on the actual existence of the first family. Thank you!!!!
@@followerofjesuschrist5297 no dear person. I meant God be praised for the timing of this message giving a very new Christian, myself, the answers to some questions that the inmates in prison, of whom I formerly was one, about the Genesis account of the First Family. This video came to my attention in the last hours of my preparation of a Bible teaching that I was about to give at the local prison. It helped me to vocalize my beliefs to the inmates and respond to their honest questions as unbelievers still.
I guess my concern is that this view might put death before the fall. And the word says "in Adam all die" so it wouldn't bother me if Adam and Eve live hundreds of thousands of years ago as long as you don't put death before the fall
The cover of a book titled "The quest of the Historical Adam" causes me much repulsion. Under an evolutionist perspective the human being is not more valuable than a monkey, he is only an evolved monkey, in fact thinkers like Peter Singler, under this perspective came to sign that the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee can be of greater value than that of a man. The naturalistic perspective gives a lower value to man. However, the Bible points out that man is God's masterpiece, the image and likeness of the Creator, and put in charge of the administration of creation as His representative. Man was created in a special way, God shaped him as a potter shapes clay, and breathed breath into him. Man is an image or symbol related to that which he represents, man originally pointed to God. The angels saw him and marveled to see a reflection of God in man. He was not a product of the process of randomness, nor was he formed from the animals, he named the animals.
It is sad and revealing to see that no difficult questions were asked. Why should we accept the naturalistic assumption of uniformitarianism?-How is this a valid way for Christians to think?
@JD Apologetics You are correct to say that "the Biblical worldview presumes a uniform and orderly creation"-but mark the last word, "creation". It does not presume a uniform and orderly natural system whose origins can be deduced by human beings through a godless system of empirical deduction and analysis. For example, how was the earth before the flood?-Can we study the state of the earth prior to the flood or is it an event that washed away its own history, so that the Bible as God's revelation is the only trustworthy account of what the world was like? When you say "there is no biblical evidence that uniformitarianism is false" I think you're missing my point. As a Christian, I believe that the world is ordered by God, just as you point to in Genesis 1 and I would also cite the Noahic covenant. Yet there is a world of difference in believing in a universe ordered by God, and believing that it is possible without the word of God to discern the origin of the world, the universe, and everything contained in them on the basis of sheer empirical study. This latter belief is entirely unsupportable and is actually an axiomatic starting point. See the Wikipedia articles on the cosmological principle and on uniformitarianism to get what I mean. Also, you may be surprised to discover that I am not sure what the age of the earth (or universe) is-I don't insist that it be less than ten thousand years. But what I do reject is the atheistic approach taken by most scientists in which they assume they are capable of discerning the origin of the heavens and the earth through empirical study-and the results from such an approach are inescapably foolish.
@@amisikiarie hey there, i know this reply section is over a year old however i would like to insert my own thoughts that, while not meant to change your mind, are meant to make you consider something. While the popular view is that modern science and religion - particularly Christianity - are at odds with one another, this isnt true. And i know that no where did you say that, however i think its important to make that statement up front. Its not JUST that they arent in opposition, but that in fact many of modern sciences discoveries, many of which Christians reject without careful consideration, actually prove the Bible is the word of God. My view is not just that science and religion dont contradict, therefore they can both be true and be happy. But rather that one actively proves the other. Heres my favorite example of modern science proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is Gods word. Ill start with the verses themselves specifically Job 38 31-32 "“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?" This verse is REMARKABLE, because it accurately describes what is happening in the constellations this very second. The plaeades is a constellation known as the seven sisters, and its a group of a star clusters that are moving in such a way that billions and billions and billions of years from now, they will look exactly the same. They are moving at the same speed and direction. In other words "their chains are bound". Orion's belt is also "loosening". Orion's belt is made of 3 stars. The right 2 stars over billions of years will eventually move to the right and look like 1 star, and the star to the left will drift left until eventually the belt no longer exists. The bear with its cubs is a references to the constellation Arcturus. It is a big and heavy star that does pretty much whatever it wants, and basically just follows its own laws. Whats the point of all of this? Modern science has been paramount in proving the authorship of the Bible, but its the same science that gives us these things that ALSO produces theories we dont like despite the fact they dont contradict anything we teach (in most cases). Yes, theres a clear bias in science to not want to give any credibility to Christianity, and some theories are presented purely to try and discredit our belief. But eventually science prevails and - wouldnt you know it - Christians are right. Not only can we imperially study the heavens and the earth, in doing so unbelievers have actually made a bunch of our case for us. Not that every scientific discovery was made by an unbeliever. For instance the Big Bang that Christians for whatever reason want to deny, actually helped our cause, cause prior to that the common belief was that the universe was eternal. The Big Bang helped prove it had a beginning, and the one who discovered it if im not mistaken, was literally a catholic priest. Then Einstein - not a believer - was able to imperially determine that time space and matter all came into existence at the same time. This is relevant because that means whatever caused the Big Bang, was timeless, spaceless, and matterless. And wouldnt you know it, the Christian God follows under this category. This discovery is only possible from a uniformitarian view, because if the laws of the universe havent been consistent since the beginning, Einstein would have never been able to make this discovery. ALL of these scientific discoveries were IMPERICALLY discovered, and in many cases by people who didnt use the Bible to guide them. Now does this automatically prove an old earth for example? Not necessarily, however the reason why i believe its important to be open to an old earth, and all of the implications that come with it (like Adam and Eve being 500k+ years ago), is that the science that proves the authors knew things, or were told things, that they couldnt have possibly have known if the divine creator himself hadnt told them, is the same science that leads modern scientists to believe the age of the earth is billions of years old. Same thing with the universe. We imperially calculated the idea that the universe is expanding (something the Bible told us about thousands of years before this discovery), but the discovery of this expansion depends a lot on science that if true would likely have to support an old earth. The fields of science arent mutually exclusive fields. Meaning if we cant tell the difference between an earth that is only 10's of thousands of years old, and an earth that is billions of years old, then we likely dont know any of the scientific discoveries i listed above. The branches of science barrow, and affirm each other, in many cases. By saying that we cant "imperially" discover these things, and that this position is unsupportable, is grossly a false statement, because in fact we HAVE done that, and it is only through a uniformitarian universe that the scientific proofs for the Bible have come about. Similar to how the Jews 2000 years ago read the scriptures, and were absolutely certain the messiah would be a general that would lead them into victory against the romans and bring peace on earth, only for the messiah to show up and reality not be what they expected Him to be, so too should we change our view of scripture when reality says its not what we thought it was. But this goes both ways. 50 years from now the idea that the earth is anything more than 10k years old might be foolish, but the evidence otherwise seems pretty ironclad, and it doesent contradict scripture, it merely contradicts our traditional understanding of it, so why bother debating about it? Especially when we miss out on really good witnessing material?
First, it's important to be clear when we convey scripture. Stating Genesis as mytho-history is unclear. Second, everywhere Adam is mentioned in scripture he is portrayed as a real man. Also, the events of Genesis are understood to be real events in history. Third, is Jesus walking on water or calming the water and waves mytho-history?
With regards to the second point, neither Jesus nor Paul say “The earth is six thousand years old.” They do, like C. S. Lewis, refer to Adam - that doesn’t mean they believe in a historical Adam. Indeed! Paul says that even Abraham is an allegory.
Why don't you guys actually watch the video? They clarify that the Gospels are literal biographies and read as such. WLC also says Adam is a literal person.
I bet it is. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2nd Tim. 4:3)
@@RoyceVanBlaricome umm... yeah this verse isnt referring to something as inconsequential as how to interpret genesis LOL. Its obvious to me this is referring to specifically the Gospel itself. "you dont agree with me? you must have itchy ears." is a pretty childish use of the Bible.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 - THANKS for proving my point and showing that the verse does apply to you. NOTHING "inconsequential" about Genesis or any of God's Word. Not surprising that what's "obvious" to you is wrong. If it was about the Gospel it would of said "Gospel" and not "sound doctrine". And, for the record, my comment wasn't about you agreeing with me. My comment was about how "comforting" a false understanding and false belief about Scripture is. Hopefully your error is grounded in childishness and you just need to grow up. Hopefully it's not a matter of needing to be Born Again first.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome remember when the Jewish people read the scriptures and they were certain that the messiah would be a general who would lead them out of the oppression of Rome? And that he would bring peace on earth? And then when the reality of the messiah didn’t meet their expectations many of them rejected him? Sometimes reality doesent contradict the scripture, it only contradicts our own interpretation of it. If you’re not open to maybe being wrong, it could be you have a pride issue. I respect your reverence for scripture, but don’t rely on tradition or your own interpretation all the time.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 //remember when the Jewish people read the scriptures and they were certain that the messiah would be a general who would lead them out of the oppression of Rome? And that he would bring peace on earth?// Yes & Yes. I remember and am aware of both. //And then when the reality of the messiah didn’t meet their expectations many of them rejected him?// Yup. Aware of that too. //Sometimes reality doesent contradict the scripture, it only contradicts our own interpretation of it.// I agree. And sometimes one's "reality" does contradict Scripture and Truth. Think of the naked man in the mirror saying "Boy howdy! I am one good lookin' woman!! And whole crowd of folks behind him saying, "You sure are!" //If you’re not open to maybe being wrong, you may have deep seated issues and you don’t even know it. Marinate on that for a while.// I NEVER said I wasn't open to being wrong. On some thing I am. Others no. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach.
@@TruthUnites when do you anticipate your book will be out? I'm curious as well I'm wondering how one reconciles the genealogies tracing Jesus back to Adam with what Dr Craig proposes...
@@HappyFern07 Thanks for your interest! I really don’t know, but I would guess it would probably be sometime in early 2024. I think Dr. Craig would argue that the genealogies contain gaps, which genealogies often do. Hope that helps.
@@isaiahnordland"Begat" in this context doesn't mean literally sired. We say Jesus is a son of David, but he was born centuries later. I could say I am "Alex, son of Henry," and it be completely legitimate, even if Henry was born in 1600.
Thank you posting this, brother! I think I'm way more on board with Dr. Craig's 1st point (Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history) than his 2nd point (historical Adam lived about 750,000 years ago). Now, from an apologetic POV, I recognize there is benefit to working through how we could maintain the essential doctrines contained in early Genesis if the current, generally accepted, scientific theories are assumed to be true. I think we need to have a posture of humility in our position on creation because there are limitations to our ability to accurately interpret Scripture. So I can definitely see the benefit of Dr. Craig's attempt. However, what didn't come through to me in this interview (though it could certainly be included in his book, I haven't read it yet), is that we ought to have an even greater humility in our confidence in those current, generally accepted, scientific theories (yes, I believe that even the most rigorous and honest scientific inquiry into the natural world is still far less reliable than the Bible, because a fallible human is not as reliable as an infallible God); therefore, we ought to hold any attempt of interpreting Scripture through the filter of modern science very, very loosely. So, I just felt like his confidence in the assumptions he made in order to arrive at his 2nd point seemed a bit off.
This is so true. As much as we may acknowledge that scientific endeavors have improved the quality of life for so many people - at the same time it is still a true adage that "today's news paper is tomorrow's toilet paper". There is a scientific saying "we now know" which is so vain and at the same time - such nonsense. Tomorrow we will "now know" (edit insert: )in the place of what we yesterday "then knew". God bless.
I have held the mytho historical view all my life because I simply am not willing to loose the archetypal value of the Genesis account. Genesis is the perfect description of the human condition and the human problem. I don't have to know that Adam an Eve was historical to see that we all have original sin etc. Add to that how someone like Jordan Pererson can spend 15 hours extracting the "truth" of these narratives and I am sold. That said I have enough of a scientific background to be highly skeptical of scientific ability to establish anything with absolute certainty and so I grieve when I hear that this is a problem for so many people.
Science can't predict the future, and we only have knowledge that goes so far back in time. Science is useful to know about the world in the hear and now, but it cannot be used to know what happened in the past. That's history, not science, and our knowledge of history is limited.
@@jrconway3 This takes science to be present empirical experience and history to be records of past present experiences. Is there not a sort of middle ground-scientific historical abductive argument to the best explanation-which reaches beyond the present first person experience (contemporary or historical) and reaches into pre-history (history for which there was no observational experience). A religious historical argument of this kind would be that the evidence of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus result in the sound inference that Jesus’ body was revivified, though no one actually was in the tomb to see it when it happened. Arguments for evolution, whether sound or error are also of this type. Agree/disagree? Any needed qualifications?
Just a question: When it talks about God walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, is it possible that God takes the form of a man to walk with Adam and Eve instead of it being anthropomorphism? The same with Ex. 33:19-23 with Moses seeing the back of God. What do you guys think?
@@TruthUnites I'm genuinely trying to understand this view of yours better. What is your definition of literal? I could say that Adam and Eve literally walked in the garden with God if I clarify this and say literally walked with Adam and Eve in the form of a manifestation he chose. In a similar sense, I can say God literally guided the descendants of Abraham in the wilderness in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He was literally there but took the form of a cloud or fire. The same could be with God's manifestation in the temple, or on Mount Sinai. However, what I would not call literal is the illustration of Jesus in Revelation 3:20. Jesus is not literally at any door which I physically open, but he is using imagery to demonstrate that if the church turns from their sin in repentance and opens the door, they will have the right to enter into eternal life with him and feast in his great kingdom.
@@iberius9937 let us make man in our own image according to our likeness ...I don't think we can dismiss the idea that an 'unfallen' man and woman could see and walk with God
It will be interesting to read the book. I’m curious what benefits a mytho-historical genre has in solving interpretive difficulties. It’s not clear to me that historical gaps or anthropomorphisms show evidence of this genre (rather than the fact that it’s a creation narrative and written in a highly compact and summarizing style). For example: 1) how does mytho-historical help decide whether to take Adam’s formation from dust to be a place holder for a more extended origin involving evolution rather than an actual forming of an individual out of dirt? When the Psalm says that God forms the child in the womb, we take our common experience of that type of event and properly understand that “God forming” is not in conflict with the natural process of pregnancy. But if it is not necessary to appeal to mytho-history to get this out of the Psalm, why is it necessary to appeal to this in Genesis? Now, I’m not saying that there might not be other good reasons to believe in mythology-history in Genesis, only that I’m not sure it makes a difference for this key verse about man’s formation. It seems that a historically progressive sense of “formation” would be a natural way of reading this if one was convinced that man evolved by God’s Providence from some other biological form. The reason I wonder whether the mytho-historical categorization of Gen 1-11 really affects this possible interpretation, is that it seems such an interpretation is available under even a historical narrative interpretive grid. In other words, it doesn’t take a “special” genre to reach this conclusion. I would suggest that the reason the genre is appealed to to reach an evolutionary formation view is because it takes weight off the idea that science is driving the final interpretation of the text, and makes it seem that its exclusively a language interpretation issue. But clearly our account of cosmological truths is going to need to square with the language meanings in the text (especially if multiple valid interpretations are possible of the words in their use), and so it seems to me that we do ourselves no favors by dodging the impact of general revelation as one important and relevant context for considering the possible meanings of Scripture’s teachings. 2) a significant textual difficulty to WLC’s proposal of an ancient Adam of 750ish million years are the chronologies. Does anyone have a reasonable way to open up these chronologies? I am aware of the “beget” does not mean a direct child but could be a multigenerational place holder. The difficulty seems to be that the child’s birth seems to measure the remainder of the ancestors life, thus limiting the flexibility. If this problem is insurmountable, then this would seem to favor Joshua Swamidas’ “evolution + recent historical Adam,” not withstanding WLC’s three objections, which are understandable, the notion of super-intelligent tool makers without possessing the image of God seems challenging, but if the chronology of the genealogy is determinative…then maybe that’s the best solution). Any good sources on the genealogy issues?
Because of the little part where it says “myth” from “mytho-history” people automatically assume that Dr Craig is saying genesis 1-11 is fake.. when that’s exactly the opposite of what he is saying.. he’s claiming that both the Scripture and the scientific evidence ARE compatible and there is a part to know where to put Adam in the Bible and in the latest science
In his own words recorded in this video - he had not made up his mind before he started researching the book. His opinion "for decades" was that the text of Genesis says nothing about the age of the earth. The current point is about whether or not there really was an Adam an Eve. This is a more careful distinction and in my view, cuts to the heart of the matter.
Love the work you are doing here, Dr. O, especially your view of history. I noticed reading City of God that Augustine had some rather striking views of the Creation account. But, I still have concerns with Dr. Craig post-interview. The question that should be on the mind of any student of the Bible and confessional, orthodox Christian is "What did our Lord believe about the Old Testament?" Subsequent questions then begin to follow. Did Christ believe the "Pentateuchal author" was Moses? Did Christ view Adam as a literal, historical person who was created by God, fathered the human race, and introduced sin into the world? Did Christ believe the Old Testament taught a literal 7-day creation? etc. (After all, if we view Jesus as the New Testament does, it was He who created Adam). Theological retrieval starts with our view of the Scriptures, of which I believe Dr. Craig does not have the same view as Christ and the Apostles. It is not an attack on Dr. Craig personally, who is a preeminent scholar, but I remain concerned about Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures.
Thanks for sharing that Dr. Bob. WLC goes into his views on Christ's view of Scripture more fully in the book. You might be interested to check out his treatment there. God bless you!
@Dr. Bob. It might be helpful to consider that Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, who lived in Alexandra, Egypt, was perhaps the most famous apologist for the Jewish faith, during the time period of Jesus. In his defense of Genesis, Philo did not regard "the days of Genesis" as suggesting some sequence of literal 24-hour days, nor did Philo believe that the rib taken from Adam's side to create Eve was to be understood literally either. Philo believed that a metaphorical interpretation of at least certain aspects of the creation story were consistent with a high view of Scripture. So, if we question Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures, then we would have to question Philo of Alexandria's view of the Scriptures as well, despite the fact that Philo lived 2,000 years ago, at least 1800 years before anyone ever heard of Charles Darwin. God's blessing be with you!!
@@clarkemorledge2398 not sure if I am misunderstanding, what's the concern with rejecting Philo who was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? We have the church father's and the 6 th ecumenical Council
@@TommyGunzzz I am not aware of any church father who rejected Philo's views on early Genesis. Do you have a source from the fathers, or a specific canon in the Sixth Ecumenical Council ,where Philo's views were addressed?
@@clarkemorledge2398 Hi there. Sorry if I was unclear, my comment was addressing how you "if we question Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures, then we would have to question Philo of Alexandria's view of the Scriptures as well" and i was asking why is that a big deal? Christianity isnt based on Philo is what i was getting at. There are several Jewish groups with different opinions on several topics regarding the OT, prophecies, typology, allegory, history, etc. Also, in Constantinople II, they are condemnations there against Origen (who allegorized genesis) and also ironically Apollinaris as a heretic, which is what WLC believes. i believe the 11th canon. Its hard to nail down all of Origens anathemas cause there are soo many and they are spread throughout multiple councils, but thats a good place to start. Blessings, have a good one.
Hi Gavin, Thank you for this interview. I have a question which has been giving me anxiety. How does one reconcile putting the historical Adam let's say 150.000 years back in the past, while the Bible teaches that Adam could only have lived 6000 years ago? Would you happen to know the answer or maybe know where I can find the answer? Forgive me if it's a silly question. I'm a newbie and somehow wasn't able to find the answer to this question. May God bless your ministry 🙏🏼
I'm no expert, but I've heard biblical scholars clarify that often genealogies in the Bible (and other near eastern literature) purposely omit names that aren't considered important or relative. So the time between Adam and Noah for example doesn't have to be limited by how many people are listed in between them.
Genealogies aren't meant to be taken literally. They prove descent, focus on notable characters, and the years lived and numbers of generations have symbolic meaning in Hebrew.
Might address this later, but what do we think of something like where Adam and Eve are priests, either specially created but not the only humans, or chosen from humanity to represent them. Real and historical people but not the genetic source of humanity?
From what the best minds on DNA can determine, we all descend from one male and one female. Of course that male could be Noah. The problem with DNA is reading the protein lengths and chains. Regardless, the "Science" confirms that we all... every person on the planet, have common roots. Even from a Darwinian view point, that is the logical conclusion, that there had to be a first man and a first woman. Before that they would have a significant deviation in genetic pairing that would have resulted in sterility. This is one of the major flaws in Darwinian thought.
Because that is not what the Scriptures teach. "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Eve was the mother of all the living (humans, not animals) and therefore there were no humans who were not descendants of Adam besides Adam himself and Eve. Making things up as being chosen from many humans is just an attempt to synchronize a falsified religious belief called evolution into Christianity. If evolution is true, then there were billions of years of death, disease, and suffering before the first man Adam sinned and therefore Jesus' death on the cross does not pay our sin debt and we are still in our sins! As 1 Corinthians 15:17 says, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (referring to if the dead do not rise, then Jesus did not either) This can be applied to if Jesus did not pay our sin debt, then we are still in our sins and our faith is futile. A figurative Genesis means Christianity breaks down. Put your trust in the Lord, not in man's fallible interpretation of science. GOD made it all, who best knows how HE did it and how long it took HIM but GOD?
I have covered them a bit here and there, mostly in my book on Augustine’s doctrine of creation. But I’d be happy to address a specific question or set of questions. Feel free to share what you think would be most useful.
@@TruthUnites I'm not entirely sure!! Haha. I think I'm having a hard time navigating and cataloging which expressions and narratives that we should be committed to more literally and others less literally. I appreciated his commitment to Adam as the universal progenitor of humanity. He quotes the narrative saying that "No man was found to work the ground," or "no helper was found." But the same narrative also talks about them both being formed from the ground and very specifically as Eve was formed from sleeping Adam's rib. I think Craig's ideas are interesting and I enjoy learning from how others are interpreting scripture and science. I like also learning from how people/pastors I respect (that's you!) respond to their thinking. :)
I like Craigs theory very much. My only concern and gripe is how to reconciliate Adams genealogical line with a 750,000 years line. Can someone explain it to me? I really want to adopt Craigs view.
That's the problem, is we, including WLC, want to adapt the Bible to secular academics. The Bible has continually proven itself correct while the world has revised its views. Ultimately we each have to come to that decision ourselves, but as time goes on evolution has proven itself to be an untenable theory. We now see "mainstream" science considering the idea of simulated reality due to the observable issues and inconsistencies with scientific theory, which is all we can do when it comes to the past. Nothing is provable. I hear what is said, but again we are trying to compromise the Word which is always reliable for secular teachings which change every decade or two.
Hebrew genealogies are not exhaustive. They are used to tell the story of a particular tribe or nation and to reveal deeper truths (I believe the Hebrew word for “genealogy” can also mean “story”, i.e. this is the genealogy of Jacob, or this is the story of Jacob)
Genealogies aren't meant to include everyone. Plain and simple. You just have to understand what type of literature you're reading instead of forcing your own understanding into the text like the first lady who replied to you.
5min into this and turning it off. WLC has already made the same mistake he has before at least 3-4x already in this first 5min and NOT ONCE has Gavin pushed back, challenged, or even questioned his falsehoods. Here are just a few examples: 1) WLC claims the doctrine of Original Sin is not clearly taught in Scripture. How much clearer could Rom. 5:12-19 be? 2) WLC continues to show his Final Authority for faith and practice is himself by accepting the Science as HE sees it and then interpreting Scripture through it 3) WLC specifically stated the 750,000 years ago and the problem with the population of the world evaporating if you just move the creation of Adam and Eve to an earlier time. THAT is playing fast and loose with Scripture and stark evidence that WLC interprets Scripture thru Science,. Whatever happened to all things are possible with God? Evidently WLC and Gavin have a god that is much smaller than God. God saw fit to have Abraham at 100yrs old get his wife Sarah to become pregnant when she was 90. Abraham died 75yrs later. How many more children did he have? Methuselah lived to be 969yrs old. How many children did he have? My guess is that it doesn't matter to WLC or Gavin because Science would tell them it's impossible for either of them to have happened. At least the Science from the scientists WLC is listening to. Which obviously isn't those who are doing apologetics from a Biblical worldview, I know I attended one seminar where a guy created a computer program that collected and mapped peoples from all over the world and showed that it all goes back to a Mitochondrial Eve. And another that showed how it was possible for the current world's population to be what it is now in just the past 6-7 thousand years. And I believe that Ken Ham or someone with AiG has dealt with this too. One last word on this. I find this to be the height of irony and perhaps hypocrisy given that I just watched Gavin do two videos on Sola Scriptura. I say "perhaps hypocrisy" because, in fairness, as I recall Gavin was only making a case for Augustine believing in Scripture as the final authority for faith and practice. Perhaps I read more into that than I should and he doesn't believe the doctrine. Either way, I've seen all I need to see. One more tab closed and one more channel I don't need to give any attention,.
@@metnasopar8861 - Your OPINION is duly noted and summarily dismissed because, well, it's just that and MORE IMPORTANTLY God says otherwise. It's not wise to call God a Liar. :)
WLC is merely stating that the doctrine of original sin as taught by reformed theologians is not clearly taught in Scripture. He doesnt hold to the idea that babies are born guilty of Adam's sin, but that we inherited a sin nature. Really not difficult to understand and it blows my mind when people actually say that babies are vipers in daipers or something stupid like that. Scripture is clear that every person is responsible for their own sins and must therefore also personally repent before the Lord.
@@TruthUnites Personal experience and for the rest it is obvious that he measures the text of the Bible according to materialistic science. If it contradicts what he considers to be the majority view of “scientists” well than the Bible must give way. He is inconsequential: The resurrection of Jesus: Miracle, although his scientists would say it is impossible for a dead body to be resurrected. But 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood: Not compatible with modern “science” so these passages from the Bible must mean something different. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Craig wants to serve two masters and this desire is the path to heresy. I know that these are very hard words, but I can’t sugar coat his theories. How come he doesn’t enter into dialogue with young earth creationists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or Dr. Jason Lisle? God choosing to transform the so called Homo Heidelbergensis at a specific time into modern man is the most ridiculous science-fiction attempt to combine christian faith with today’s anthropology. Give me a break.
@@Mazinga Also the Apostle Paul wrote 'Let God be true and everyone a liar', I don't there is a need for Christians to interpret the scripture in alignment with modern science but vice versa!
Always great content on this channel. I would love to hear WLC interact with a thesis along the lines of : Genesis having a compelling literary design as a covenant document - suzerain treaty to formalize Israel as nation with primeval history as prologue. other value ie. serves as polemic and projects worldview. How does this enhance or expand topic discussion in this video. Christ is Risen !
I have to say, I'm actually thankful there exists a broad gap between the understanding of the laity and the scholars with regard to Genesis 1-3. An appeal to scholars toward a proper understanding of the Holy Scripture hardly seems to be the modus operandi of Biblical Interpretation. With respect--because I do greatly appreciate TruthUnites and you, Dr. Ortlund--I cannot see the value in WLC's views iterated here. I suppose it might be well to get and read his book to interact with the larger argument. That said, it does seem to me that WLC makes a lot of unproved/unproveable assumptions. One example would be the recurring assertion "The Penetuchal author would not have thought," etc. Of course, there is no way to know what Moses--if WLC is even committed to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch--thought, but only what he wrote. All the above, I'll stay subscribed. Haha.
Fair enough. Creation stuff causes more division than pretty much any other doctrine I know of, so I appreciate you staying subscribed despite your concerns! (One thing: I worry about pitting lay reading and scholarship against one another, since translation itself is an act of scholarship. Laity wouldn't even have access to the text without scholarship.)
@@TruthUnites I would not liken the project of translating the Holy Scripture into the vernacular with modern-day scholarship, the former of which was done with the conviction that the Scripture is Perspicuous, while the latter is often done from the standpoint of skepticism of the veracity of the biblical text. If WLC had made many of these arguments during the "Battle for the Bible" days, he would have rightly been associated with those who, with the magisterial use of reason, undermined the Word of God because the presupposition brought to the text was not faith that confessed the Inspiration and Innerancy of the Bible, but rather an assessment of the Scripture that treats it like any other text. I'm not suggesting WLC has the same fundamental starting point as liberal scholars, but a lot of his conclusions are indistinguishable from theirs, and this troubles many, and I think rightly so.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Hmmm. Perhaps you are using the word "scholarship" to refer to non-evangelical, higher critical scholarship exclusively? The scholarship referenced in the video, though, was evangelical scholarship (JI Packer, Jack Collins, etc.).
@@marcuswilliams7448 Try Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on Genesis 1-11. Another O.T scholar that views Genesis in its Ancient Hebrew context . He ISN'T liberal but would agree with many of Dr. WLC Hypothesis. It the fundamentalists of the Last 200 years that have become the hyperliteralists of All Scripture.
@@TruthUnites Well, I would say that Scholarship done by an Evangelical Christian is not, therefore, Evangelical Scholarship. WLC would consider himself an Evangelical of some variety, I assume, and yet he is using the language of a Higher Critic (Pentateuchal Author, as an example). I suppose this necessitates defining just what the parameters of Evangelical Scholarship actually are so that we don't assume something is Evangelical Scholarship because it is done by an Evangelical. An analogy would be a challenge for me, a Confessional Lutheran pastor in the LCMS. When someone says "Lutherans celebrate homosexuality" because someone, or an entire collection of someones (ELCA), who call themselves Lutheran approve of homosexuality, the question must be asked whether such celebration actually follows from the Lutheran Confessional Principle. So, what are the Principles of a Higher Critic in relation to Genesis, and how do they differ from WLC's approach? If there is a different approach, how is that, in certain instances, they arrive at the same conclusions? Or, likewise, is it Evangelical Scholarship if a Young Earth and Literal Interpretation of Gensis is represented therein? How can WLC's conclusions and that of a Young Earth creationist be equally called Evangelical Scholarship?
I missed the deliberation of the genetic lineages of Adam to Abraham described in two(?) places in the Book of Genesis. Anyone know where that is discussed by Bill, or how it is accommodated by his proposed hypothesis accounting for Genesis 1-11? Otherwise, GREAT, informative dialogue! 👍🏼👍🏼
God appeared in humanoid form to Abraham (Genesis 18:1), to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-13), to Jacob (Genesis 32:22-32), to Moses (Exodus 33:11), to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15), to Samson's Parents (Judges 13), and to Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-6), and of course, to all of the Apostles, in the form of the Messiah. In fact, He appears in multiple ways, to multiple people all throughout Scripture. What's more, if you actually pay attention to the text in Genesis you will see that it was not the Father walking in the Garden, but "the Voice of the LORD", that is, the LORD's Voice (or Word) is the one that was walking in the Garden. This was a Theophany of Jesus, right there in Genesis 3, and Dr. Craig wants us to explain it aways as "figurative" and "fantastic language". There is no need to be embarrassed by the Theophanies in Scripture, God can appear whenever He wants, to whoever He wants, and however He wants, this is His world, He created it, and He is not limited by anything in it.
Problem here is he appears only to select group of people, not to every human, the testimony of the few becomes questionable and self serving. Nobody questions sunrise, as everybody sees it. Is God that stupid to privately talk to a few people, than punish the people whom he did not communicate with?
I respect Dr Craig and have read some of his books. However I think we’re on dangerous Ground when we made the statement that Genesis 1 to 11 was an allegory. It negates creation. It negates the ability to defined the age of the Earth and the fall which is the reason Jesus came to this earth , is now considered a myth. Can God not speak and it come to existence immediately. Are we limiting the power of God?. Does is not make sense that a pre sin a world is different from a post sin world? That’s why we return to the word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher. Like that the Bereans Study for yourselves
I agree with your assessment. The problem with the line of thought discussed is that it compromises the Word of God for the very limited assessments of largely secular men so that we may seem reasonable to those same secular men. Further we have to know that secular knowledge changes every decade or so. So, if we were to have taken as truth what secular science assured us was fact 50 years ago, would have made us liars today. I prefer to trust in the word of the One who was there. "“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"
It's good to see Craig finally coming around to this topic. Indeed, Christianity has a very ancient tradition of interpreting genesis in a more allegorical light and early the modern exegetical presuppositions that inspired protestant attitudes regarding the bible ended up making a mess of the whole science and faith relationship. Craig's work is more important in tearing down these misconceptions about biblical interpretation than proposing some earlier point for a historical Adam.
Why is it impossible to believe that God created man from the dust of the earth if that is where we return to when our bodies decay at death ? Why is it impossible to believe He breathes life into the man He created, and then to extract his rib to form woman in Adam’s form but different with XX chromosomes only, as opposed to Adam’s XY chromosomes? The first pair had to be the same, one from the other, not a completely separate created being. Why is it impossible to believe God said let the earth bring forth plants etc and have them grow quickly? Did the plant over Jonah not grow in one day and was then eaten by a worm in the next day? Isn’t God supernatural and miraculous ? Why is it hard to believe that the first humans grew so old when their genetic makeup was probably still not as affected by sin the way ours is today? Who says some of the fossils we find aren’t of people who were very old when they died (Neanderthals perhaps?They were human. See link below)? What about Noah’s flood and the fact that we only reached a world population of 1 billion recently and not thousands of years ago if we really were from around 750,000 yrs ago? With regards different population groups: You don’t need lots of time for genetic diversity if God placed all that diversity in the first couple. Why can’t the creation story of 7 days be taken literally? Can God not turn water into wine without waiting for the fermentation process? Isn’t God God and we are not? I don’t believe in long age creation, that’s not what the Bible teaches. Jesus is God, He referenced “creation in the beginning” and that God created male & female, as well as mentioning Noah’s flood. Are you saying Jesus is wrong? Be careful. If your view on creation is wrong, then it negates the gospel. Long age creation would mean death preceded Adam & Eve but we know death is the result of sin. And in Genesis 3:15 we are told a means of redemption is already in place for mankind. The creation narrative in Genesis is not figurative. There are good explanations of the waters receding after Noah’s flood (which takes place many years after creation). creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain creation.com/neanderthals-modern creation.com/skin-colour-surprises I can’t help feeling disappointed in this gentleman’s lack of belief in Genesis as the literal creation by God Almighty. Indeed he acknowledges he is speculating but he is using scientific “findings to base his speculations on instead of using the Bible. What we discover must be held against the Bible and if it doesn’t fit in with God’s word then perhaps our assumptions (and there are many!) in science are in error?
The discussion of whether the early chapters of Genesis are literal or figurative don't detract from the main ideas: 1. There is a Creator. 2. Humanity has chosen to be out of direct relationship with the Creator. 3. That choice has left humanity lacking, separated from the Creator's ultimate good for human existence, which has resulted in the problems we have seen across history and around us today. (We call that lack, that brokenness 'sin'.) The rest of scripture describes the Creator's work to restore good relationship with his creation.
Oversimplifying the Scriptures can lead to incorrect interpretations. It is true that both literal or figurative explanations agree on there being a Creator and humanity chosen to be out of direct relationship with the Creator, your definition for "lacking" is unclear. Sin is not just lack to meet GOD's standards. Sin is rejection of GOD's truth and imposing our own truth. The problem with a figurative interpretation of Genesis is that death as a payment for sin cannot be true as death has to have always existed since life emerged on the earth. If sin did not bring death, then Jesus' death did not deal with our sin debt and therefore Jesus' sacrifice was in vain. You cannot have a Gospel without the foundation and reason for a Gospel in the first place. The Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ is due to the fallen nature of man. But for man to be fallen, man must have fell. But you do not have that in evolution, but instead everything is getting better and progressing and instead of man being driven out of the Garden of Eden, evolution implies that man is headed into the "Garden of Eden" by evolution. In evolution, man is not fallen, but is at the greatest point in human evolution. The Scriptures teach that Adam's sin caused death to come into the world. You could make the claim that death by sin was only human death, but there is no Scripture to support that claim. As Adam was put in charge of the world, then all of Creation was affected by man's sin. There must have been a literal Adam, not 75 thousand years ago, but, as the Scriptures teach (counting the genealogies that must have a purpose rather than some mytho-historic record of random people) Adam must have existed around 6,000 years ago. Although there is scientific evidence to back this up, the greatest problem for the syncretism of the religion of naturalism, evolution, and Christianity is the theological implications. Scripture supports a young age for the earth and it is not a side issue, it is what the rest of the Scriptures are based on and if there is no literal Genesis chapter 1-11, there cannot be crucial doctrines supported. Jesus came to pay for our sin and by dying HE conquered both death and sin. If death had been extant for millions or billions of years before man even arrived into the picture, then where does that put Jesus? Death is not a good thing, yet GOD calls all that HE made good in Genesis chapter 1 verse 31. In the fossil record, we see death, disease, and suffering and GOD does not call these things good, so why should we believe HE did? We must be firmly grounded on GOD's Word, not man's fallible interpretations of the science. Science must and will back GOD's Word up, not the other way around. We follow GOD, not man, and GOD says that HE made it all in 6 days as stated not only in Genesis where it states "evening and morning" and "1st/2nd/3rd... day", but also in Exodus 20 where GOD commands Israel to keep the Sabbath because HE did so, but if HE did not, according to evolution, then why command Israel to do so because HE did so. That would mean that GOD is misleading at least, lying at worst, and GOD does not lie!
@@inthedefenseofGenesis 'Sin' in the Greek is hamartia. It means 'to miss the mark'. What is the mark? The image of God to which man had been created (Genesis 1:26). When humanity separated from relationship with God, their 'eyes were opened' and they immediately knew that something was missing: the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit who maintained direct communion with God. By God's grace, humanity was gifted with sufficient rational capacity to recognize there was a God and to have a moral conscience by which they could identify good and evil (Romans chapters one and two). But the fulness of relational help from God was removed, creating a lack in which the 'works of the flesh' were free to grow (Galatians 5:17-21). It is these works of the flesh to which we refer when we think of individual 'sins'. It is precisely to restore full relationship with God that Christ came and fulfilled all righteousness. Through faith in the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit takes up residence within the believer (John 14:17; 1 John 4: 12-15) and begins bearing godly fruit (Galatians 5: 22-26). By that power, we are being conformed to the divine image (Romans 8: 28-30). However, until the resurrection to glorified new bodies (1 Corinthians chapter 15) we still have these broken ones and must deal one day at a time with their weaknesses. By God's grace, we have a mediator in the beloved Son of God who helps us (1 John 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 2:5-6). So, for the believer the call is now to walk in the Spirit, to live up to the great gift that has been given through Christ our Lord (Galatians 5:25).
@@stephenbailey9969 Amen. That is why we cannot believe that Adam was some primitive human who existed 750,000 years ago because that means that sin does not cause death as death existed before man and the Fall and William Lane Craig cannot have a literal Fall, which is MAJOR problematic for the Gospel.
You have to wonder if these two (one speaking, one nodding) believe that an ax head floated, that God stopped the earth from turning for a short time, that a man was swallowed by a great fish, that a river stopped flowing, that there really was a tree of life and that there will be one in the future, that a man was raised from the dead. And that God actually became a man, died for the sin of all humanity, and defeated death. And that fully God, fully human man quoted the OT literally and historically… Adam, Creation, Moses, Noah, Jonah, etc. One looks to the latest science theories and one looks to St Augustine for authority. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Good talk. I thoroughly enjoyed it, although I do think that Dr. Craig is wrong on many points. He makes too many unsupported assumptions. But I do enjoy listening to other viewpoints, so thank you for sharing.
Hebrews 11:3 chapter context similar meaning save Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
isn’t the discution about genetics and Adam and Eve irrelevant? I mean we should talk about Noah, we are all his discendents first before being the discendents of Adam and Eve.
Creation of Adams seems like Bio engineering according to this theory rather than creation by fiat. Another consideration is due to the extremely long time frame has left "humanity" in direct danger of survival due to natural disasters whether biological or asteroids etc. that could cause extinction like dinosaurs etc.
Interesting interview. I am not convinced in WLC philosophical argument. His repeated use of " again it suggests " or " it suggests again " raises red flags for me. Wikipedia gives a very good insight into this man. What of interest for me was the the role that evolution plays in Genesis. The term theistic evolutionist began ringing alarm bells for me.
It's funny. I'm a simple guy who's always believed by "Faith" that my Bible was the unerring word of God. And that we are not given all of the details in order to build our faith. I'm pretty sure everyone would be a Christian if we had all of the answers handed to us. If Genesis is indeed mythical, it seems to me that Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, or even his death and resurrection would be myth as well. Looks like my faith as been misplaced all of these years.
Your faith has not been misplaced. The Bible is, as you say, the unerring Word of God. Adam and Eve were real people, the first humans, created by God, not evolved from some lower humanoids. Jesus did walk on water, he did turn water into wine, he did die for our sins, and he rose from the dead. WLC is an evangelical, but he is playing with fire. Scripture and science do not conflict, but Scripture and bad science, most of which we see today coming from atheistic presuppositions, do conflict. Evolutionary theory is falling apart, not Scripture.
I love WLC, however, how does this theory explain the genealogy that we have in the scripture? We know genealogy of Jesus to Abraham. And we know the years from Abraham to Noah, and then Noah to Adam. Scripture gives us names, genealogy, and how long they lived. This is where young earthers get their numbers. How does WLC’s theory explain away these number? If Adam was 750,000 years ago (ish) how does that fit the genealogy and years that scripture gives us to Noah and then to Abraham and then to Jesus?
This is old but the word for son in the geologies just means decedent, and in the context scholars have noted that it is possible there are gaps, where the biblical authors simple skip over people
I don't know why people have to add hundreds of thousands of years to the history of man. If you count the age that people lived to in the bible and add them up then it only comes to about 6,000 years in total. I would say there are not even enough bones buried to support hundreds of thousands of years either.
@@MeanBeanComedy I'm from UK. How does Hebrew genealogies work because it is pretty clear that there were 14 generations from Adam to Abraham and 14 from Abraham to David and 14 generations from David to Christ. So, how can you interpret that any other way than what it says? It literally tells you who they are and how many years each person lived and how old when they had their children pretty much. Please explain or is that just another attempt to bring confusion to make people doubt the bible?
It seems very odd that WLC can believe in the great miracle of creation but then have a problem with comparatively ‘easy’ other portions of creation. Like water being moved in one day, God creating a light before the sun that could easily cause the sunrise and sunset, etc. It seems that for the ‘easy’ issues WLC wants materialistic explanation.
Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Corinthians-1 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Corinthians-1 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Timothy-1 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Timothy-1 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Paul clearly thought Adam and Eve were Historical. If were honest its not the "science" that makes the story unbelievable. Its the fact that the story is utterly fantastic!
Craig says that we can't be held accountable for the sins of a fictitious person. Problem with that thesis, is that there is no good reason, it seems to me, for us to be held accountable for the sins of a real person either. Sins, we are told throughout scripture, are a function of the thoughts and deeds of an individual alone. Granted, the Jewish scripture does say that the sins of the father figure in the fates of a few generations after the commission of those sins. But that is another discussion...
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3 KJV
There’s a lot of issues with the scientific evidence that’s not well discussed. I recommend Stephen Meyer for details. Specifically there are serious issues with large scale evolution, as in emergence of new organs for example. Also, I’ve seen material on radio carbon dating having issues and methodologies on dating the earth having issues as well.
While I am inclined to agree, or at least find the "universal progenitorship" of Adam and Eve most comfortable, I don't know that Eve being the mother of all the living is enough to make the case. She's not the literal mother of all life, so perhaps it could mean all those whom God had breathed "life" into in the manner that set Adam apart? Also God choosing to elect (usually the weakest and most humble) people to act out His salvific will for all others is a common enough theme not to find the idea of Adam and Eve being elected from a larger population too offputting, but the line that there was no man to till the ground does suggest that if there were members of our "biological mould" around, they were certainly not yet behaviourally human. It's certainly an interesting question that I have no certainty about but I do like Craig's hypothesis as a way of retaining universal progenitorship. I'm still not sure who Seth built his city with in that case though. Prior to hearing Craig's hypothesis I would have thought that lined up better with a more recent date in evolutionary history, in keeping with when we know farming was practiced - Homo heidelbergiensis didn't leave an such evidence but who knows. The only thing I'd say is that the Out of Africa Hypothesis would run at odds with modern humans originating in that gulf but there's room for all thar to be reconfigured if we happened to start finding evidence of more complicated migration patterns so...
According to the best DNA knowledge we have, all humans do trace their roots back to one male and one female. We still do not know enough about genetics to understand them to a great deal, but we do know that.
@@oldplace2844 Yes and no. Genetic Adam and Eve are the last living humans who all current humans are related to by chromosomal DNA (Father) and by mitochondrial DNA (mother) so the first issue that means they don't correspond to the Biblical Adam And Eve is that they didn't live at the same time, and the second issue is that as people die and we lose branches on our family tree, these individuals shift in time. That doesn't disprove Biblical Adam and Eve but it means the "genetic Adam and Eve" are not them.
Why could God NOT take a human form to talk to Adam in Eden?? Why couldnt the trees come out very fast out of the Earth ... God can do anything ... I disagree with this guy ...i think he tries to understand with his human brain divine works in Genesis... GOD CAN DO ANYTHING ...DO ANYTHING ....WHY QUESTION GOD??? the whole Bible is INSPIRED WORD OF YHWH.....should not be dimimished ....or doubted
One thing I like to ask of young earth "literal" creationists is how common descent as the natural mechanism by which "the earth brought forth" life according to kinds is any more offensive than us being made of the samr earth's atomic "dust" as all other life. What's the essential difference? There's a natural mechanism to everything physical. That doesn't mean we are reduced to this as if scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. But it is knowledge revealed from God's creation and it bears the fingerprints of a God who can redeem and recycle life from death, order from chaos etc.
imago dei, ex nihilo, deathless, human uniqueness. In fact pre creation I could argue there wasn't chaos so it wasn't brought from disorder, wasn't death. Things to think about
@@YoshiOST Thanks for that. One thing I'll say is that being image bearers has nothing to do with physicality though. It's a verb so it's about our dominion/stewardship role. As for your point about chaos, I don't disagree but my point was about creation itself showing that God regularly uses cycles and this goes along with His promise to redeem us. Also where does "deathless" get mentioned. God cut off access to the Tree of Life so we couldn't gain immortality as sinners, which implies we weren't made immortal, right?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 from my readin until God rested things were good. The kind of good only God would say. Which I read as "perfect" and that excludes death until sin is brought into all creation.
@@YoshiOST Interesting. I see your logic but I don't think it's the only way to interpret it and besides the problem of it seeming to make the tree of life redundant, it also raises another question. If creation is already perfect then why did God create Eden as an oasis of perfection within it, from which mankind were going to bring the rest of earth under submission?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 perhaps you are extending theme of eden/garden to something not in the text, 'oasis', rest of the earth with some preconception not scripturally found. Creation is perfect in it's infancy and age, to grow and develop beyond the garden until human's brought all creation under the curse.
When we consider Genesis 1's creation of man, look at the archaeological record, and view Genesis 5's lineage between Adam and Noah, we also must realize that the geographical range of homo sapiens, known to have been FAR outside of Ancient Mesopotamia, means that the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 cannot be speaking of Adam and Eve - in fact, Scripture doesn't say that, but tradition has married Genesis 1 and 2 to believe it. I think God created mankind long before Adam, but independent and miraculously separate from and well after He had finished the creation of the animal kingdom. So, the family of all Christians IS connected to Adam and Eve, but spiritually so as Believers. Because those Genesis 5 ages noted for key figures brings us to the time of Noah, with a rough date for the flood. And yet, we see lots of evidences for human settlements far older and WAY beyond the area of Ancient Mesopotamia. And the other Biblical genealogies that connect Adam to Christ reveal Adam must be a real human being! But we did not inherit Adam's SIN, but DID inherit his sin NATURE - meaning, all humans will begin to sin at some point after they are born. We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but for our own!
"There was no man to till the ground" could include Neanderthals in that they were hunter/gatherers and "man" in the Genesis 1 sense,(outside the garden) but yet did not till the ground. This could place Neanderthals as contemporaries of Adam providing Adams sons and daughters stock to breed from. Adam being genesis 2 man who mated with genesis 1 man completely absorbing him.
@@luboshcamber1992 Good question; Id like to know how WLC would answer. 1 possibility could be that awareness of death entered man's consciousness in Adam. This theory I have not thought out yet, just throwing it out there.
@@luboshcamber1992 Well then we would have to find something for all those profligate professors in the university to do for a living. We can't have them roaming the streets or expressing their weird ideas in comment sections.
Could death mean spiritual in this context and not physical? When God breathed into Adam's nostils did He give him more than just a body and a soul, but maybe a spirit also? And this spirit was meant to live forever, yet with the fall spiritual death entered the world? I'm thinking of the reference in the bible to the second death. Adam and Eve also didnt physically die right after sinning, so it would seem reasonable to think physical death was probably not what was referred to but rather the idea of eternal seperation from God.
Concerning a civilization prior to Adam and Eve, the method of salvation in Jesus Christ is not only for the human race, but for all creation. Adam and Eve were created for Jesus to come by through their descendants, for all creation to be atoned for, not just the human race. Second, just because Genesis looks like mytho history, doesn't mean it didn't actually happen that way. Third, when it comes to anyone else alive besides Adam and Eve, Cain was cursed with a mark that forbid from anyone else to kill him. God could have isolated Adam and Eve to Eden from other civilizations, to be distinct and set apart. This is in regards to Dr. Craig's 3 objections
If one were to interpret the word "was" in the following text as "became" (And the Earth "was" "became" without form and void) as it should be translated, then it would clear everything up. When you use the correct word "became" it puts the Earth as old as Science says it is and it puts "Adam and Eve" in a garden in the "recreated" Earth that is being described in Genesis 1:1 and what follows. When God said "let there be (light)" this was not a creative act but a permissive one and it occurs after God had "created" the heavens and the earth sentence. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Here this act ends definitively and is followed by the next major event "....and the earth "became" without form and void" (not "was" without form and void) This is now evidence of the 500,000 or whatever science currently believes, existing in the Bible within those 2 sentences as well as the "new earth" that God "reinstated" AFTER the earth "became without form and void"
I don't agree with Craig on this topic. I lean more to creationism like Ken Ham explains. It's the more reasonable explanation for me. Adam and Eve were real people who lived about 6k years ago.
Original sin means that Adam's sin is in you. It is in you just like Adam's DNA is in you. But here "sin" means the moral corruption and wickeness of Adam's nature, that heart of unbelief, that corruption that is in us. Because God does not just hate the actions we take, but the heart that produces them. This is the sense in which we are culpable for Adam's sin: because it is our sin.
One of the illogical conclusions of such a view as original sin is infant baptism...believing the water washes away adam's sin from the baby and if the baby would die before baptism he/she would go to hell. Ofcourse WLC rejects this foolish idea as all christians should. Yes, we inherited Adam's sin nature, but not his actually sins.
@@AnniEast just ask yourself this: do we have adam's sin nature? you already said we do. Does God hate our nature because it is corrupt? Yes he does. Why does he hate it? Because it's corrupt. It's not morally pure. And what is it about our nature that is corrupt? It's that we're naturally rebellious. Does God hate the rebelliousness of our nature? Yes. Was Adam's sin rebellion? Yes. So does God hate Adam's sin in us? Yes. That is the doctrine of original sin. Don't throw out the baby with the infant baptism water.
@@jonathanVA44 lots of gimnastics done there to come to the very simple conclusion that God hates sin. We are not born guilty of adams sins, as the reformed original sin doctrine suggests, but with a nature that will inevitably sin if left to 'mature'. No baby is a viper in a daiper as they so love to say. Maybe we can both learn more on the subject.
@@AnniEast sweatheart this is not "the reformed doctrine" - this is the doctrine of original sin that is upheld by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, the Anglican Church, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, and so many others. They've all concluded that God hates sin wherever it is found, not only in sinful actions, because it's not just actions that are sinful, but sinful hearts, sinful natures, sinful thoughts, sinful minds, sinful flesh, sinful bodies, sinful words, sinful affections, sinful inclinations. He loves people, but in the sense of their sin he hates them. He hates them for who they are, He loves them despite who they are. As for vipers in diapers - listen to the word of the Lord: "The wicked go astray from the womb; they err as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3) - this is why Augustine (over a thousand years before the reformation) had to confess his sins as a baby - you should read his Confessions. It's very interesting.
@@jonathanVA44 sweetheart? You think I'm a woman? And I will continue to side with WLC on this one, we inherit a sin nature, we dont inherit Adam's sin. And babies can't sin as their prefrontal cortex is not even developed yet. That is embellished writings intended to convey the idea that sin is inevitable, all will go astray, even babies at a point in their lives. Yes, we confess our own sins, even the ones we can't even remember, but we do not confess Adam's sin or any other person's sins. We are guilty of our own sins, we are not guilty of any other person sins. That fact that we inevitably share in the same sin(rebellion) as every other person who ever lived, doesn't mean their sins somehow transferred to us. There is a clear difference between having a sin nature from birth and being sinful from birth. Deut 24:16 Ezek 18:20
I don’t plan on buying this book. From what I have heard I’m this video leaves one more confused as he make too many assumptions and his own opinions and a lot of uncertainty as to what is the truth on Adam and Eve etc. we walk by faith and not by sight
If Genesis 1 is supernatural, then it is supernatural root and branch. Your arguments using 'common sense' smacks of being too long in a library. Genesis 2 is about the planiting of the Garden. Being literal can be defended by understanding the literary style of ancient documents. A simple, broad description in Chapter 1, much more detail in Genesis 2 for the creation of Man. This is not a defense of seven day creationism, but a wariness of academics. I was trained to some degree at Oxford. I do not find higher academia at all persausive when concerned with the true God or his Word.
WLC is being misleading at point 5:00 when he discusses all people being desended from one couple (Adam & Eve). The lowest population count of humans were about 10,000 individuals who all had evolved from earlier hominids. Here is a clip from Dr. Dennis Venema's book Adam & the Genome. Chapter 3 Adam's Last Stand? Dr. Venema picks up on another common misunderstanding about evolution and explains that evolution is a population-level process, including the evolution of humans. This chapter discusses data related to the ancestral population sizes based on the amount and nature of diversity in the alleles. Humans have always existed in a population of at least 10,000 individuals.
WLC says 750kY bP... Jesus said, from the beginning God created them man and woman... for The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
I'd rather God create multiple Adams so that if sin entered the world only the Adams that sinned would die. No inherited sin just make new Adams or populate to a limit. After all how were Angels created? And WE were made in his image. Why flip the script and make a female? Just 10000x a few Adams and the ones who disobey die. Same justice just no redemption. Gods rule would still be gods rule.
I must admit, it’s very difficult for me to sit through a WLC video. His stances and arguments make me cringe. They come across as extremely weak and full of poor exegesis. I am the first to confess that I am rather ignorant and uneducated, yet I can find a way to interpret scripture without finding contradictions in Genesis one and two. It’s really sad when you see people who want to take the weakest possible stance in order to appeal to blind atheists.
Craig no longer popular among Fundamentalists / mainstream religious public, his rejecting more and more biblical literalism. Gotta give the snake oil salesman some credit. Both entertaining and sad watching apologists now wiggle, squirm, juggle their way through ever more rapid interpretations of what is biblically literal or merely metaphorical as they adjust to science. But then apparently god expounds messages in all form and manner, which leaves apologists back at square one.
Hmmmm....is it POSSIBLE that Genesis is literally true ????..... Ochums razor 🤔 that seems to make more sense... Maybe God is confounding the wise.... offended for the words sake.... hoping Dr. Craig refutes this foolishness before he departs this world... let's pray for him 🙏
I'm a simple man, I see a new Truth Unites video and I immediately click to watch.
Haha same here
Yeah, you're definitely a simple man.
When we as a group of medical students asked our professor of anatomy about the historicity of Adam, he replied, “Well, someone had to have started it.”
Despite theological differences with Dr. WLC, as Dutch Reformed, I greatly appriciate his work and am thankful how he is being used by God for His Kingdom.
The problem with allegorizing Genesis 1-6 is that we’re never given what the significance of the details given in the creation account are. We’re merely told it’s an allegory to teach that God is the Creator and the story of the Fall. But why all of the details when a single sentence could have sufficed to tell us God created everything? What are the actual historical correspondences to the alleged symbolic details?
Not to mention the fact that there's even a genealogy from Adam to Noah. If it was all allegory it doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Adam and Eve weren't their original names, their original names were based on the original language at that time. Adam and Eve are just what they translate to in our modern tongue. But otherwise, they had to be real people.
@@jrconway3 It's totally preposterous for a author to come up with a handful of names right?
@@ttff-bd2yfI think the question is about authorial intent. It does seem like an odd thing for someone to write in who didn't mean it literally, even if they weren't correct on the actual names and dates.
@@MrAwombatnot quite, although it would be for a modern westerner, an ancient Middle Easterner would have no problem with that. I’d recommend you look at Inspiring Philosophy’s series on genesis and ancient Egypt and the Bible’s video on genealogies
@@endygonewild2899 I'll check it out.
Agree or disagree, WLC is a very sincere guy.... I appreciate that.
The biggest problem with this line of thinking (the "mytho-history" of Genesis) does not show up too strongly in Genesis, but in how the New Testament talks about the events of Genesis 1-11. They speaks as if these things actually happened in a literal way.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,..." Romes 1:22
Yeah, with all due respect to WLC, this is what I keep coming back to as well.
But WLC does not seem to be proclaiming to be wise is he? I mean it's his theory but he is not condemning people for not holding his view. He does not sound prideful but I guess I really do not know 100%.
Your interpretation standard is if I think it's a literal narrative it is. Pretty embarrassing honestly.
I know this is an old comment but i sincerely hope you spent some time thinking about how nothing in the video suggests the accounts of Genesis 1 - 11 didn't actually occur. . . and even the new testament references to them doesn't imply that the literal interpretation imposed on the text is what the NT speakers had in mind
I absolutely love the question and answer tags in this video. probably took forever, but it makes this video super accessible. I jumped to a bunch of questions right away. Thanks for that
More videos on this topic! I had some serious doubts about Christianity this year and your video on how your faith survived was massive in my resurgence of faith, for real... I'm still trying to better understand genesis and evolution.
So glad to hear that was of value to you! May the Lord continue to watch over you and direct you.
Thomistic philosophy and Catholic theology deal with it perfectly in my opinion. Not selling out to modern science or to modern Fundamentalists. I have two videos on my channel that go over it if you're interested.
I recommend Dr. John Walton’s books! Starting with the Lost world of Genesis! You’ll find good exegesis by a respected scholar :)
@@Lucas1Apple12 thx
Thank you very much for breaking this video down into specific segments. When I send videos like this to my brothers in my men's group chat, the segment breakdown makes it really easy for us to discuss individual, specific questions.
Thank you for the thoughtful conversation!
Whatever one thinks about WL Craig, you have to admire someone who has the humility and the courage to change his mind and publicly revise his views for the sake of intellectual integrity.
Outstanding interview and discussion. Great work!
Why are anthropomorphic verses about God in Genesis untenable? It’s unlikely Craig denies Christophanies, so why not Theophanies? Why assume God can incarnate as Jesus, but not appear in bodily form to Adam? After all, doing so wouldn’t entail that such a form is God’s natural form any more than a burning bush is His natural form. It wouldn’t diminish God to appear in an anthropomorphic form.
God be praised for the sovereignty in the timing of this video being published! I am sitting here working on my Bible Teaching for Jail Ministry tonight, on Genesis (Adam Eve Cain and Abel) and how that pertains to Sacrifice and Atonement, and this is going to help me answer questions I anticipate from the inmates on the actual existence of the first family. Thank you!!!!
awesome to hear that! God bless you in your work.
God be Praised for DOUBTING God`s Word????
@@followerofjesuschrist5297 no dear person. I meant God be praised for the timing of this message giving a very new Christian, myself, the answers to some questions that the inmates in prison, of whom I formerly was one, about the Genesis account of the First Family. This video came to my attention in the last hours of my preparation of a Bible teaching that I was about to give at the local prison. It helped me to vocalize my beliefs to the inmates and respond to their honest questions as unbelievers still.
@@followerofjesuschrist5297No. It's not doubt to interpret it outside of a materialist literal framework.
I guess my concern is that this view might put death before the fall. And the word says "in Adam all die" so it wouldn't bother me if Adam and Eve live hundreds of thousands of years ago as long as you don't put death before the fall
Nice interview. Keep it up!!!
Great interview. Thanks to both of you! Such a controversial topic, but such a thoughtful approach.
Easily my two favorite Protestants!
My two favorite baptists
@@michaeljennings8221 I didn’t know that Dr. Craig was a baptist
The cover of a book titled "The quest of the Historical Adam" causes me much repulsion. Under an evolutionist perspective the human being is not more valuable than a monkey, he is only an evolved monkey, in fact thinkers like Peter Singler, under this perspective came to sign that the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee can be of greater value than that of a man. The naturalistic perspective gives a lower value to man. However, the Bible points out that man is God's masterpiece, the image and likeness of the Creator, and put in charge of the administration of creation as His representative. Man was created in a special way, God shaped him as a potter shapes clay, and breathed breath into him. Man is an image or symbol related to that which he represents, man originally pointed to God. The angels saw him and marveled to see a reflection of God in man. He was not a product of the process of randomness, nor was he formed from the animals, he named the animals.
Okay, materialist.
@@MissingTrailsIt’s not materialistic at all.
That's atheism, not evolution. Stop conflating them to be dishonest.
@@purelightapologetics4930You're insisting on interpreting scripture like one.
@@MeanBeanComedy ?
It is sad and revealing to see that no difficult questions were asked. Why should we accept the naturalistic assumption of uniformitarianism?-How is this a valid way for Christians to think?
@JD Apologetics You are correct to say that "the Biblical worldview presumes a uniform and orderly creation"-but mark the last word, "creation". It does not presume a uniform and orderly natural system whose origins can be deduced by human beings through a godless system of empirical deduction and analysis. For example, how was the earth before the flood?-Can we study the state of the earth prior to the flood or is it an event that washed away its own history, so that the Bible as God's revelation is the only trustworthy account of what the world was like?
When you say "there is no biblical evidence that uniformitarianism is false" I think you're missing my point. As a Christian, I believe that the world is ordered by God, just as you point to in Genesis 1 and I would also cite the Noahic covenant. Yet there is a world of difference in believing in a universe ordered by God, and believing that it is possible without the word of God to discern the origin of the world, the universe, and everything contained in them on the basis of sheer empirical study. This latter belief is entirely unsupportable and is actually an axiomatic starting point. See the Wikipedia articles on the cosmological principle and on uniformitarianism to get what I mean.
Also, you may be surprised to discover that I am not sure what the age of the earth (or universe) is-I don't insist that it be less than ten thousand years. But what I do reject is the atheistic approach taken by most scientists in which they assume they are capable of discerning the origin of the heavens and the earth through empirical study-and the results from such an approach are inescapably foolish.
@@amisikiarie hey there, i know this reply section is over a year old however i would like to insert my own thoughts that, while not meant to change your mind, are meant to make you consider something. While the popular view is that modern science and religion - particularly Christianity - are at odds with one another, this isnt true. And i know that no where did you say that, however i think its important to make that statement up front.
Its not JUST that they arent in opposition, but that in fact many of modern sciences discoveries, many of which Christians reject without careful consideration, actually prove the Bible is the word of God. My view is not just that science and religion dont contradict, therefore they can both be true and be happy. But rather that one actively proves the other.
Heres my favorite example of modern science proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is Gods word. Ill start with the verses themselves specifically Job 38 31-32
"“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?"
This verse is REMARKABLE, because it accurately describes what is happening in the constellations this very second. The plaeades is a constellation known as the seven sisters, and its a group of a star clusters that are moving in such a way that billions and billions and billions of years from now, they will look exactly the same. They are moving at the same speed and direction. In other words "their chains are bound".
Orion's belt is also "loosening". Orion's belt is made of 3 stars. The right 2 stars over billions of years will eventually move to the right and look like 1 star, and the star to the left will drift left until eventually the belt no longer exists.
The bear with its cubs is a references to the constellation Arcturus. It is a big and heavy star that does pretty much whatever it wants, and basically just follows its own laws.
Whats the point of all of this? Modern science has been paramount in proving the authorship of the Bible, but its the same science that gives us these things that ALSO produces theories we dont like despite the fact they dont contradict anything we teach (in most cases). Yes, theres a clear bias in science to not want to give any credibility to Christianity, and some theories are presented purely to try and discredit our belief. But eventually science prevails and - wouldnt you know it - Christians are right.
Not only can we imperially study the heavens and the earth, in doing so unbelievers have actually made a bunch of our case for us. Not that every scientific discovery was made by an unbeliever. For instance the Big Bang that Christians for whatever reason want to deny, actually helped our cause, cause prior to that the common belief was that the universe was eternal. The Big Bang helped prove it had a beginning, and the one who discovered it if im not mistaken, was literally a catholic priest.
Then Einstein - not a believer - was able to imperially determine that time space and matter all came into existence at the same time. This is relevant because that means whatever caused the Big Bang, was timeless, spaceless, and matterless. And wouldnt you know it, the Christian God follows under this category. This discovery is only possible from a uniformitarian view, because if the laws of the universe havent been consistent since the beginning, Einstein would have never been able to make this discovery.
ALL of these scientific discoveries were IMPERICALLY discovered, and in many cases by people who didnt use the Bible to guide them.
Now does this automatically prove an old earth for example? Not necessarily, however the reason why i believe its important to be open to an old earth, and all of the implications that come with it (like Adam and Eve being 500k+ years ago), is that the science that proves the authors knew things, or were told things, that they couldnt have possibly have known if the divine creator himself hadnt told them, is the same science that leads modern scientists to believe the age of the earth is billions of years old. Same thing with the universe.
We imperially calculated the idea that the universe is expanding (something the Bible told us about thousands of years before this discovery), but the discovery of this expansion depends a lot on science that if true would likely have to support an old earth. The fields of science arent mutually exclusive fields.
Meaning if we cant tell the difference between an earth that is only 10's of thousands of years old, and an earth that is billions of years old, then we likely dont know any of the scientific discoveries i listed above. The branches of science barrow, and affirm each other, in many cases.
By saying that we cant "imperially" discover these things, and that this position is unsupportable, is grossly a false statement, because in fact we HAVE done that, and it is only through a uniformitarian universe that the scientific proofs for the Bible have come about.
Similar to how the Jews 2000 years ago read the scriptures, and were absolutely certain the messiah would be a general that would lead them into victory against the romans and bring peace on earth, only for the messiah to show up and reality not be what they expected Him to be, so too should we change our view of scripture when reality says its not what we thought it was. But this goes both ways. 50 years from now the idea that the earth is anything more than 10k years old might be foolish, but the evidence otherwise seems pretty ironclad, and it doesent contradict scripture, it merely contradicts our traditional understanding of it, so why bother debating about it? Especially when we miss out on really good witnessing material?
@@wowitsfrostygames155 Did you mean 'Empirically'?
@@michaelbabbitt3837 yeah i was probably trying to type on my phone.
Thank you for a brilliant, comprehensive and enlightening conversation.
First, it's important to be clear when we convey scripture. Stating Genesis as mytho-history is unclear.
Second, everywhere Adam is mentioned in scripture he is portrayed as a real man. Also, the events of Genesis are understood to be real events in history.
Third, is Jesus walking on water or calming the water and waves mytho-history?
With regards to the second point, neither Jesus nor Paul say “The earth is six thousand years old.” They do, like C. S. Lewis, refer to Adam - that doesn’t mean they believe in a historical Adam. Indeed! Paul says that even Abraham is an allegory.
@@randomperson2078Paul says no such thing. Adam is historical, if not the problem of original sin goes unsolved. Abraham is a real person too.
Why don't you guys actually watch the video? They clarify that the Gospels are literal biographies and read as such.
WLC also says Adam is a literal person.
It’s so comforting to hear a well known Christian philosopher & apologist come to a similar conclusion I have.
I bet it is.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2nd Tim. 4:3)
@@RoyceVanBlaricome umm... yeah this verse isnt referring to something as inconsequential as how to interpret genesis LOL. Its obvious to me this is referring to specifically the Gospel itself. "you dont agree with me? you must have itchy ears." is a pretty childish use of the Bible.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 - THANKS for proving my point and showing that the verse does apply to you. NOTHING "inconsequential" about Genesis or any of God's Word. Not surprising that what's "obvious" to you is wrong. If it was about the Gospel it would of said "Gospel" and not "sound doctrine". And, for the record, my comment wasn't about you agreeing with me. My comment was about how "comforting" a false understanding and false belief about Scripture is.
Hopefully your error is grounded in childishness and you just need to grow up. Hopefully it's not a matter of needing to be Born Again first.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome remember when the Jewish people read the scriptures and they were certain that the messiah would be a general who would lead them out of the oppression of Rome? And that he would bring peace on earth?
And then when the reality of the messiah didn’t meet their expectations many of them rejected him?
Sometimes reality doesent contradict the scripture, it only contradicts our own interpretation of it.
If you’re not open to maybe being wrong, it could be you have a pride issue. I respect your reverence for scripture, but don’t rely on tradition or your own interpretation all the time.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 //remember when the Jewish people read the scriptures and they were certain that the messiah would be a general who would lead them out of the oppression of Rome? And that he would bring peace on earth?//
Yes & Yes. I remember and am aware of both.
//And then when the reality of the messiah didn’t meet their expectations many of them rejected him?//
Yup. Aware of that too.
//Sometimes reality doesent contradict the scripture, it only contradicts our own interpretation of it.//
I agree. And sometimes one's "reality" does contradict Scripture and Truth. Think of the naked man in the mirror saying "Boy howdy! I am one good lookin' woman!! And whole crowd of folks behind him saying, "You sure are!"
//If you’re not open to maybe being wrong, you may have deep seated issues and you don’t even know it. Marinate on that for a while.//
I NEVER said I wasn't open to being wrong. On some thing I am. Others no. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach.
Thanks for the video. Wanted to ask, have you written or published your personal views on the historical Adam? Would love to know your take on it.
Thanks! I address it in the fifth chapter of my book, retrieving Augustine’s doctrine of creation
@@TruthUnites when do you anticipate your book will be out? I'm curious as well I'm wondering how one reconciles the genealogies tracing Jesus back to Adam with what Dr Craig proposes...
@@HappyFern07 Thanks for your interest! I really don’t know, but I would guess it would probably be sometime in early 2024. I think Dr. Craig would argue that the genealogies contain gaps, which genealogies often do. Hope that helps.
@@TruthUnitesI'm not familiar with biblical genealogies containing gaps. Are there other examples you would point to?
@@isaiahnordland"Begat" in this context doesn't mean literally sired. We say Jesus is a son of David, but he was born centuries later.
I could say I am "Alex, son of Henry," and it be completely legitimate, even if Henry was born in 1600.
Thank you posting this, brother! I think I'm way more on board with Dr. Craig's 1st point (Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history) than his 2nd point (historical Adam lived about 750,000 years ago). Now, from an apologetic POV, I recognize there is benefit to working through how we could maintain the essential doctrines contained in early Genesis if the current, generally accepted, scientific theories are assumed to be true. I think we need to have a posture of humility in our position on creation because there are limitations to our ability to accurately interpret Scripture. So I can definitely see the benefit of Dr. Craig's attempt. However, what didn't come through to me in this interview (though it could certainly be included in his book, I haven't read it yet), is that we ought to have an even greater humility in our confidence in those current, generally accepted, scientific theories (yes, I believe that even the most rigorous and honest scientific inquiry into the natural world is still far less reliable than the Bible, because a fallible human is not as reliable as an infallible God); therefore, we ought to hold any attempt of interpreting Scripture through the filter of modern science very, very loosely. So, I just felt like his confidence in the assumptions he made in order to arrive at his 2nd point seemed a bit off.
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement!
This is so true. As much as we may acknowledge that scientific endeavors have improved the quality of life for so many people - at the same time it is still a true adage that "today's news paper is tomorrow's toilet paper". There is a scientific saying "we now know" which is so vain and at the same time - such nonsense. Tomorrow we will "now know" (edit insert: )in the place of what we yesterday "then knew". God bless.
I’d encourage you to read Joshua Swamidass’s “The Genealogical Adam & Eve.” I’m much more comfortable with his view.
I have held the mytho historical view all my life because I simply am not willing to loose the archetypal value of the Genesis account. Genesis is the perfect description of the human condition and the human problem. I don't have to know that Adam an Eve was historical to see that we all have original sin etc. Add to that how someone like Jordan Pererson can spend 15 hours extracting the "truth" of these narratives and I am sold. That said I have enough of a scientific background to be highly skeptical of scientific ability to establish anything with absolute certainty and so I grieve when I hear that this is a problem for so many people.
Science can't predict the future, and we only have knowledge that goes so far back in time. Science is useful to know about the world in the hear and now, but it cannot be used to know what happened in the past. That's history, not science, and our knowledge of history is limited.
@@jrconway3 This takes science to be present empirical experience and history to be records of past present experiences. Is there not a sort of middle ground-scientific historical abductive argument to the best explanation-which reaches beyond the present first person experience (contemporary or historical) and reaches into pre-history (history for which there was no observational experience).
A religious historical argument of this kind would be that the evidence of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus result in the sound inference that Jesus’ body was revivified, though no one actually was in the tomb to see it when it happened.
Arguments for evolution, whether sound or error are also of this type.
Agree/disagree? Any needed qualifications?
If Adam amd Eve are not historical, then original sin goes unexplained.
Just a question:
When it talks about God walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, is it possible that God takes the form of a man to walk with Adam and Eve instead of it being anthropomorphism?
The same with Ex. 33:19-23 with Moses seeing the back of God. What do you guys think?
definitely possible, but any way you slice it it's not "literal"
@@TruthUnites I'm genuinely trying to understand this view of yours better.
What is your definition of literal?
I could say that Adam and Eve literally walked in the garden with God if I clarify this and say literally walked with Adam and Eve in the form of a manifestation he chose.
In a similar sense, I can say God literally guided the descendants of Abraham in the wilderness in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
He was literally there but took the form of a cloud or fire. The same could be with God's manifestation in the temple, or on Mount Sinai.
However, what I would not call literal is the illustration of Jesus in Revelation 3:20. Jesus is not literally at any door which I physically open, but he is using imagery to demonstrate that if the church turns from their sin in repentance and opens the door, they will have the right to enter into eternal life with him and feast in his great kingdom.
@@pieismylove5875 One year has passed and still no response to this excellent question that has been posed.
@@iberius9937 let us make man in our own image according to our likeness ...I don't think we can dismiss the idea that an 'unfallen' man and woman could see and walk with God
@@TruthUnites reread the texts perhaps...not the summations of the texts by others....my 2 cents
It will be interesting to read the book. I’m curious what benefits a mytho-historical genre has in solving interpretive difficulties. It’s not clear to me that historical gaps or anthropomorphisms show evidence of this genre (rather than the fact that it’s a creation narrative and written in a highly compact and summarizing style). For example:
1) how does mytho-historical help decide whether to take Adam’s formation from dust to be a place holder for a more extended origin involving evolution rather than an actual forming of an individual out of dirt? When the Psalm says that God forms the child in the womb, we take our common experience of that type of event and properly understand that “God forming” is not in conflict with the natural process of pregnancy. But if it is not necessary to appeal to mytho-history to get this out of the Psalm, why is it necessary to appeal to this in Genesis? Now, I’m not saying that there might not be other good reasons to believe in mythology-history in Genesis, only that I’m not sure it makes a difference for this key verse about man’s formation. It seems that a historically progressive sense of “formation” would be a natural way of reading this if one was convinced that man evolved by God’s Providence from some other biological form. The reason I wonder whether the mytho-historical categorization of Gen 1-11 really affects this possible interpretation, is that it seems such an interpretation is available under even a historical narrative interpretive grid. In other words, it doesn’t take a “special” genre to reach this conclusion.
I would suggest that the reason the genre is appealed to to reach an evolutionary formation view is because it takes weight off the idea that science is driving the final interpretation of the text, and makes it seem that its exclusively a language interpretation issue. But clearly our account of cosmological truths is going to need to square with the language meanings in the text (especially if multiple valid interpretations are possible of the words in their use), and so it seems to me that we do ourselves no favors by dodging the impact of general revelation as one important and relevant context for considering the possible meanings of Scripture’s teachings.
2) a significant textual difficulty to WLC’s proposal of an ancient Adam of 750ish million years are the chronologies. Does anyone have a reasonable way to open up these chronologies? I am aware of the “beget” does not mean a direct child but could be a multigenerational place holder. The difficulty seems to be that the child’s birth seems to measure the remainder of the ancestors life, thus limiting the flexibility. If this problem is insurmountable, then this would seem to favor Joshua Swamidas’ “evolution + recent historical Adam,” not withstanding WLC’s three objections, which are understandable, the notion of super-intelligent tool makers without possessing the image of God seems challenging, but if the chronology of the genealogy is determinative…then maybe that’s the best solution). Any good sources on the genealogy issues?
He's been saying this for decades, I don't know why everyone is so shocked suddenly
Because of the little part where it says “myth” from “mytho-history” people automatically assume that Dr Craig is saying genesis 1-11 is fake.. when that’s exactly the opposite of what he is saying.. he’s claiming that both the Scripture and the scientific evidence ARE compatible and there is a part to know where to put Adam in the Bible and in the latest science
In his own words recorded in this video - he had not made up his mind before he started researching the book. His opinion "for decades" was that the text of Genesis says nothing about the age of the earth. The current point is about whether or not there really was an Adam an Eve. This is a more careful distinction and in my view, cuts to the heart of the matter.
Love the work you are doing here, Dr. O, especially your view of history. I noticed reading City of God that Augustine had some rather striking views of the Creation account. But, I still have concerns with Dr. Craig post-interview. The question that should be on the mind of any student of the Bible and confessional, orthodox Christian is "What did our Lord believe about the Old Testament?" Subsequent questions then begin to follow. Did Christ believe the "Pentateuchal author" was Moses? Did Christ view Adam as a literal, historical person who was created by God, fathered the human race, and introduced sin into the world? Did Christ believe the Old Testament taught a literal 7-day creation? etc. (After all, if we view Jesus as the New Testament does, it was He who created Adam). Theological retrieval starts with our view of the Scriptures, of which I believe Dr. Craig does not have the same view as Christ and the Apostles. It is not an attack on Dr. Craig personally, who is a preeminent scholar, but I remain concerned about Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures.
Thanks for sharing that Dr. Bob. WLC goes into his views on Christ's view of Scripture more fully in the book. You might be interested to check out his treatment there. God bless you!
@Dr. Bob. It might be helpful to consider that Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, who lived in Alexandra, Egypt, was perhaps the most famous apologist for the Jewish faith, during the time period of Jesus. In his defense of Genesis, Philo did not regard "the days of Genesis" as suggesting some sequence of literal 24-hour days, nor did Philo believe that the rib taken from Adam's side to create Eve was to be understood literally either. Philo believed that a metaphorical interpretation of at least certain aspects of the creation story were consistent with a high view of Scripture. So, if we question Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures, then we would have to question Philo of Alexandria's view of the Scriptures as well, despite the fact that Philo lived 2,000 years ago, at least 1800 years before anyone ever heard of Charles Darwin. God's blessing be with you!!
@@clarkemorledge2398 not sure if I am misunderstanding, what's the concern with rejecting Philo who was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? We have the church father's and the 6 th ecumenical Council
@@TommyGunzzz I am not aware of any church father who rejected Philo's views on early Genesis. Do you have a source from the fathers, or a specific canon in the Sixth Ecumenical Council ,where Philo's views were addressed?
@@clarkemorledge2398 Hi there. Sorry if I was unclear, my comment was addressing how you "if we question Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures, then we would have to question Philo of Alexandria's view of the Scriptures as well" and i was asking why is that a big deal? Christianity isnt based on Philo is what i was getting at. There are several Jewish groups with different opinions on several topics regarding the OT, prophecies, typology, allegory, history, etc.
Also, in Constantinople II, they are condemnations there against Origen (who allegorized genesis) and also ironically Apollinaris as a heretic, which is what WLC believes. i believe the 11th canon. Its hard to nail down all of Origens anathemas cause there are soo many and they are spread throughout multiple councils, but thats a good place to start.
Blessings, have a good one.
Hi Gavin,
Thank you for this interview.
I have a question which has been giving me anxiety.
How does one reconcile putting the historical Adam let's say 150.000 years back in the past, while the Bible teaches that Adam could only have lived 6000 years ago?
Would you happen to know the answer or maybe know where I can find the answer? Forgive me if it's a silly question. I'm a newbie and somehow wasn't able to find the answer to this question.
May God bless your ministry 🙏🏼
I'm no expert, but I've heard biblical scholars clarify that often genealogies in the Bible (and other near eastern literature) purposely omit names that aren't considered important or relative. So the time between Adam and Noah for example doesn't have to be limited by how many people are listed in between them.
@@matthew7491 Thank you for your response! I've basically heard and read the same thing. It is a plausible explanation
I find a young earth to be plausible, regardless of gabs in genealogies. After all the question is, how long is the gap?
Genealogies aren't meant to be taken literally. They prove descent, focus on notable characters, and the years lived and numbers of generations have symbolic meaning in Hebrew.
Might address this later, but what do we think of something like where Adam and Eve are priests, either specially created but not the only humans, or chosen from humanity to represent them. Real and historical people but not the genetic source of humanity?
From what the best minds on DNA can determine, we all descend from one male and one female. Of course that male could be Noah. The problem with DNA is reading the protein lengths and chains. Regardless, the "Science" confirms that we all... every person on the planet, have common roots.
Even from a Darwinian view point, that is the logical conclusion, that there had to be a first man and a first woman. Before that they would have a significant deviation in genetic pairing that would have resulted in sterility. This is one of the major flaws in Darwinian thought.
Because that is not what the Scriptures teach. "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Eve was the mother of all the living (humans, not animals) and therefore there were no humans who were not descendants of Adam besides Adam himself and Eve. Making things up as being chosen from many humans is just an attempt to synchronize a falsified religious belief called evolution into Christianity. If evolution is true, then there were billions of years of death, disease, and suffering before the first man Adam sinned and therefore Jesus' death on the cross does not pay our sin debt and we are still in our sins! As 1 Corinthians 15:17 says, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (referring to if the dead do not rise, then Jesus did not either) This can be applied to if Jesus did not pay our sin debt, then we are still in our sins and our faith is futile. A figurative Genesis means Christianity breaks down. Put your trust in the Lord, not in man's fallible interpretation of science. GOD made it all, who best knows how HE did it and how long it took HIM but GOD?
Gavin, are you going to follow up on this interview and share your personal thoughts and impressions/reactions to this issue?
I have covered them a bit here and there, mostly in my book on Augustine’s doctrine of creation. But I’d be happy to address a specific question or set of questions. Feel free to share what you think would be most useful.
@@TruthUnites I'm not entirely sure!! Haha. I think I'm having a hard time navigating and cataloging which expressions and narratives that we should be committed to more literally and others less literally. I appreciated his commitment to Adam as the universal progenitor of humanity. He quotes the narrative saying that "No man was found to work the ground," or "no helper was found." But the same narrative also talks about them both being formed from the ground and very specifically as Eve was formed from sleeping Adam's rib. I think Craig's ideas are interesting and I enjoy learning from how others are interpreting scripture and science. I like also learning from how people/pastors I respect (that's you!) respond to their thinking. :)
@@jaybeevh3778 thanks! It’s highly likely that I’ll address this issue more in the future at some point since it is of great interest to me.
I like Craigs theory very much. My only concern and gripe is how to reconciliate Adams genealogical line with a 750,000 years line. Can someone explain it to me? I really want to adopt Craigs view.
That's the problem, is we, including WLC, want to adapt the Bible to secular academics. The Bible has continually proven itself correct while the world has revised its views. Ultimately we each have to come to that decision ourselves, but as time goes on evolution has proven itself to be an untenable theory. We now see "mainstream" science considering the idea of simulated reality due to the observable issues and inconsistencies with scientific theory, which is all we can do when it comes to the past. Nothing is provable. I hear what is said, but again we are trying to compromise the Word which is always reliable for secular teachings which change every decade or two.
Hebrew genealogies are not exhaustive. They are used to tell the story of a particular tribe or nation and to reveal deeper truths (I believe the Hebrew word for “genealogy” can also mean “story”, i.e. this is the genealogy of Jacob, or this is the story of Jacob)
Genealogies aren't meant to include everyone. Plain and simple. You just have to understand what type of literature you're reading instead of forcing your own understanding into the text like the first lady who replied to you.
Is it just me or do others just find his view of Genesis really uninspiring?
I find it refreshing
No. It’s not just you. I agree: I think it’s a really sad, dark, lame view with a really lame God.
Your view of it probably contradicts science
5min into this and turning it off. WLC has already made the same mistake he has before at least 3-4x already in this first 5min and NOT ONCE has Gavin pushed back, challenged, or even questioned his falsehoods. Here are just a few examples:
1) WLC claims the doctrine of Original Sin is not clearly taught in Scripture. How much clearer could Rom. 5:12-19 be?
2) WLC continues to show his Final Authority for faith and practice is himself by accepting the Science as HE sees it and then interpreting Scripture through it
3) WLC specifically stated the 750,000 years ago and the problem with the population of the world evaporating if you just move the creation of Adam and Eve to an earlier time. THAT is playing fast and loose with Scripture and stark evidence that WLC interprets Scripture thru Science,. Whatever happened to all things are possible with God? Evidently WLC and Gavin have a god that is much smaller than God.
God saw fit to have Abraham at 100yrs old get his wife Sarah to become pregnant when she was 90. Abraham died 75yrs later. How many more children did he have? Methuselah lived to be 969yrs old. How many children did he have? My guess is that it doesn't matter to WLC or Gavin because Science would tell them it's impossible for either of them to have happened. At least the Science from the scientists WLC is listening to. Which obviously isn't those who are doing apologetics from a Biblical worldview, I know I attended one seminar where a guy created a computer program that collected and mapped peoples from all over the world and showed that it all goes back to a Mitochondrial Eve. And another that showed how it was possible for the current world's population to be what it is now in just the past 6-7 thousand years. And I believe that Ken Ham or someone with AiG has dealt with this too.
One last word on this. I find this to be the height of irony and perhaps hypocrisy given that I just watched Gavin do two videos on Sola Scriptura. I say "perhaps hypocrisy" because, in fairness, as I recall Gavin was only making a case for Augustine believing in Scripture as the final authority for faith and practice. Perhaps I read more into that than I should and he doesn't believe the doctrine.
Either way, I've seen all I need to see. One more tab closed and one more channel I don't need to give any attention,.
Romans 5 never by any mean teaches original sin... :)
@@metnasopar8861 - Your OPINION is duly noted and summarily dismissed because, well, it's just that and MORE IMPORTANTLY God says otherwise.
It's not wise to call God a Liar. :)
@@RoyceVanBlaricome yups, God does not lie.. your interp is a misrepresentations of what God said in romans 5..:)
@@metnasopar8861 - Yups. God does not lie but YOU just did. And you just made yourself an abomination to God in doing so. (Pro. 6:16-19)
WLC is merely stating that the doctrine of original sin as taught by reformed theologians is not clearly taught in Scripture. He doesnt hold to the idea that babies are born guilty of Adam's sin, but that we inherited a sin nature. Really not difficult to understand and it blows my mind when people actually say that babies are vipers in daipers or something stupid like that. Scripture is clear that every person is responsible for their own sins and must therefore also personally repent before the Lord.
Dr. Craig is so in love with materialistic science, it is saddening. Unfortunately he wants the acknowledgement from the world.
how do you know his motives?
@@TruthUnites Personal experience and for the rest it is obvious that he measures the text of the Bible according to materialistic science. If it contradicts what he considers to be the majority view of “scientists” well than the Bible must give way.
He is inconsequential:
The resurrection of Jesus: Miracle, although his scientists would say it is impossible for a dead body to be resurrected.
But 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood: Not compatible with modern “science” so these passages from the Bible must mean something different.
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
Craig wants to serve two masters and this desire is the path to heresy.
I know that these are very hard words, but I can’t sugar coat his theories.
How come he doesn’t enter into dialogue with young earth creationists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or Dr. Jason Lisle?
God choosing to transform the so called Homo Heidelbergensis at a specific time into modern man is the most ridiculous science-fiction attempt to combine christian faith with today’s anthropology.
Give me a break.
@@Mazinga Also the Apostle Paul wrote
'Let God be true and everyone a liar', I don't there is a need for Christians to interpret the scripture in alignment with modern science but vice versa!
@@SamTheSubSaharan Amen
Always great content on this channel. I would love to hear WLC interact with a thesis along the lines of : Genesis having a compelling literary design as a covenant document - suzerain treaty to formalize Israel as nation with primeval history as prologue. other value ie. serves as polemic and projects worldview. How does this enhance or expand topic discussion in this video. Christ is Risen !
I have to say, I'm actually thankful there exists a broad gap between the understanding of the laity and the scholars with regard to Genesis 1-3. An appeal to scholars toward a proper understanding of the Holy Scripture hardly seems to be the modus operandi of Biblical Interpretation.
With respect--because I do greatly appreciate TruthUnites and you, Dr. Ortlund--I cannot see the value in WLC's views iterated here. I suppose it might be well to get and read his book to interact with the larger argument.
That said, it does seem to me that WLC makes a lot of unproved/unproveable assumptions. One example would be the recurring assertion "The Penetuchal author would not have thought," etc. Of course, there is no way to know what Moses--if WLC is even committed to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch--thought, but only what he wrote.
All the above, I'll stay subscribed. Haha.
Fair enough. Creation stuff causes more division than pretty much any other doctrine I know of, so I appreciate you staying subscribed despite your concerns!
(One thing: I worry about pitting lay reading and scholarship against one another, since translation itself is an act of scholarship. Laity wouldn't even have access to the text without scholarship.)
@@TruthUnites I would not liken the project of translating the Holy Scripture into the vernacular with modern-day scholarship, the former of which was done with the conviction that the Scripture is Perspicuous, while the latter is often done from the standpoint of skepticism of the veracity of the biblical text.
If WLC had made many of these arguments during the "Battle for the Bible" days, he would have rightly been associated with those who, with the magisterial use of reason, undermined the Word of God because the presupposition brought to the text was not faith that confessed the Inspiration and Innerancy of the Bible, but rather an assessment of the Scripture that treats it like any other text.
I'm not suggesting WLC has the same fundamental starting point as liberal scholars, but a lot of his conclusions are indistinguishable from theirs, and this troubles many, and I think rightly so.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Hmmm. Perhaps you are using the word "scholarship" to refer to non-evangelical, higher critical scholarship exclusively? The scholarship referenced in the video, though, was evangelical scholarship (JI Packer, Jack Collins, etc.).
@@marcuswilliams7448 Try Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on Genesis 1-11.
Another O.T scholar that views Genesis in its Ancient Hebrew context .
He ISN'T liberal but would agree with many of Dr. WLC Hypothesis.
It the fundamentalists of the Last 200 years that have become the hyperliteralists of All Scripture.
@@TruthUnites Well, I would say that Scholarship done by an Evangelical Christian is not, therefore, Evangelical Scholarship. WLC would consider himself an Evangelical of some variety, I assume, and yet he is using the language of a Higher Critic (Pentateuchal Author, as an example).
I suppose this necessitates defining just what the parameters of Evangelical Scholarship actually are so that we don't assume something is Evangelical Scholarship because it is done by an Evangelical.
An analogy would be a challenge for me, a Confessional Lutheran pastor in the LCMS. When someone says "Lutherans celebrate homosexuality" because someone, or an entire collection of someones (ELCA), who call themselves Lutheran approve of homosexuality, the question must be asked whether such celebration actually follows from the Lutheran Confessional Principle.
So, what are the Principles of a Higher Critic in relation to Genesis, and how do they differ from WLC's approach? If there is a different approach, how is that, in certain instances, they arrive at the same conclusions? Or, likewise, is it Evangelical Scholarship if a Young Earth and Literal Interpretation of Gensis is represented therein? How can WLC's conclusions and that of a Young Earth creationist be equally called Evangelical Scholarship?
Can we please get a video on where you disagree with William Lane Craig?
I don't agree that we should start allegorizing whatever we want, and twisting in different ways till we agree with it. But he is a very honest man.
Very confused thinking on the early chapters of Genesis.
I missed the deliberation of the genetic lineages of Adam to Abraham described in two(?) places in the Book of Genesis. Anyone know where that is discussed by Bill, or how it is accommodated by his proposed hypothesis accounting for Genesis 1-11?
Otherwise, GREAT, informative dialogue! 👍🏼👍🏼
Wow my favourite philosopher and favourite theologian together? Truly a dream come true? Haha
God appeared in humanoid form to Abraham (Genesis 18:1), to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-13), to Jacob (Genesis 32:22-32), to Moses (Exodus 33:11), to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15), to Samson's Parents (Judges 13), and to Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-6), and of course, to all of the Apostles, in the form of the Messiah.
In fact, He appears in multiple ways, to multiple people all throughout Scripture. What's more, if you actually pay attention to the text in Genesis you will see that it was not the Father walking in the Garden, but "the Voice of the LORD", that is, the LORD's Voice (or Word) is the one that was walking in the Garden. This was a Theophany of Jesus, right there in Genesis 3, and Dr. Craig wants us to explain it aways as "figurative" and "fantastic language".
There is no need to be embarrassed by the Theophanies in Scripture, God can appear whenever He wants, to whoever He wants, and however He wants, this is His world, He created it, and He is not limited by anything in it.
Yes! Just one of WLC's unwarranted assumptions.
Problem here is he appears only to select group of people, not to every human, the testimony of the few becomes questionable and self serving. Nobody questions sunrise, as everybody sees it. Is God that stupid to privately talk to a few people, than punish the people whom he did not communicate with?
I respect Dr Craig and have read some of his books. However I think we’re on dangerous Ground when we made the statement that Genesis 1 to 11 was an allegory. It negates creation. It negates the ability to defined the age of the Earth and the fall which is the reason Jesus came to this earth , is now considered a myth. Can God not speak and it come to existence immediately. Are we limiting the power of God?. Does is not make sense that a pre sin a world is different from a post sin world? That’s why we return to the word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher. Like that the Bereans Study for yourselves
I agree with your assessment. The problem with the line of thought discussed is that it compromises the Word of God for the very limited assessments of largely secular men so that we may seem reasonable to those same secular men. Further we have to know that secular knowledge changes every decade or so. So, if we were to have taken as truth what secular science assured us was fact 50 years ago, would have made us liars today. I prefer to trust in the word of the One who was there.
"“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?"
7:36
10:50
13:37
20:50
It's good to see Craig finally coming around to this topic. Indeed, Christianity has a very ancient tradition of interpreting genesis in a more allegorical light and early the modern exegetical presuppositions that inspired protestant attitudes regarding the bible ended up making a mess of the whole science and faith relationship. Craig's work is more important in tearing down these misconceptions about biblical interpretation than proposing some earlier point for a historical Adam.
Why is it impossible to believe that God created man from the dust of the earth if that is where we return to when our bodies decay at death ? Why is it impossible to believe He breathes life into the man He created, and then to extract his rib to form woman in Adam’s form but different with XX chromosomes only, as opposed to Adam’s XY chromosomes? The first pair had to be the same, one from the other, not a completely separate created being. Why is it impossible to believe God said let the earth bring forth plants etc and have them grow quickly? Did the plant over Jonah not grow in one day and was then eaten by a worm in the next day? Isn’t God supernatural and miraculous ? Why is it hard to believe that the first humans grew so old when their genetic makeup was probably still not as affected by sin the way ours is today? Who says some of the fossils we find aren’t of people who were very old when they died (Neanderthals perhaps?They were human. See link below)? What about Noah’s flood and the fact that we only reached a world population of 1 billion recently and not thousands of years ago if we really were from around 750,000 yrs ago? With regards different population groups: You don’t need lots of time for genetic diversity if God placed all that diversity in the first couple. Why can’t the creation story of 7 days be taken literally? Can God not turn water into wine without waiting for the fermentation process? Isn’t God God and we are not? I don’t believe in long age creation, that’s not what the Bible teaches. Jesus is God, He referenced “creation in the beginning” and that God created male & female, as well as mentioning Noah’s flood. Are you saying Jesus is wrong? Be careful. If your view on creation is wrong, then it negates the gospel. Long age creation would mean death preceded Adam & Eve but we know death is the result of sin. And in Genesis 3:15 we are told a means of redemption is already in place for mankind.
The creation narrative in Genesis is not figurative.
There are good explanations of the waters receding after Noah’s flood (which takes place many years after creation).
creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain
creation.com/neanderthals-modern
creation.com/skin-colour-surprises
I can’t help feeling disappointed in this gentleman’s lack of belief in Genesis as the literal creation by God Almighty. Indeed he acknowledges he is speculating but he is using scientific “findings to base his speculations on instead of using the Bible. What we discover must be held against the Bible and if it doesn’t fit in with God’s word then perhaps our assumptions (and there are many!) in science are in error?
The discussion of whether the early chapters of Genesis are literal or figurative don't detract from the main ideas:
1. There is a Creator.
2. Humanity has chosen to be out of direct relationship with the Creator.
3. That choice has left humanity lacking, separated from the Creator's ultimate good for human existence, which has resulted in the problems we have seen across history and around us today. (We call that lack, that brokenness 'sin'.)
The rest of scripture describes the Creator's work to restore good relationship with his creation.
Oversimplifying the Scriptures can lead to incorrect interpretations. It is true that both literal or figurative explanations agree on there being a Creator and humanity chosen to be out of direct relationship with the Creator, your definition for "lacking" is unclear. Sin is not just lack to meet GOD's standards. Sin is rejection of GOD's truth and imposing our own truth. The problem with a figurative interpretation of Genesis is that death as a payment for sin cannot be true as death has to have always existed since life emerged on the earth. If sin did not bring death, then Jesus' death did not deal with our sin debt and therefore Jesus' sacrifice was in vain. You cannot have a Gospel without the foundation and reason for a Gospel in the first place. The Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ is due to the fallen nature of man. But for man to be fallen, man must have fell. But you do not have that in evolution, but instead everything is getting better and progressing and instead of man being driven out of the Garden of Eden, evolution implies that man is headed into the "Garden of Eden" by evolution. In evolution, man is not fallen, but is at the greatest point in human evolution. The Scriptures teach that Adam's sin caused death to come into the world. You could make the claim that death by sin was only human death, but there is no Scripture to support that claim. As Adam was put in charge of the world, then all of Creation was affected by man's sin.
There must have been a literal Adam, not 75 thousand years ago, but, as the Scriptures teach (counting the genealogies that must have a purpose rather than some mytho-historic record of random people) Adam must have existed around 6,000 years ago. Although there is scientific evidence to back this up, the greatest problem for the syncretism of the religion of naturalism, evolution, and Christianity is the theological implications. Scripture supports a young age for the earth and it is not a side issue, it is what the rest of the Scriptures are based on and if there is no literal Genesis chapter 1-11, there cannot be crucial doctrines supported. Jesus came to pay for our sin and by dying HE conquered both death and sin. If death had been extant for millions or billions of years before man even arrived into the picture, then where does that put Jesus? Death is not a good thing, yet GOD calls all that HE made good in Genesis chapter 1 verse 31. In the fossil record, we see death, disease, and suffering and GOD does not call these things good, so why should we believe HE did? We must be firmly grounded on GOD's Word, not man's fallible interpretations of the science. Science must and will back GOD's Word up, not the other way around. We follow GOD, not man, and GOD says that HE made it all in 6 days as stated not only in Genesis where it states "evening and morning" and "1st/2nd/3rd... day", but also in Exodus 20 where GOD commands Israel to keep the Sabbath because HE did so, but if HE did not, according to evolution, then why command Israel to do so because HE did so. That would mean that GOD is misleading at least, lying at worst, and GOD does not lie!
@@inthedefenseofGenesis 'Sin' in the Greek is hamartia. It means 'to miss the mark'.
What is the mark? The image of God to which man had been created (Genesis 1:26). When humanity separated from relationship with God, their 'eyes were opened' and they immediately knew that something was missing: the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit who maintained direct communion with God.
By God's grace, humanity was gifted with sufficient rational capacity to recognize there was a God and to have a moral conscience by which they could identify good and evil (Romans chapters one and two). But the fulness of relational help from God was removed, creating a lack in which the 'works of the flesh' were free to grow (Galatians 5:17-21). It is these works of the flesh to which we refer when we think of individual 'sins'.
It is precisely to restore full relationship with God that Christ came and fulfilled all righteousness. Through faith in the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit takes up residence within the believer (John 14:17; 1 John 4: 12-15) and begins bearing godly fruit (Galatians 5: 22-26). By that power, we are being conformed to the divine image (Romans 8: 28-30).
However, until the resurrection to glorified new bodies (1 Corinthians chapter 15) we still have these broken ones and must deal one day at a time with their weaknesses. By God's grace, we have a mediator in the beloved Son of God who helps us (1 John 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 2:5-6).
So, for the believer the call is now to walk in the Spirit, to live up to the great gift that has been given through Christ our Lord (Galatians 5:25).
@@stephenbailey9969 Amen. That is why we cannot believe that Adam was some primitive human who existed 750,000 years ago because that means that sin does not cause death as death existed before man and the Fall and William Lane Craig cannot have a literal Fall, which is MAJOR problematic for the Gospel.
You have to wonder if these two (one speaking, one nodding) believe that an ax head floated, that God stopped the earth from turning for a short time, that a man was swallowed by a great fish, that a river stopped flowing, that there really was a tree of life and that there will be one in the future, that a man was raised from the dead. And that God actually became a man, died for the sin of all humanity, and defeated death. And that fully God, fully human man quoted the OT literally and historically… Adam, Creation, Moses, Noah, Jonah, etc.
One looks to the latest science theories and one looks to St Augustine for authority.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Good talk. I thoroughly enjoyed it, although I do think that Dr. Craig is wrong on many points. He makes too many unsupported assumptions. But I do enjoy listening to other viewpoints, so thank you for sharing.
Hebrews 11:3 chapter
context
similar
meaning
save
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
isn’t the discution about genetics and Adam and Eve irrelevant? I mean we should talk about Noah, we are all his discendents first before being the discendents of Adam and Eve.
Aim for truth and you will find peace.
Creation of Adams seems like Bio engineering according to this theory rather than creation by fiat. Another consideration is due to the extremely long time frame has left "humanity" in direct danger of survival due to natural disasters whether biological or asteroids etc. that could cause extinction like dinosaurs etc.
It would be great to have Dr Hugh Ross on a a guest.
Have a talk with Robert Sepehr and Willy
Interesting interview. I am not convinced in WLC philosophical argument.
His repeated use of " again it suggests " or " it suggests again "
raises red flags for me.
Wikipedia gives a very good insight into this man.
What of interest for me was the the role that evolution plays in Genesis.
The term theistic evolutionist began ringing alarm bells for me.
Wikipedia gives good insight into no one Christian.
It's funny. I'm a simple guy who's always believed by "Faith" that my Bible was the unerring word of God. And that we are not given all of the details in order to build our faith. I'm pretty sure everyone would be a Christian if we had all of the answers handed to us. If Genesis is indeed mythical, it seems to me that Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, or even his death and resurrection would be myth as well. Looks like my faith as been misplaced all of these years.
Do you understand what is mythical?
Your faith has not been misplaced. The Bible is, as you say, the unerring Word of God. Adam and Eve were real people, the first humans, created by God, not evolved from some lower humanoids. Jesus did walk on water, he did turn water into wine, he did die for our sins, and he rose from the dead. WLC is an evangelical, but he is playing with fire. Scripture and science do not conflict, but Scripture and bad science, most of which we see today coming from atheistic presuppositions, do conflict. Evolutionary theory is falling apart, not Scripture.
I love WLC, however, how does this theory explain the genealogy that we have in the scripture? We know genealogy of Jesus to Abraham. And we know the years from Abraham to Noah, and then Noah to Adam. Scripture gives us names, genealogy, and how long they lived. This is where young earthers get their numbers. How does WLC’s theory explain away these number? If Adam was 750,000 years ago (ish) how does that fit the genealogy and years that scripture gives us to Noah and then to Abraham and then to Jesus?
This is old but the word for son in the geologies just means decedent, and in the context scholars have noted that it is possible there are gaps, where the biblical authors simple skip over people
I don't know why people have to add hundreds of thousands of years to the history of man. If you count the age that people lived to in the bible and add them up then it only comes to about 6,000 years in total. I would say there are not even enough bones buried to support hundreds of thousands of years either.
That's not how Hebrew genealogies work. Stop reading the Bible like a modernist, materialist American.
@@MeanBeanComedy I'm from UK. How does Hebrew genealogies work because it is pretty clear that there were 14 generations from Adam to Abraham and 14 from Abraham to David and 14 generations from David to Christ. So, how can you interpret that any other way than what it says? It literally tells you who they are and how many years each person lived and how old when they had their children pretty much. Please explain or is that just another attempt to bring confusion to make people doubt the bible?
@@MeanBeanComedycan you please answer katherinegeorge4945’s question?
It seems very odd that WLC can believe in the great miracle of creation but then have a problem with comparatively ‘easy’ other portions of creation. Like water being moved in one day, God creating a light before the sun that could easily cause the sunrise and sunset, etc. It seems that for the ‘easy’ issues WLC wants materialistic explanation.
Lane Craig is not Sola Scriptura. Right?
He is.
Not surprising how back we have to go when dealing with an eternal GOD🙃
Luke 3:38
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Corinthians-1 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Corinthians-1 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
Timothy-1 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Timothy-1 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Jude 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
How I wish that Gavin would just join something like the Anglican Church in North America. He would make a great priest.
Yup! Gotta go High Church if you wanna survive! 😎👉🏻👉🏻
Paul clearly thought Adam and Eve were Historical.
If were honest its not the "science" that makes the story unbelievable.
Its the fact that the story is utterly fantastic!
Craig says that we can't be held accountable for the sins of a fictitious person. Problem with that thesis, is that there is no good reason, it seems to me, for us to be held accountable for the sins of a real person either. Sins, we are told throughout scripture, are a function of the thoughts and deeds of an individual alone. Granted, the Jewish scripture does say that the sins of the father figure in the fates of a few generations after the commission of those sins. But that is another discussion...
He mentions not finding support for original sin in Scripture.😊
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3 KJV
There’s a lot of issues with the scientific evidence that’s not well discussed. I recommend Stephen Meyer for details. Specifically there are serious issues with large scale evolution, as in emergence of new organs for example. Also, I’ve seen material on radio carbon dating having issues and methodologies on dating the earth having issues as well.
We don't use primarily carbon dating anymore, and haven't for decades.
My problem is that I have been sold a large amount of rubbish on the basis of scholarship. I am not persauded that the scholars are not reliable.
While I am inclined to agree, or at least find the "universal progenitorship" of Adam and Eve most comfortable, I don't know that Eve being the mother of all the living is enough to make the case. She's not the literal mother of all life, so perhaps it could mean all those whom God had breathed "life" into in the manner that set Adam apart?
Also God choosing to elect (usually the weakest and most humble) people to act out His salvific will for all others is a common enough theme not to find the idea of Adam and Eve being elected from a larger population too offputting, but the line that there was no man to till the ground does suggest that if there were members of our "biological mould" around, they were certainly not yet behaviourally human. It's certainly an interesting question that I have no certainty about but I do like Craig's hypothesis as a way of retaining universal progenitorship. I'm still not sure who Seth built his city with in that case though. Prior to hearing Craig's hypothesis I would have thought that lined up better with a more recent date in evolutionary history, in keeping with when we know farming was practiced - Homo heidelbergiensis didn't leave an such evidence but who knows.
The only thing I'd say is that the Out of Africa Hypothesis would run at odds with modern humans originating in that gulf but there's room for all thar to be reconfigured if we happened to start finding evidence of more complicated migration patterns so...
According to the best DNA knowledge we have, all humans do trace their roots back to one male and one female. We still do not know enough about genetics to understand them to a great deal, but we do know that.
@@oldplace2844 Yes and no. Genetic Adam and Eve are the last living humans who all current humans are related to by chromosomal DNA (Father) and by mitochondrial DNA (mother) so the first issue that means they don't correspond to the Biblical Adam And Eve is that they didn't live at the same time, and the second issue is that as people die and we lose branches on our family tree, these individuals shift in time.
That doesn't disprove Biblical Adam and Eve but it means the "genetic Adam and Eve" are not them.
You can't beat a Molinist when it comes to speculation and alegorizing.
Why could God NOT take a human form to talk to Adam in Eden?? Why couldnt the trees come out very fast out of the Earth ... God can do anything ... I disagree with this guy ...i think he tries to understand with his human brain divine works in Genesis... GOD CAN DO ANYTHING ...DO ANYTHING ....WHY QUESTION GOD??? the whole Bible is INSPIRED WORD OF YHWH.....should not be dimimished ....or doubted
Love your comment ❤
One thing I like to ask of young earth "literal" creationists is how common descent as the natural mechanism by which "the earth brought forth" life according to kinds is any more offensive than us being made of the samr earth's atomic "dust" as all other life. What's the essential difference? There's a natural mechanism to everything physical. That doesn't mean we are reduced to this as if scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. But it is knowledge revealed from God's creation and it bears the fingerprints of a God who can redeem and recycle life from death, order from chaos etc.
imago dei, ex nihilo, deathless, human uniqueness. In fact pre creation I could argue there wasn't chaos so it wasn't brought from disorder, wasn't death. Things to think about
@@YoshiOST Thanks for that. One thing I'll say is that being image bearers has nothing to do with physicality though. It's a verb so it's about our dominion/stewardship role.
As for your point about chaos, I don't disagree but my point was about creation itself showing that God regularly uses cycles and this goes along with His promise to redeem us.
Also where does "deathless" get mentioned. God cut off access to the Tree of Life so we couldn't gain immortality as sinners, which implies we weren't made immortal, right?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 from my readin until God rested things were good. The kind of good only God would say. Which I read as "perfect" and that excludes death until sin is brought into all creation.
@@YoshiOST Interesting. I see your logic but I don't think it's the only way to interpret it and besides the problem of it seeming to make the tree of life redundant, it also raises another question. If creation is already perfect then why did God create Eden as an oasis of perfection within it, from which mankind were going to bring the rest of earth under submission?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 perhaps you are extending theme of eden/garden to something not in the text, 'oasis', rest of the earth with some preconception not scripturally found. Creation is perfect in it's infancy and age, to grow and develop beyond the garden until human's brought all creation under the curse.
When we consider Genesis 1's creation of man, look at the archaeological record, and view Genesis 5's lineage between Adam and Noah, we also must realize that the geographical range of homo sapiens, known to have been FAR outside of Ancient Mesopotamia, means that the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 cannot be speaking of Adam and Eve - in fact, Scripture doesn't say that, but tradition has married Genesis 1 and 2 to believe it. I think God created mankind long before Adam, but independent and miraculously separate from and well after He had finished the creation of the animal kingdom. So, the family of all Christians IS connected to Adam and Eve, but spiritually so as Believers. Because those Genesis 5 ages noted for key figures brings us to the time of Noah, with a rough date for the flood. And yet, we see lots of evidences for human settlements far older and WAY beyond the area of Ancient Mesopotamia. And the other Biblical genealogies that connect Adam to Christ reveal Adam must be a real human being! But we did not inherit Adam's SIN, but DID inherit his sin NATURE - meaning, all humans will begin to sin at some point after they are born. We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but for our own!
It's sad that WLC has abandoned the same view of the OT as Jesus had.
Yes czcams.com/video/BuMKAgrktWA/video.html
My god, the hubris dripping from you is stomach-churning. 🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
"There was no man to till the ground" could include Neanderthals in that they were hunter/gatherers and "man" in the Genesis 1 sense,(outside the garden) but yet did not till the ground. This could place Neanderthals as contemporaries of Adam providing Adams sons and daughters stock to breed from. Adam being genesis 2 man who mated with genesis 1 man completely absorbing him.
Uhm. And how do you resolve the problem, "Sin entered the world death entered the world through Adam?"
@@luboshcamber1992 Good question; Id like to know how WLC would answer. 1 possibility could be that awareness of death entered man's consciousness in Adam. This theory I have not thought out yet, just throwing it out there.
@@wmarkfish Wouldn't it be better to set up the Word of God as standard and throw all the philosophy of man into the garbage?
@@luboshcamber1992 Well then we would have to find something for all those profligate professors in the university to do for a living. We can't have them roaming the streets or expressing their weird ideas in comment sections.
Could death mean spiritual in this context and not physical? When God breathed into Adam's nostils did He give him more than just a body and a soul, but maybe a spirit also? And this spirit was meant to live forever, yet with the fall spiritual death entered the world? I'm thinking of the reference in the bible to the second death.
Adam and Eve also didnt physically die right after sinning, so it would seem reasonable to think physical death was probably not what was referred to but rather the idea of eternal seperation from God.
William, you've made a stupid blunder.
This is the problem of trying to square modern scientific dogma with Biblical doctrine.
WLC is rough.
So now we have no theophanies in Genesis 2 & 3? Really?!? Why did Jesus use mud to heal a blind man's eyes? It surely isn't common sense to use spit?
I love WLC but I think he’s wrong on this one. Love you both though guys!! Nobody has perfect theology.
Concerning a civilization prior to Adam and Eve, the method of salvation in Jesus Christ is not only for the human race, but for all creation. Adam and Eve were created for Jesus to come by through their descendants, for all creation to be atoned for, not just the human race. Second, just because Genesis looks like mytho history, doesn't mean it didn't actually happen that way. Third, when it comes to anyone else alive besides Adam and Eve, Cain was cursed with a mark that forbid from anyone else to kill him. God could have isolated Adam and Eve to Eden from other civilizations, to be distinct and set apart. This is in regards to Dr. Craig's 3 objections
Question the Bible and not the "science" it's problematic.
If one were to interpret the word "was" in the following text as "became" (And the Earth "was" "became" without form and void) as it should be translated, then it would clear everything up. When you use the correct word "became" it puts the Earth as old as Science says it is and it puts "Adam and Eve" in a garden in the "recreated" Earth that is being described in Genesis 1:1 and what follows.
When God said "let there be (light)" this was not a creative act but a permissive one and it occurs after God had "created" the heavens and the earth sentence.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Here this act ends definitively and is followed by the next major event "....and the earth "became" without form and void" (not "was" without form and void)
This is now evidence of the 500,000 or whatever science currently believes, existing in the Bible within those 2 sentences as well as the "new earth" that God "reinstated" AFTER the earth "became without form and void"
I don't agree with Craig on this topic. I lean more to creationism like Ken Ham explains. It's the more reasonable explanation for me. Adam and Eve were real people who lived about 6k years ago.
A term like 'Mythohistory' is a contradiction in terms because a proposed event is either essentially _historial_ *or* it's _historical._
Original sin means that Adam's sin is in you. It is in you just like Adam's DNA is in you. But here "sin" means the moral corruption and wickeness of Adam's nature, that heart of unbelief, that corruption that is in us. Because God does not just hate the actions we take, but the heart that produces them. This is the sense in which we are culpable for Adam's sin: because it is our sin.
One of the illogical conclusions of such a view as original sin is infant baptism...believing the water washes away adam's sin from the baby and if the baby would die before baptism he/she would go to hell. Ofcourse WLC rejects this foolish idea as all christians should. Yes, we inherited Adam's sin nature, but not his actually sins.
@@AnniEast just ask yourself this: do we have adam's sin nature? you already said we do. Does God hate our nature because it is corrupt? Yes he does. Why does he hate it? Because it's corrupt. It's not morally pure. And what is it about our nature that is corrupt? It's that we're naturally rebellious. Does God hate the rebelliousness of our nature? Yes. Was Adam's sin rebellion? Yes. So does God hate Adam's sin in us? Yes. That is the doctrine of original sin. Don't throw out the baby with the infant baptism water.
@@jonathanVA44 lots of gimnastics done there to come to the very simple conclusion that God hates sin.
We are not born guilty of adams sins, as the reformed original sin doctrine suggests, but with a nature that will inevitably sin if left to 'mature'.
No baby is a viper in a daiper as they so love to say. Maybe we can both learn more on the subject.
@@AnniEast sweatheart this is not "the reformed doctrine" - this is the doctrine of original sin that is upheld by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, the Anglican Church, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, and so many others. They've all concluded that God hates sin wherever it is found, not only in sinful actions, because it's not just actions that are sinful, but sinful hearts, sinful natures, sinful thoughts, sinful minds, sinful flesh, sinful bodies, sinful words, sinful affections, sinful inclinations. He loves people, but in the sense of their sin he hates them. He hates them for who they are, He loves them despite who they are. As for vipers in diapers - listen to the word of the Lord: "The wicked go astray from the womb; they err as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3) - this is why Augustine (over a thousand years before the reformation) had to confess his sins as a baby - you should read his Confessions. It's very interesting.
@@jonathanVA44 sweetheart? You think I'm a woman? And I will continue to side with WLC on this one, we inherit a sin nature, we dont inherit Adam's sin. And babies can't sin as their prefrontal cortex is not even developed yet. That is embellished writings intended to convey the idea that sin is inevitable, all will go astray, even babies at a point in their lives.
Yes, we confess our own sins, even the ones we can't even remember, but we do not confess Adam's sin or any other person's sins. We are guilty of our own sins, we are not guilty of any other person sins.
That fact that we inevitably share in the same sin(rebellion) as every other person who ever lived, doesn't mean their sins somehow transferred to us.
There is a clear difference between having a sin nature from birth and being sinful from birth.
Deut 24:16
Ezek 18:20
I don’t plan on buying this book. From what I have heard I’m this video leaves one more confused as he make too many assumptions and his own opinions and a lot of uncertainty as to what is the truth on Adam and Eve etc. we walk by faith and not by sight
If Genesis 1 is supernatural, then it is supernatural root and branch. Your arguments using 'common sense' smacks of being too long in a library. Genesis 2 is about the planiting of the Garden. Being literal can be defended by understanding the literary style of ancient documents. A simple, broad description in Chapter 1, much more detail in Genesis 2 for the creation of Man. This is not a defense of seven day creationism, but a wariness of academics. I was trained to some degree at Oxford. I do not find higher academia at all persausive when concerned with the true God or his Word.
WLC is being misleading at point 5:00 when he discusses all people being desended from one couple (Adam & Eve). The lowest population count of humans were about 10,000 individuals who all had evolved from earlier hominids. Here is a clip from Dr. Dennis Venema's book Adam & the Genome.
Chapter 3 Adam's Last Stand?
Dr. Venema picks up on another common misunderstanding about evolution and explains that evolution is a population-level process, including the evolution of humans. This chapter discusses data related to the ancestral population sizes based on the amount and nature of diversity in the alleles. Humans have always existed in a population of at least 10,000 individuals.
WLC says 750kY bP... Jesus said, from the beginning God created them man and woman... for The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins
Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
So disappointing. Undermining the credibility of entire bible.
I'd rather God create multiple Adams so that if sin entered the world only the Adams that sinned would die. No inherited sin just make new Adams or populate to a limit. After all how were Angels created? And WE were made in his image. Why flip the script and make a female? Just 10000x a few Adams and the ones who disobey die. Same justice just no redemption. Gods rule would still be gods rule.
I must admit, it’s very difficult for me to sit through a WLC video. His stances and arguments make me cringe. They come across as extremely weak and full of poor exegesis. I am the first to confess that I am rather ignorant and uneducated, yet I can find a way to interpret scripture without finding contradictions in Genesis one and two. It’s really sad when you see people who want to take the weakest possible stance in order to appeal to blind atheists.
🐍🐍👨🦯👩🦯👨🦯
Craig no longer popular among Fundamentalists / mainstream religious public, his rejecting more and more biblical literalism. Gotta give the snake oil salesman some credit.
Both entertaining and sad watching apologists now wiggle, squirm, juggle their way through ever more rapid interpretations of what is biblically literal or merely metaphorical as they adjust to science. But then apparently god expounds messages in all form and manner, which leaves apologists back at square one.
Hmmmm....is it POSSIBLE that Genesis is literally true ????..... Ochums razor 🤔 that seems to make more sense... Maybe God is confounding the wise.... offended for the words sake.... hoping Dr. Craig refutes this foolishness before he departs this world... let's pray for him 🙏