Thank you, Gavin, for the way you’ve addressed this issue. I still hold to a young earth view, but as a mother, especially a homeschooling mother, Ive been burdened about the way my kids understand these issues, especially in light of the deconstruction movement. I want my kids to understand that the truth of God’s Word doesn’t rise or fall depending on how you understand these secondary issues.
Dr. Ortlund, you're really an excellent example of how to dialogue. I'm still not convinced of evolution or old-earth creationism, but I don't see how Ken Ham's attitude towards others are helping the YEC's case. Keep up the good work sir!
Refreshing to see young earth creationists in the comments that are comfortable to "agree to disagree"! I think this is very healthy for the body of Christ, at least in these secondary matters.
Ken Ham has the superior argument, playing by run-of-the-mill Protestant rules. I'm a devout Protestant, but, I'm not wholly onboard with "each day of creation being truly 24 hours", though perhaps its true. And I think this particular issue should just be argued in Christian charity. This is not about the historicity of God Himself, salvation, or good and evil. I do think that using this argument primarily to shove in Evolution is wrong. Don't pretend to care about this argument, if what you really care about is peddling Evolution. With that said, I don't think Ken Ham has to act like hyperbole isn't anywhere in his Bible; I also don't think Ham just has to act conceited against Ortlund, since Ham's argument is better. Its hard to imagine Ortlund is some kind of dishonest actor, or heretic.
One of the many things I appreciate about Gavin is that it is so obvious that he genuinely cares about people with whom he disagrees. He values how he comes across to his opponents just as much as he values his arguments against them.
This is the best response I've heard to Ken Ham's assertion that everyone who disagrees with him "reinterprets" Scripture. This loving presentation is a great example.
Ken Ham also starts outside the text , he brings in his western culture worldview understanding and has already determined how the text should be interpreted based on his understanding. Now that his interpretation is set ,everything else (other scripture,science)must revolve around his interpretation.
The word of God can either be understood or not. If not, then not only is it void, but language itself is impossible -- which is a clue to why your interpretive nihilism cannot be true.
There is so much irony in your comment. The "ancient near east cosmology" argument (which you are assuming in your comment) is an example of modernist snobbery trying to force western naturalistic worldview into both science and the Bible. One of the most important principles of biblical interpretation is its perspicuity.
@@l-cornelius-dol Not all, but the flood and creation are foundationally clear. "Ancient near east cosmology" interpretations are a way to muddy, not clear up.
It grieves me that this kind of black/white, overly-simplistic, and schismatic thinking has obtained such influence in the evangelical world. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund for speaking up on this!
Evolution = buncha death before fall, orthodoxy theology for centuries= death after fall. Nothing thats not black and white about it. It’s impossible for you to even find a sound exegesis that harmonizes evolution and Genesis, no one’s buying it.
The problem isn’t that there’s black-and-white thinking. The problem is the choice of issues to which to apply that kind of thinking. There are issues that require such thinking, particularly the nature of God and how we must approach Him.
As a yec, the agonizing part is how accusatory and paranoid many of my fellow yec brothers are. I’ve come to really appreciate the careful study many oec do and humility it takes to just admit we don’t know. I for one advocate for this approach. Grace and Christian discussion rather than yelling compromise at the first hint of disagreement
Great response Gavin. I have your book on Augustine’s view of creation and it has been such a blessing. I struggled for years from elementary to the end of high school in regards to science “vs” the Bible, but your channel, Augustine’s work, as well as the channel Inspiring Philosophy has helped me so much. Thank you! And I agree that the stories of people leaving the faith over science need to end.
Unfortunately, people don't leave the church over faith vs. science. It is abandoning the authority of the Word of God. Abandoning the clear teaching of Genesis 1-11 only feeds that exact problem. God moves in peoples hearts. Never compromise his word. God says give the "truth in love." Love without truth is powerless and quite unloving.
Anti-intellectualism is a strong component of many ministries and denominations. It was a huge contributor to the theological bondage that held sway over me for several years at the beginning of my walk. Keep educating yourselves folks. Reading can seriously damage your ignorance. Thank you Gavin for taking the time to address this and please continue to suggest reading material.
My heart is IFB, but my education and intellect always put me at odds with those around me. Outside that movement, there’s too much tolerance for heterodox teaching. I look forward to heaven because I can’t feel at home in any of the churches in my area.
Is it "anti-intellectualism" that is a strong component of many ministries and denominations, or a rejection of the secular humanist worldview which dominates the public academy and from which its scholarship and conclusions are directly derived?
@@williamjpellas0314 Both. Calling a fundamentalist pastor an intellectual will get you either a dirty look or a laugh with a request not to insult him. For example, look at the faith-based arguments of the KJV-Onlyists who think the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek. Outside fundamentalism, look at the deplorable hermeneutics of Progressives and of Pentecostal variants such as Word-Faith and NAR. I would say that rejecting an idea just because you can link it to another religion (such as Secular Humanism) motivates anti-intellectualism, rather than being an alternative to it. Attacking the source rather than responding to the idea itself commits ad hominem and genetic fallacies, which is an anti-intellectual practice. Apologetics teaches you that you have more tools available than Bible quotes that some people refuse to even consider.
@@ricksonora6656 No. I attack the secular humanist worldview and the epistemic assumptions and a priori conclusions inherent in that worldview, and how that affects how people think and do their scholarship in the first place.
@@williamjpellas0314 I am speaking of the folks who believe reading anything other than the Bible is wrong. It is strong and straight up anti-intellectualism. I am not commenting on the fact that other factors are at play.
One thing I've learned from Gavin over the time I've listened to him is how we should humble ourselves before scripture and over issues like these. A lot of Christians and even pastors are prepared to die on certain theological hills rather than accepting some of the ambiguity in scripture. I don't think we will ever fully understand the creation of the world here on earth and do not need to become divisive over these topics. Thank you Gavin!
The church will be far better off and stronger when we finally learn to stop looking to Ken Ham as though he is an actual leader or reliable source concerning these important issues. How he ever came to have the influence he has genuinely boggles my mind.
Ham has influence because he correctly diagnoses the fulcrum of the problem. Origins. He's right when he says that Genesis 1:1 is everything. But he then insists that the only solution is a literal reading of the creation account combined with a hypercalvinist reading of Romans 5. Nuance is the enemy. Naturalistic science overplayed its hand, creating mistrust. I have read "scientific" accounts of origins and evolution that read like fairy tales.
Wow! Some who is bringing biblical answer should be disregard? Gavin's arguments are not biblical and contradicts Sola Scriptura. Imposing his beliefs onto Scripture.
I'll go with the Bible and observable science. Death before sin in evolution. Evidence of a world wide flood across the Earth. Creationists are also PhD. from the same universities as Gavin. Amazing how you people believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection and annonment of sins, but young Earth and God doing it all in 6 days as said in Genesis is just too much. All of God's word is truth.
Talk about picking the wrong hill to die on, Ken Ham’s insistence on attacking fellow christians like Gavin and William Lane Craig who I would argue are doing way more to propagate the Gospel on todays intellectual battlefield than he is, is outstanding. I cringed so hard throughout Ken Ham’s debate with Bill Nye, if I wasn’t already a believer I would think christians didn’t really have a foot to stand in the modern scientific world and leave fully convinced science has debunked Christianity.
Ya. We can only hope he sees real science a day the lord convicts him to belive the truth. Becuase yec and flat earth have made christians out to be bulling fools... sad thing he fooled me around last christmas as I got fired and was depressed. Went to bed one night remembering wat I wanted to be. (A geologist) I gave the dream up. Life happened. And he scared me with u ain't christian unless u think this
Wonderful video, Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for your patient, informed responses on these issues. I've seen how the attitude and statements of those like Ken Ham's remarks have been damaging to the body of Christ. This kind of response is not only helpful, but necessary. Your humble heart, consistent demeanor, and lack of accusatory tone along with your desire to seek clarification and help explain is something this world needs a lot more of, especially in the body. You are an exemplary teacher that resembles the teachings of our Lord. Thank you for what you do.
He's not a good teacher if he doesn't teach the truth. So explain to me how Ken's remarks have done harm to the body of Christ, and please provide examples. Because I don't think you have a clue of what you're talking about.
@@BillMurrey Ken Ham's remarks cause damage to the body of Christ by throwing accusations against other Christians of not being 'true' Christians by questioning their commitment to the scriptures. When Ken Ham says that you must agree with his interpretation of the Bible, he equates it with the Bible itself. This kind of conflation elevates his interpretation to infallible status not unlike God Himself. My friend, we as human beings are not infallible. Can you see why suggesting that your interpretation is infallible saying it is on par with the Bible itself could be damaging to the body of Christ?
@@Narikku If the 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Just happen to write it first? Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? You think God would've thought of that? Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth? We are talking about God's authority here. Does He have absolute authority over you? If He told you to do something you thought was wrong would you do it? If God promised you a son that He was going to make a great nation from and then He told you to take your promised son and sacrifice him on an altar, would you do it? Abraham did. He respected God's authority and knew that He could do what He had promised. You think God could do the things mentioned in Genesis? Or has a group of self-worshipping scientists, who are known for making mistakes, proven God to be a liar? You believe that? I'm sorry for you if you do. Ken NEVER says "This is MY interpretation, you must obey it!" He always says "God has told us..., God says this....God has written..." He knows it's not his Bible, it's God's Bible. Most of what he teaches is about the Authority of God, not young earth, you got a problem with the authority of God? He stands on the authority of God and preaches what it says in the Bible. Show me where he doesn't preach from the Bible! Genesis is plain reading, a child can understand it, but if you want to go clipping verses from it, because you don't like what it says, go ahead. But don't be surprised if God does a little clipping Himself. As far as I can see you are being willingly ignorant regarding God's word.
@@BillMurrey> If 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Yes, my friend. This is precisely why discussion about this topic is warranted: because Ken Ham is teaching the Bible wrongly in many ways. This is one example. > Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Because that is the way that we, as a people, organized it. There is nothing in scripture that says that Genesis has to be the first Book of the Bible. There is nothing in scripture that says Revelation has to be the last. To illustrate what I mean, why is Proverbs after Psalms? > Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? Is Christ your foundation, or your personal view of creation? > Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth. Yes. That's why I don't trust Ken Ham at his word, and I examine every word he says with scripture. And I don't find Ken Ham's interpretations to fit well with scripture. > Ken never says "This is my interpretation, you must obey it." He always says, "God has told us... God has written... God has says..." Then promptly after saying these things, Ken Ham gives his interpretation of what those mean. Are you trying to tell me Ken Ham doesn't have a preferred interpretation of the Bible? That he understands it 100% correctly? Every single meaning of every single word? There are so many questions here, my friend. I cannot answer them all. Hopefully this suffices to get my point across.
I totally agree with your position, but had always been taught the world-wide flood position growing up. I love how you bring light to these subjects in such a thoughtful and gracious way.
I have been a big fan of AIG and Ken Ham. I have been following your channel for about 4 months now and you have given me some things to think about on a variety of topics. I will add this one to the list. I appreciate your humble and grace approach as you interact with people. It is a great example of how we should dialogue with those we don't agree with.
Thank you for how humbly and graciously you continue to interact with this issue, and also how you are standing firm on your position and not backing away under pressure. These videos have all been so incredibly helpful and insightful
Gavin, your videos have given such clarity to my own thoughts on these issues. I have been deconstructing in a sense my upbringing of “young earth creation or else”. There’s so much humility needed on this topic and I think your work is pointing that out. Recently I have experience such relief by acknowledging I don’t thing Genesis intends to be a scientific historical account. Honestly I think coming to Genesis with that understanding helps me see the greater theological truths that are revealed in it. All this to say, thank you, Gavin. Please keep up the good work.
I had a huge falling out at my previous job (teaching at a Christian high school) when my employers found out I didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve as historical individuals - they told me they had “never heard of a Christian who thought that.” They both went to Christian colleges. I was flabbergasted.
They were "flabbergasted" because it is hard to understand how someone can teach children to deny the plain reading of Scripture. They probably were relying on only "one book" of Creation, the True one.
@@DavidThigpen-yp7ko I teach every individual to the level I feel they are capable - the younger, the simpler. The older, the more complex and critical. My high schoolers were capable of critical thinking (especially in a supportive environment with trusted educators) where multiple perspectives could be weighed and compared. So when they asked about Genesis and creation, I encouraged them to think deeply instead of blindly accepting the “plain” reading they’d grown up with that was proving unsatisfactory when compared to the heavens, which declare the glory of God and make his invisible qualities known.
@@2wheelz3504 that’s an anemic understanding of original sin, and also an anemic understanding of the Gospel. But hey, I don’t work for you so I guess it doesn’t matter 🤷🏻♂️
@@2wheelz3504 But all you’ve done is referenced a different passage that is clearly using metaphor and literary devices to communicate a spiritual truth rather than a literal-historical one. By referencing Adam as a “type” of one to come, Paul is clearly not insisting that Jesus is somehow a clone or copy of Adam, but that he fulfills the role that Adam did - but that nowhere requires Adam be a literal historical individual. You’re referencing a metaphor to prove a historical figure existed. My Greek and Hebrew professors also recommend a “plain” reading, but that does not mean an unthoughtful or uncritical reading. “When I was a child, I thought like a child…”
@@2wheelz3504 I’m not “making” it a metaphor as though a literal reading is the default. And reading it literally absolutely does raise spiritual issues - namely, how does the Bible interact with general revelation? Can I trust my own senses if all the evidence suggests the Earth is very old but the Bible “says” it’s young? It’s nonsensical to say “God did things in an illogical order so that we would have to guess at the legitimacy of the text.” And frankly, I’m not being a smart ass ❤️ I’m being very serious in how I’ve used that passage, and I stand by it. You came and revived this thread to say you would have hypothetically fired me with the goal of what, exactly? You didn’t engage in good faith with what I said and try to have a meaningful discussion - you simply attacked. So… no smart-assery. Take it how it was said.
Excellent and thoughtful video. KH seems to rhink his interpretation is infallible- a dangerous assumption re the Holy Scriptures. KH dismiises other great Christian theologians throughout Church history. Sad !
"Trying to 'Hammer' home" I see what you did there! ;) Sorry about the cheesy dad joke. Loved the response video and I am learning a lot from these video, Dr. Ortlund.
It is so cool to me that one day you are extending a charitable hand to Rhett and Link and then the next day you are extending a charitble hand to Ken Ham and other YEC proponents. As I've said before, you are a pastor's pastor. Thank you for mentoring me from afar.
Ken Ham unfortunately, is a brand. He made himself into one. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. It's really difficult for anyone to interact with him honestly because of that fact. There are other creationists to look to if you want people to have actual conversations with, but Ken Ham has made his name synonymous with his position, and that's a problem.
The way he interacts with everyone is super unpleasant and unconvincing to those who aren’t already bought in. I remember this section he had on some show called “wack an atheist”
Excellent point -- anyone's interpretation of a text is not, cannot be infallible, but Scripture is. I think you're right that many times people get these two things tangled up. And they defend their interpretation with an intensity that's too much, don't allow anyone to disagree as if that negates the authority of Scripture. But it's not called for.
“Every act of interpretation involves our fallible brains.” Then you can’t _know_ that Christ the God-man died for the sins of the world and rose again for the justification of His sheep; you can’t know _anything._ Your interpretation could be wrong. Your post-modernist view of the truth of God’s word relegates Christians to a life of “always learning and never arriving at a knowledge of the truth.”
@@matthewdyer2926 Sticks and stones Some topics (like Jesus Son of God came save us from death and sin) get a lot more development than others (like rapture or age of the earth). And so somethings are more reliably understood. If an idea has less to support it, interpretation is more needed. And we shouldn't be more certain than is called for in Scripture.
@@matthewdyer2926 And NT Scriptures tell us that we are given the Holy Spirit after salvation as a guarantee, a down payment, of our place in heaven. This is an added confirmation of salvation, outside the realm of interpretation. There is nothing comparable for lesser doctrines, as mentioned earlier. We must do our best to study to arrive at a true understanding, but it's not the same degree of confidence. There should be humility, acceptance that error is possible. And kindness to those who disagree in non-essentials -- signs the HS is present in a person's heart. Traits Gavin shows in his videos.
@@Joan-ph2es This… “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that *all* the high mountains under *the whole heaven* were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And *all flesh* died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and *all mankind.* *Everything* on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out *every living thing* that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth.” Is no less clear than this- “And we apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear.” Or this- “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” “Humility” is _believing what is plain and obvious in God’s word._ Syncretizing scientism with Scripture is the height of arrogance in the guise of “humility”. The only reason you and Ortland don’t, is because of cowardice, syncretism, and capitulation to the pressures of modernity.
@@matthewdyer2926 Still with the ad hominem? Rhetoric unreliable? Even in English, "all" and "every" don't have to carry a global-wide meaning. -- I lost my keys! I searched everywhere, all over! 1 Kings 10:23-24 "So King Solomon exceeded all.... And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." "All the earth" -- it's not syncrynistic (or even cowardly) to think that the Kings of Tahiti, Incas, or Australian aborigines never made to Jerusalem. Because "all" can cover just the Levant or even the Middle East, and still be an absolutely true statement according to all rules of grammar. You're doing your interpretation in a hyper-literal manner, and leaving regular text meaning and word sense behind. Sometimes "all" is a smaller set of possibles. To anybody speaking a language. Context matters.
Really encouraged by your response. I personally adhere to literal days in Genesis 1, but I appreciate that you've shown that other interpretations aren't heretical (though we can't both be right). And I appreciate you showing that a lot of the arguments against your position are historically ignorant and attributing motive.
Praise God for filling you with His Spirit Gavin! You are a gift to us all. Thank you so much for speaking up and speaking out. As a pastor who has been grappling with Genesis 1-11 for the last 20 years, it has painful to see so few conservative pastors or theologians going public and speaking up about these important but not 1st order matters. Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful responses to quick judgments and over simplistic exegesis.
When trying to understand Genesis 1, why is God's explanation always seemingly neglected. In the giving the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20, God said, "SIX DAYS you shall labor, and do all your work,” then He said, “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” How were the Israelites to understand the meaning of SIX DAYS as it relates to labor and creation, which seem to be connected? If "six days" meant one thing in verse 9 and another thing in verse 11, how could they make sense of this? They could not wait thousands of years for the "church fathers" to weigh in on this.
Amen. Also the sabbath being celebrated every week. God's word is clear. The serpent comes in and asks questions that beguile minds and suddenly it's a "confusing" issue. Nothing new under the sun.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
Exactly. Nobody engaged in this debate was actually there when it happened. Only God was. What he has given in scripture is sufficient for his salvific purposes. But he didn't give us everything. And how we read (interpret) the beginning chapters of Genesis are arguable, not settled. It's very possible that the interpretations of men are all wrong, not exactly the way that God accomplished these things. Our physical universe, space, and time are mysterious in themselves. The Divine is even more so. Now, we see as through a glass darkly.
You say nobody was there when creation happened. I disagree. You see God in His wisdom wanted us to see His "eternal power, being known by what was made, so that men are without excuse." When you see the sun, you see it as it was 8 minutes ago. It takes light 8 minutes to reach us on earth. You are looking at the past not the present. The deeper we look into space the further back in time or the past we see. We actually get to peer all the way back to the origin of space, time, and energy. This creation event demands a trancendant creator who all powerful, all knowing, has wisdom like a craftsman before he makes the first cut. He is also personable, to let us enjoy this earth He fashioned for us to live and experience Him. Everything is just right in our universe so we can experiance life and have this conversation.
@@jonpadilla4321 Men have looked at the universe. There is no beginning when they look, just more. God has curtained certain things off from us. Only He knows the beginnings and the ends. I agree, rejoice in what we have, and He will reveal what is for our good. Speculation leads only to men in dispute.
@@stephenbailey9969 you say men see no begining when they look. I agree that we can not peer behind the curtain at the exact mombet of creation. Our physics do not work, at it all becomes speculation at this point. But a fraction of a second before this moment he lets us look behind the cutain and see the birth of creation. He gives us a a baby picture of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. He knew we would study and observe his creation and he built physical laws and order it so we would could see his handiwork. For all practical purposes he does let us see the begining even though we are confined to the dimensions of space and time.
The shortcut to discrediting Ken Ham is his final statement in his debate with Bill Nye. He was asked what evidence would ever change his mind and he said there's no evidence that would change his mind. That reveals his epistemic position is not the rational evidentialism of Paul in 1 Cor 15. Farewell Ken Ham.
We are just starting our verse by verse on Genesis and just came to a similar conclusion but without your valuable quotes of church fathers. Thanks for this clear perspective.
Great video. I recently did a study on the Hebrew translation based on the work of David Instone Brewer, and I came away thinking that in the original language, the global flood view is much less certain than most of us realize. It was surprising to see how much more open the Hebrew is to the local flood interpretation compared to the English translations.
prior atheist and evolution advocate, i don't think anything will sway my opinion on being a young earth creationist, i'm glad you don't push it to say its a necessary belief, but i'm not convinced of natural evolution.
This discussion here isn’t about theistic evolution, which I believe is a huge error. This is a discussion of the age of the earth, which isn’t as great of an issue. So you can believe old-earth and we don’t need to be so divisive about it as ppl like Ken Ham are. With theistic evolution, I think we can and should be more dogmatic about.
Hi Gavin, I'm an Orthodox Christian married to a protestant. My (also protestant) family as well as my wife's family all believe in young earth creationism. These videos have been really beneficial. I've believed in an old earth view for a while. I greatly appreciate especially your discussion of the development of this idea, as well as how many notable Protestants didn't believe in 19th century-style young earth creationism. I am wondering if you have any book recommendations on Augustine's favorable reception in the east? As I am sure you are aware, Orthodoxy is split on St. Augustine's theology, and have been at least since the mid-20th century. I'd be very interested to learn more about how other Eastern fathers viewed his work especially!
Reading how others interpret the Scriptures can be very helpful, but at the end of the day they are not infallible like the Bible. I think a lot of people are missing something when they read the first part of Genesis. It states that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. A point in time? Or a point before time? Who knows? Then we have the curious statement that the ‘earth was without form and void’! Why? Why didn’t God create the earth perfectly at this time? Mystery! And had a vast time passed between the first creation of the heavens and the earth, and this ‘forming and fashioning’ of the earth as a home for mankind which the Bible says God then took 6 days to do? Who knows? But something is definitely going on here, that is why we need to be humble. When we consider the ‘ages’ of rocks etc, we need even more humility, for in creating the earth originally, everything was of the same age wasn’t it, or was it? And if scientists talk of the ‘age’ of certain rocks etc, aren’t they made up of particles of other substances of perhaps varying ‘ages’? A rock is only a conglomeration of sand, in the case of sandstone isn’t it? And other types, igneous for instance, didn’t start out ready made, but formed from the melting of other rocks and materials. So ‘ages’ surely are a bit of of a puzzle. I for one do not understand how science can ‘age’ rocks when they are formed this way. I am not arguing against rocks being millions of years old, for in the original creation they are mature ‘rocks’ aren’t they? So much mystery! And we shall perhaps never be able to reconcile all the puzzling facts. So science can show its findings and the Bible have the infallible explanation for our existence. Either one does not have to exclude the other!
I’m a new follower after seeing you on The Remnant Radio. As a homeschool mom I have so many thoughts here. Briefly: - thank you! - Ken Ham has a huge corner of the HS/Christian market. Probably more than a corner. Any resources for families, kids, curriculum that teaches differently? - I have no doubt this is how Ken Ham has gained so much traction in this conversation (via homeschool/family curriculum). If we don’t have other resources we can’t easily teach anything different. I see a beautiful opportunity for someone. 😊 - Lastly, your humility and humble approach is so refreshing! I believe the gospel is steeped in mystery from beginning to end. It's important we all learn to say "I dont know." Thank you for leading by example!
Thank you for taking the time to answer! I will check it out. My son is very science minded and I have always been hesitant to teach Young Earth straight but it's everywhere. This is helpful! @@TruthUnites
@@ME-hsmomof4 I'm a homeschool dad, though my wife has done most of the research for curriculum. I've wondered the same thing recently as I'm an OEC. I always figured I would just tell my kids when they're older that some people think the Bible is saying YEC and some, like me, OEC and leave it at that unless they have more questions.
@@telleroftheone my kids are elementary age and home schooled. I’m YEC but am very open that there are many interpretations of Genesis. My main concern is they retain their faith in Christ and the resurrection. If they decided the flood was not global, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Citing church authorities who don’t agree with a literal reading doesn’t demonstrate that the literal reading is incorrect, or that you aren’t doing eisegesis. Also, where the light came from is rather plain from the rest of the Bible. God is the one who is light, who wraps himself in unapproachable light, etc. - God was the source of light. When visible light was created, God’s glory became visible. As with Day 6, when God delegates ruling authority to humanity, on Day 4 God delegated light bringing to creatures made to carry on the task. Further, comparing genesis 2 to 1 with regard to plants - it’s different plants that had not yet come up. God creates grain and fruit trees in 1, but the small plants of the field were to wait because “God had not yet caused it to rain and there was no man to work the ground.” It’s an indication that aspects of the creation come about in and through human involvement in the work, as God gives the growth. Yes, Augustine was wrong, Athanasius, Machen, et. al. were wrong. Why do we work six days and rest on the seventh each week? Because God did. And that logic carries forth everywhere the days are referenced in the Bible. That the text isn’t immediately easy to grasp in how it worked doesn’t mean that it’s unclear with regard to the time frame.
I think it would be very interesting if you responded to Christian Combatives 20 minutevideo about your flood concerns. His focus is on the theological issues a local vs global flood raises and I think interacting with his points would be a great way to move the conversation forward since his objections are some of the strongest and best thought out of any that I've seen so far.
thanks for the suggestion -- are his arguments different from those I already addressed in my follow-up video? I went through 6 common responses there.
@@TruthUnites yes. His main concerns are things like the new testament references to it, the extent of the flood corresponding to the extent of the covenant (small flood, small covenant) and what the connections between the flood and baptism can tell us about it. His response video is about 20 mins long as opposed to the initial video(s) you might have seen which were watching through your video. The shorter response has much more condensed arguments and points.
I discovered Christian Combatives because of the Truth Unites local flood video and thought his response was literally moving the conversation forward….he is or recently was a military chaplain so he can be a little different the way military folks can be…but he walked the conversation forward a few steps. Example: if the flood was local, was God’s promise afterwards just for that local area. Why did God cause the flood? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just move Noah and the family and the animals to safe ground rather than move them all to the ark? What about tectonic plate shifting to explain those pesky lemurs and koalas?
@@onepingonlyplease Yeah I really appreciated that he was genuinely focusing on what he thought the central theological issues are, not speculating about motive, or mudslinging in any way. I really hope Gavin can maybe do a discussion with him, or a response video because I think the two of them are both intelligent, charitable, and genuinely Christian. Their discussion of these questions would be very fruitful and insightful.
I hope they do a video! I’m certain that the first thing Christian Combatives (Paladin Actual) will ask Dr Ortlund will be “what in the text leads you to believe it was a local flood?” Not if the text allows for a local flood. I want to hear Dr Ortlund respond and keep moving this train forward!!
Thanks for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. I particularly appreciate your thoughts on opposing the "...everybody who doesn't agree with this way..." mentality. The same attitude is present across a wide range of issues. Perhaps we should all take time to examine our own "hard lines" that we have drawn so large as to obscure Jesus.
I do respect you Gavin, but I think Ham is right. The reason and motivation for your position seems to come from secularism and evolution. I have a really hard time respecting this approach to the Bible. The folks I personally know who flock to this are extremely liberal in politics and in their dismissing of large portions of the Bible.
The primary purpose of this particular video was to show other Christians view before evolution was even thought of. That is why Gavin focused so much on early Church Fathers. The Church was unsure of this argument long before evolution was a thought and by people that were not pressured by secularism.
You are incredibly kind and respectful to someone who is never kind and respectful. Ham has done a great deal of harm to the body of Christ as well as harming our witness. Keep up the fantastic work in your ministry.
My approach is to read Genesis and accept its message whilst acknowledging today's scientific claims without having to resolve the two. Paradox can be quite comforting.
I do something similar. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.
I’ll take the Bible as it says and the theory of evolution as what scientists say…neither are compatible or intertwinable, why cant we just accept what the Bible says, why cant we be proud of Scripture and Tradition, why must we appease secularists that dont care for us. We witness to them, not appease them.
I think you mean, being able to say “I don’t know” is comforting. Paradox is discomforting because it requires God to be either illogical or dishonest. But having the humility to admit one’s limitations and trusting the solution to God is what brings comfort.
Well done Gavin. Very useful to restate your points several times, building upon them- just like Ken Ham does. I also confess I used to teach AIG material as though it was essential gospel truth. Also also you remind me of my mere infantile exposure to church fathers.
@@bettytigers I know I know.... It's just hard with this guy because he's not just wrong... He's actually a liar. After I got a degree in geology I looked at what AIG said about the fossil/rock record... They're liars, they're not just mistaken or coming to different conclusions about science, they are actively dealing in half-truths and lies to manipulate people who don't know any better
Great response. I appreciate that you addressed the slippery slope accusation. It’s a very common objection that doesn’t acknowledge the complexity of interpreting the Bible
I appreciate the videos. My background is being influenced primarily by the young earth creation focus. I think we all agree on Genesis 1:1. As I read and listen I agree that we should be able to have discussions and disagreements about the specific details and time frame and still maintain respect.
Exactly, YEC and OEC both agree God made the heavens and the earth. We just disagree about *how and when.* It’s really not an issue to disfellowship over imo
We are all united in the spirit, we shouldnt disfellowship over sth like that @jncon8013 I'd argue most things aren't worth disfellowing over. The theif on the cross is our fellow and yet he probably had a very limited theology. That said, we should absolutely stand for truth when it presents itself absolutely, like for instance, now we have the full revelation of scripture and we know there will be new heavens and new earth so we should stand for that 100% but we shouldn't disfellow someone that may disagree if they haven't been exposed to that knowledge yet or are extremely young in the faith Only if they present bad fruit, i.e. they start rejecting clear evidence But the yec oec debate doesn't have clear evidence so while we can discuss it I strongly think polemics should be avoided :) Just my personal opinion Ultimately this will all pan out how God wants, what matters is that we are faithful to him in spirit even with limited knowledge of the faith (like the thief on the cross or like cornelius) or the OT saints as well! We have varying responsibilities (based on the knowledge each of us has) (some are mentally disabled and so I strongly believe God has nuance for them on judgement day) God is all knowing, reveals all hidden secrets on day of judgment, is all just!
And, ofcourse, Jesus is the way the truth the life and no one will reach the father but by him. It's just how the mechanics of that pan out that we have to entrust to God
There is nothing wrong with your statement about people just being ignorant and never studying these topics, because it's true. I fit into this category for many years on many topics. Your also right about some believers acting as if their views hold as much authority as scripture and is part of it. I witnessed this for most of my life being raised in pentecostal churches and schools on the topic of dispensationalism. They would act as if any other view was new age heresy. Once I started studying and learning on my own and stopped being ignorant excepting everything, I changed several of my views on creation, and eschatology. I still hold to the gifts of the spirit, tongues, miracles, etc, but rebuke and hurt when people use these things to take advantage of people and make a mockery out of it. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for all you do, I enjoy your videos so much!
Thank you for addressing this. You are right, it becomes a stumbling block. I felt that way when I became a Christian. I felt "browbeaten" into believing this super-literal interpretation. It got me so mentally frustrated, and took away from other areas of my faith where I needed to grow.
Pastorally, I have found that most people want plain, simple, and easy answers. Few desire to wrestle for the truth. It easier to accept a simple solution and just fight for it than it is to think deeply and humbly. Those who seek find... only few seek and therefore few find.
I think you hit it right on the head. I believe most Christians are content with the fortune cookie version of their beliefs and it is rare to find those who are willing to wrestle with the Scriptures. I see Ken Ham as being the one who provides the bare minimum to these much deeper theological discussions while Gavin Ortlund and others are providing deep theological study on these matters. The question we must always ask ourselves is, are we content with the quick google search or are we the one’s who will sometimes have multiple commentaries open along with several translations of the Scriptures in order to get to the bottom of subject? I know for me, the latter describes my studying.
100% I stand with you on your final points here. I tend to lean young-earth (but not with a great degree of confidence, and I'm certainly open to many possibilities in this area). However, I am definitely opposed to the enemy's attempts to divide and weaken the church through unnecessary insistence on this issue. I know many dear brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree about it, and are able to get past that disagreement to remain in fellowship with one another. That should be the case for all of us.
Two things to consider: Did death enter the world before or after sin? (Is sin the cause of death?) and Hebrews 11:1-3 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Did it really take billions of years for God's Word to effect the earth and universe (along with death piling up throughout the world before the first sin)?
Agreed. Neither did the person trying to answer his critiques of the Cessationist film. 😬 I tried watching both of those interviews and ended up complaining to my phone screen, "You didn't even respond to Gavin's point!!!" 😅
@@AndreaWhoGoesByAndrea Glad I wasn't the only one, Andrea. I kept waiting...and waiting... Also, I'm in neither camp on these issues that have nothing to do with my salvation. In fact, I lean more on the literal 24-hour creation days. The flood not being global makes sense. I also think Calvinism is non-Biblical, and very destructive. Uh-oh. Christ died for me. Calvinists are saved by Grace, through Christ. Does anything else matter?
@@thomasglass9491 Ah, another one that hasn't listened. 🙂 No - Ken Ham, as well as you it seems - were simply ignoring everything Gavin anticipated. They acted as if he made no mention of it. I just hope you lie out of ignorance, and not out of malice. Because lie you do.
Yeah I think it shouldn't be ignored that the ages of people when down drastically after the flood. And I kind of wish Christian scientists would address the expanding earth model, since our science overlords who expect us to appeal to authority wont look into it. I do not think it is a coincidence that the continental crusts form a perfect sphere if you make the earth shrink at oceanic boundaries. That is too many coincidences to ignore for me.
"These are not trivial points but major 'deconversion' talking points." Yes, and it's made much worse that the church is having trouble even dialoguing on these points. Plenty of people don't want to be part of a group where you can't question things without being attacked.
@@PreciousMeddler I think with a thorough honest dialogue Christians could actually resolve 85% of the mysteries presented by Genesis and modern geology and anthropology.
Let's face it, Ham and his organization have absolutely made an idol out of their young-earth creationist obsession with the length of time of the Creation days - to the point of maligning those with different views on this specific topic (TIME day length), asserting Christians that disagree don't take Scripture seriously or are merely trying to accommodate Darwinism, etc. - which is absolutely false! But they, like so many other groups that are hyper-focused on a side issue, waste FAR too much time and cause so much division over this secondary, non-doctrinal issue! What does Titus 3:9 say? "But avoid foolish CONTROVERSIES, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
Excellent video! Starting with the text requires asking the questions of the text. The one thing that Ken Ham does not do is attempt to understand the text in context. He completely disregards ancient worldview as a grid to understand ancient Scripture.
Thank you for a this video on the Genesis debate. I have studied and researched various interpretations. You used the word “browbeaten.” That is exactly how I feel in the church pew with respect to this issue. Any teaching is reduced to YEC and evolution, extremely simplistic. Thank you for putting into words how I experience this issue in the church.
Gavin, when I listened to your initial response last fall I came away feeling like your view starts outside of Scripture and tries to reconcile Scripture with scientific claims or you appeal to church fathers to justify your belief. I was hoping to hear you put forth a Scriptural argument for your view.
“No man comes to the Father but by Me.” Seems absolute. Also, though I believe Ken Ham is sincere and a brother in Christ, I do not look to him for interpretations about Genesis. I have spent maybe an hour’s worth of time looking into some of his teachings. I spent more time listening to his debate with Bill Nye, I’ve heard him in person, and felt like there were big portions he has either not considered or refuses to consider. He says some good things, mainly that salvation comes only by faith in the death, resurrection, and return of Jesus Christ and repentance of sin.
... Didymus the Blind... was... Clear on his view.... that made me chuckle, Gavin I feel like you should have said "no pun intended" there. thanks for the video, I love the effort you put into your videos, I know it's not easy packing so much into short form videos.
One thing that disturbs me about this thinking regarding "Interpretation of Scriptures with no outward sources" is that it could prime us for becoming unable to validate scripture based on outside evidence. Science, philosophy, and archeology are just some feilds that can serve to offer a lot of evidence and validation for scripture. This is not to say that our faith is merely rooted in the latest archeological study. But, as you noted, Dr. Ortlund, we ultimately all Interpretate scripture through the outside source of our own perception on reality. Science and philosophy are disciplines which have alwsys been fueled because of thinkers wanting to interpret scripture, not in spite of them.
We throw terms like “false teacher” and “heretic” at each other so easily these days. Whether you’re right or wrong on this issue, that type of accusation is uncalled for.
Well, in my "little orbit", I read lately, Isa. 45:18, "...He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited...". Common sense does not see the earth as 4 or more billions of years old, with man being inhabited only in the last 6,000 years or so.
"Interpreting Genesis figuratively? That means the whole Bible is up for grabs!" Allow me to run a parallel argument "Interpret Joshua 10:13 [the passage that says viewers saw the sun stop in the sky] non-literally? That means the whole Bible is up for grabs!" At the end of the day, our first inquiry is not whether we want to apply literal or figurative interpretations to a text, but simply what the text itself intends to communicate.
I don't have a problem with miracles, so I don't have a problem with the Sun stopping in the sky. The creation story, however, is not a single instance miracle, but a general explanation of several phenomena, with very much physical evidence in opposition. God is not the author of confusion, so a discrepancy between scripture & science is not a discrepancy at all, in my opinion. The fact, to my mind, is that we're obviously misinterpreting one or the other. Both are true, but in what way(s)? I always start from that point, though. The Bible I'd true & physical evidence & principles of physics are also real.
@@bnjmnwst the point is the sun stopping assumes the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the earth revolving around the sun as modern science tells us
@@Christian-ut2sp I never thought of it that way. I know about celestial mechanics, but I would still describe that happening in the same way that they did.
No, that's not true that the whole Bible is up for grabs. That's an emotional, uninformed reaction based upon your desire to be right. There are many genres of texts in the Bible. Some are obviously historical, other are not.
I'm currently sympathetic to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration view that Inspiring Philosophy has been highlighting. I think it's based mostly on work by John Walton, but also some of Michael Heiser's Divine Council work. Ultimately I was a Young Earth proponent in my youth. I'm now only adamant about God created the Heaven's and the Earth.. Everything else is interesting but not essential. Our faith is based on an Empty Tomb in Jerusalem. That's what is essential. I don't find the YEC account to be impossible, but at this point I think there's too much missing context for us to know with certainty. I don't find YEC dogmatists to be particularly persuasive, but I also have strong doubts about anti-supernatural explanations of cosmogeny.
Realizing that early church fathers didn't believe in literal 24 hour days and young earth creationism only becoming popular in the early 20th century helped me get out of this mentality you're talking about. Thanks for bringing this issue up, a lot of people need to hear it.
@@heather602 St. Augustine. I think that's all I need to say. And you're using a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, to say that the Early Church did not disagree on creation.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It was very helpful and encouraging, and I do hope you will continue talking about this. Christians need to hear about these things and about the church fathers you mentioned. I want to get your book on Augustine Side note: I came across a CZcams video with Ken Hamm, Josh McDowell, Ray Comfort, Hugh Ross, and I can’t remember who else. But Ken Hamm was attacking Hugh Ross’s beliefs and criticizing his book on Genesis. It was very clear that Ken has a problem with pride. I pray that God will humble him and all the other church leaders who are accusing their brothers and sisters in Christ of being heretics for believing in an old earth rather than a young earth; that the six days of creation were long periods of time rather than 24 hours. There is no reason to attack people for something that is not a salvation issue, or a different gospel. I appreciate your insights, and your humble response. Btw when I was a little girl I recall my grandmother listening to your grandfather’s radio program, Haven of Rest…I think it was called.
Ken has a problem with wrong teaching. Ross's book denies the flood and I'm pretty sure he believes in evolution too. the Bible does not teach these things.
@BillMurrey Hugh Ross does not deny the flood! He believes it destroyed all of mankind and a huge area of land - most of the Middle East, but not the whole planet. And Ross doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution. Please check facts before commenting...
@@BillMurreyHugh Ross does NOT believe in evolution. He believes in 6 long periods of time, rather than 6 literal 24 hour days. And I did not come across anything that alludes to him denying the flood. If any fault in in his beliefs, it would be relying on science to explain everything rather allowing God room to operate outside of science.
I was an atheist who came to Christ in my twenties with a combination of Old Earth and Young Earth teachers. The young earth/universe theology was interesting to me at first, but when I realized that I would have to believe that God created a universe with a mere "appearance of age," I became very skeptical of young universe claims. The young universe answers for why God would create a universe that is not what it appears to be were completely unavailing. I also saw that young earth teachers like Ken Ham were often insulting and dismissive of those who disagreed with them. I saw the young earth creationist "arguments" were too often veiled or overt insults, mere rhetoric, or obvious informal fallacies. Once I heard a John MacArthur radio broadcast on Genesis in which he referred to Christians who do not believe in a 24-hour "day" in Genesis as "so-called Christians." I was deeply saddened. Why would anyone from the pulpit utter such a thing against someone he doesn't even know? I'm merely a "so-called Christian" because I think each creation day is a long period? I saw this more often from prominent young universe creationists who whose methods of preaching and teaching were rhetoric, insult, and dismissiveness to suppress those who disagree with them. I also saw that many in the young-universe community were emotionally tied to their commitments, so much so that they were unable to listen. And now those who do not listen teach their children to act the same way. I have seen it. I fear for our children at the hands of emotionally committed young earth parents who are passing their children into the hands of the Ken Hams of the world who think insult, rhetoric, and informal fallacies are acceptable methods of engaging fellow believers and their ideas. I hope the young universe parents who are still open-minded, gentle and respectful, will help others be the same way. As I studied more, I found that the old-earth teachers were like Gavin: open-minded, willing to listen, never attacking anyone. Other old universe creationists like Hugh Ross and John Lennox, never insulted anyone. They just present their cases logically and biblically, and where scientific matters were at issue, they were scientifically rigorous. The old universe scholars seemed much more like Christ than their young universe brethren. Believe the universe is young or old--you're my sister or brother in Christ no matter what. But please act like it. I promise if you and I speak on why I believe the universe is billions of years old and the six periods of creation in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour periods, I will listen to you and never insult or dismiss you. I will treat you respectfully, and I'll present what I know and learn what you may teach me. This is how we grow as disciples of Christ. We can do this. I'm thankful Gavin is so clear on his work of uniting us. We need it!
Ken Ham has painted himself into a corner... And it's a corner that he likes. His entire reputation and status revolve around his being 'right' about 24hr days. Look at the huge amounts of money that have been invested in his organisations! He has a big fan club. He will always hammer his views because thinking outside his self imposed box would undermine his status.
As you say "huge amounts of money that have been invested in his organisations"..........totally agree ! As they say in the classics.....Just follow the money ! He has too much to lose.
Augustine had things wrong sometimes. He sinfully left his girlfriend after having a child with her and took another lover out of wedlock. He was not infallible. He was a human. He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist, and the necessity of infant baptism. My point is, he made plenty of mistakes.
Ken Ham will never change. He’s staked way too much money on museums and lectures. That’s the only thing people look to him for, and he’s not even particularly good when it comes to his debates. It is against every instinct in his flesh to humbly admit he might be wrong about this.
Ham doesn't think we should take the Bible literally but rather we should interpret it according to its genre and taking into account figures of speech. If you find "the four corners of the earth" in Genesis 1-2 that might be a problem but if you find it in 'visionary literature ' like Revelation it's not.
@@bettyblowtorthing3950 You are really hung up on that phrase, and I'm betting you don't even know what it means. You're either a troll or someone who can only keep one sentence in your head. Go ahead and explain it and how it relates to the Bible.
@@BillMurrey Amos 9:6NASB, The Lord walks upon the vaulted dome of heaven. In ancient Israel, and in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria etc, people believed that the sky was blue because it was made of water. And they refer to this as the waters above. The waters were held up by a vaulted dome in the sky known as the firmament in the KJV. And the earth rested upon pillars. 1st Samuel 2:8. The vaulted dome of the sky was understood to be solid in some sense. Job 37:18, Exodus 24:10 describes it similar or as a pavement of sapphire stone, similar to in the book of Ezekiel. Thick clouds veil him so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven. Job 22:14.
Does your theological triage not find it suspicious when an interpretation requires the individual chapters ,not books but chapters are each different genres? The notion that for thousands of years Jews where reading that text preserved as it was together and expected to understand its genre changed between individual chapters is pretty silly. It sounds like nonsense that gives too much credit to the compilation theory of the text that was created to discredit the bibles authority and make you believe its all made up nonsense trying to synchronize the religious beliefs towards 2 different gods into one. Did Augestine believe Adam was an apes child? Did he believe Dinosaurs walked the earth for millions of years before mankind or did he believe Dragons lived in his very own day and still roamed the earth? So he he overthought the issue of light before stars as if such things would be an issue for God. Why would time be the thing we think is not ordinary in that text versus the nature of creation itself that is what's un-ordinary and special and unique during this time? So for 3 days their was light that was left unordered/organized by stars or the moon or sun. Then God created sources for all that light to give them order. No matter your view I think it's very clear God's act of creation and the universe was in a special state for this passage, I don't see where time is implied to be abnormal.
I've been praying for Gavin Ortland and Ken Ham to finally have the opportunity to debate each other in-person. I'm not picking sides, I just want to see what would come out of it.
My problem with the idea of the six days of creation meaning more than six days isn't the fact that the word day has more than one meaning because it does in English and in the Bible. The English definition is based on the biblical usage. My problem is the context of Genesis Chapter One points to a 24-hour period. “There was evening, and there was morning, the first day,” Genesis 1:5. That seems to define the first day as a 24-hour period. If it doesn't, then I haven't had that explained to me or shown how it doesn't. To me, the usage on Genesis seems to confine the concept of a day to the 24-hour period we’re familiar with and exclude the concept that means more than that. Most people appealing the concept of a longer period of time refer to other usages of the word day that is not used in Genesis 1, like the phrase, “in his day,” or “in the day of,” which implies more than one 24-hour period. Those are accurate statements but not applicable to Genesis 1. I just need this explained and demonstrated to me for me to consider it an honest and valid idea.
Stand fast in the truth. I believe God does mean creation was literally 6 days. However I do believe there may be a spiritual layer that the 6 literal days point to 6,000 years in which God will fulfill all things. With the 7th day, as the Sabbath, representing the 1,000 year millennium. This could be one reason why God doesn't mention evening and morning on the last day. Because for believers who take part in the resurrection, our rest will be permanent in that sense, even into the new heavens and new earth.
@@heather602we've been in the millennium for almost two thousand years. Nero was the beast. everyone knew it. it's why different translation used 666 and 616 for the applicable numerology on it. Christ is already reigning and will not return in physical form until "every enemy is under his footstool" it's the churches job now to change the world and reach the masses, not wishfully think we're just going to be beamed up and rescued was a tribulation.
@@heather602 take God at His word for literal 6 day creation and Christ's words that literally the generation wouldn't pass before that time. He's not a false prophet. so it happened.
So, here are some thoughts to consider re: "day" meaning "a 24-hour period." 1) Our insistence that the word "day" be thought of in terms of hours and seconds is culture-bound. Not all cultures today, and certainly not all cultures throughout history thought in terms of what we might call "clock-time." Other conceptions of a day are possible, such as a period of work and rest. These conform to what we might call "social-time." If these other conceptions are allowed into the conversation, then it becomes possible to see God's workdays in the creation week as being "normal days" consisting of periods of work and rest, but not necessarily knowing how many hours they took. 2) Much gets made of the definition of the word "day" in these discussions, but what about the word "hour?" What is an hour? Why speak of 24 of them? If we're defining an hour as "1/24 portion of a day" and a day as "a period of 24 hours" then the definitions become tautological and tell us nothing about the length of time involved. If we want to speak of hours in terms of our observation of the sun or stars, then we hit the conundrum of how to define an hour prior to day 4 of the creation week. Most YEC responses to this issue I've seen involve the supposition of some sort of "sun-substitute" existing on days 1-3, allowing for us to reckon time on the "normal" 24-hour scale. But then you have the problem that the text says that the sun, moon, and stars were created specifically for the purpose of marking out time, implying that this function wasn't being fulfilled prior to their creation. 3) The sixth day is a bit of an issue for the 24-hour view. While it's certainly possible that all the things the text says happened on that day happened in a period of 24 hours, it seems unlikely. Adam had to be created, be placed in the garden, have the animals brought before him, name them, be put into a deep sleep by God, have Eve formed from his rib, wake and name her. Also, when Adam sees Eve, he proclaims "at last!" This seems to imply that his wait for a suitable companion had been lengthy. These are just a few of the issues that could be presented for a strict 24-hour view. There are others, but these are enough to show that the 24-hour view has difficulties that often aren't considered as deeply today as they were in the past, due to the rhetoric of the 24-hour view being the "obvious" or "plain" reading of the text.
@@gardyloogubbins God defines each day in the text. "Evening and morning." Adam doesn't say "at last" in Hebrew. Only the NIV seems to add these words.
I appreciate your voice! You didn’t back down but speak in love. Blessings! I am standing with you in this. The struggle for the faith of our young people is real!
I used to be a young earth creationist who followed Ken Ham's material very closely. I know their arguments and talking points backwards and forwards. What I can tell people is that since I've stepped away from all of that my relationship with God and my walk with Jesus have grown immensely. YEC can be so devoted to seeing history and science in Genesis that they blind themselves to the powerful theological truths that the book is trying to convey. I don't care if people believe in a young earth with no evolution as long as that belief isn't inhibiting their ability to also see the profound and beautiful theology God is communicating. Unfortunately, for most, the literalistic reading seems to cause then to ignore symbolic truths that don't even contradict YEC.
Another thing that never seems to trickle down is that the OT, the entire Bible really, portrays a 3 tiered Ancient Near Eastern cosmology. So unless you’re gonna throw out our entire modern understanding of the solar system, you’re probably virtue signaling.
I was literally thinking this when I saw ApoloJedi harping on Gavin on X. Like bro, if you were as consistent as you thought you were you’d literally believe in a crystalline dome around the earth.
@@axderka they act like ancient cosmology doesn't exist and the crystalline dome is somewhere on the edge of the universe or something weird. Don't ask too many questions.
@@axderka For real lol, the bible is pre-scientific. Just let it be what it is. It's called accommodation, it's been around in the church for a long time. There's also a fine-line between pre-scientific and just dumb--which ancient people were not. The biblical authors knew that dead people stayed dead and that oceans don't randomly split, you don't need the enlightenment to know that. Ancient people also cared about history long before science came around---so none of those critiques work lol. Just let it go guys or have the balls to be consistent.
I am 100% sympathetic to your point that a framework view can reasonably arise from the text. Is there an audio format work that youd point to where you or someone else goes through verse by verse & shows how that actually works?
I agree with Gavin. We should not fight over this issue, but I love friendly discussions. I wish Ken Ham were as generous as Gavin on this issue. But, as I see it, the most natural reading of Genesis 1 is a six-day creation account. Still, people like Dr. Hugh Ross make a fair case for an Old Earth Creation account for Genesis 1. Also, I believe the Ante-Nicene Fathers' view of Scripture was much more sound than Augustine's or Origin's. The Ante-Nicene Fathers took a more serious view of the Scriptures than Augustine or Origin, and while the allegorical method eventually took over, the more serious view still held influence among the later Church Fathers even after Augustine.
Thank you, Gavin, for the way you’ve addressed this issue. I still hold to a young earth view, but as a mother, especially a homeschooling mother, Ive been burdened about the way my kids understand these issues, especially in light of the deconstruction movement. I want my kids to understand that the truth of God’s Word doesn’t rise or fall depending on how you understand these secondary issues.
Beautifully said
I’m in the same position, Amy!
I'm glad disagreements on this important topic can be discussed affably!
Well done, mom!
Very nicely stated! May God grant you wisdom as you educate your children.
Dr. Ortlund, you're really an excellent example of how to dialogue. I'm still not convinced of evolution or old-earth creationism, but I don't see how Ken Ham's attitude towards others are helping the YEC's case. Keep up the good work sir!
Evolution is the mechanism through which God created complex life. Denying reality only makes Christians look silly and uneducated. God bless
Ken Ham has a lot at stake if he’s wrong in his interpretation so he’s going to double down on his position. Quite frankly he has to.
Refreshing to see young earth creationists in the comments that are comfortable to "agree to disagree"! I think this is very healthy for the body of Christ, at least in these secondary matters.
You nailed it! Ken Ham has always come off to me as a name-caller!
Ken Ham has the superior argument, playing by run-of-the-mill Protestant rules. I'm a devout Protestant, but, I'm not wholly onboard with "each day of creation being truly 24 hours", though perhaps its true. And I think this particular issue should just be argued in Christian charity. This is not about the historicity of God Himself, salvation, or good and evil. I do think that using this argument primarily to shove in Evolution is wrong. Don't pretend to care about this argument, if what you really care about is peddling Evolution. With that said, I don't think Ken Ham has to act like hyperbole isn't anywhere in his Bible; I also don't think Ham just has to act conceited against Ortlund, since Ham's argument is better. Its hard to imagine Ortlund is some kind of dishonest actor, or heretic.
One of the many things I appreciate about Gavin is that it is so obvious that he genuinely cares about people with whom he disagrees. He values how he comes across to his opponents just as much as he values his arguments against them.
A beautiful display of imaging Christ. I'm very thankful for this example
He's still wrong though....
@@ameliacoburn4787 about?
I couldn’t agree more! Such evidence of a heart that is more concerned with following Jesus and loving others than “owning” his opponents.
@@jessestone117 apparently about nothing, considering she hasn't replied at all.
This is the best response I've heard to Ken Ham's assertion that everyone who disagrees with him "reinterprets" Scripture. This loving presentation is a great example.
You are such a breath of fresh air and your gentle spirit is truly reflective of the One you serve. Thank you Sir.
Ken Ham also starts outside the text , he brings in his western culture worldview understanding and has already determined how the text should be interpreted based on his understanding. Now that his interpretation is set ,everything else (other scripture,science)must revolve around his interpretation.
Well stated.
The word of God can either be understood or not. If not, then not only is it void, but language itself is impossible -- which is a clue to why your interpretive nihilism cannot be true.
There is so much irony in your comment. The "ancient near east cosmology" argument (which you are assuming in your comment) is an example of modernist snobbery trying to force western naturalistic worldview into both science and the Bible. One of the most important principles of biblical interpretation is its perspicuity.
@@davidrachelthigpen6498 : So, on your view, then, all scripture is equally perspicuous, and easily understood?
@@l-cornelius-dol Not all, but the flood and creation are foundationally clear. "Ancient near east cosmology" interpretations are a way to muddy, not clear up.
It grieves me that this kind of black/white, overly-simplistic, and schismatic thinking has obtained such influence in the evangelical world. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund for speaking up on this!
Yes, it is a stain in the Body of Christ, a modern slam of others brought about in the 1960s and fed too often today.
Evolution = buncha death before fall, orthodoxy theology for centuries= death after fall. Nothing thats not black and white about it. It’s impossible for you to even find a sound exegesis that harmonizes evolution and Genesis, no one’s buying it.
The problem isn’t that there’s black-and-white thinking. The problem is the choice of issues to which to apply that kind of thinking. There are issues that require such thinking, particularly the nature of God and how we must approach Him.
Great comment!
As a yec, the agonizing part is how accusatory and paranoid many of my fellow yec brothers are. I’ve come to really appreciate the careful study many oec do and humility it takes to just admit we don’t know. I for one advocate for this approach. Grace and Christian discussion rather than yelling compromise at the first hint of disagreement
Great response Gavin. I have your book on Augustine’s view of creation and it has been such a blessing. I struggled for years from elementary to the end of high school in regards to science “vs” the Bible, but your channel, Augustine’s work, as well as the channel Inspiring Philosophy has helped me so much. Thank you! And I agree that the stories of people leaving the faith over science need to end.
Unfortunately, people don't leave the church over faith vs. science. It is abandoning the authority of the Word of God. Abandoning the clear teaching of Genesis 1-11 only feeds that exact problem. God moves in peoples hearts. Never compromise his word. God says give the "truth in love." Love without truth is powerless and quite unloving.
Anti-intellectualism is a strong component of many ministries and denominations. It was a huge contributor to the theological bondage that held sway over me for several years at the beginning of my walk. Keep educating yourselves folks. Reading can seriously damage your ignorance. Thank you Gavin for taking the time to address this and please continue to suggest reading material.
My heart is IFB, but my education and intellect always put me at odds with those around me. Outside that movement, there’s too much tolerance for heterodox teaching. I look forward to heaven because I can’t feel at home in any of the churches in my area.
Is it "anti-intellectualism" that is a strong component of many ministries and denominations, or a rejection of the secular humanist worldview which dominates the public academy and from which its scholarship and conclusions are directly derived?
@@williamjpellas0314 Both. Calling a fundamentalist pastor an intellectual will get you either a dirty look or a laugh with a request not to insult him. For example, look at the faith-based arguments of the KJV-Onlyists who think the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek. Outside fundamentalism, look at the deplorable hermeneutics of Progressives and of Pentecostal variants such as Word-Faith and NAR.
I would say that rejecting an idea just because you can link it to another religion (such as Secular Humanism) motivates anti-intellectualism, rather than being an alternative to it. Attacking the source rather than responding to the idea itself commits ad hominem and genetic fallacies, which is an anti-intellectual practice.
Apologetics teaches you that you have more tools available than Bible quotes that some people refuse to even consider.
@@ricksonora6656 No. I attack the secular humanist worldview and the epistemic assumptions and a priori conclusions inherent in that worldview, and how that affects how people think and do their scholarship in the first place.
@@williamjpellas0314 I am speaking of the folks who believe reading anything other than the Bible is wrong. It is strong and straight up anti-intellectualism. I am not commenting on the fact that other factors are at play.
To be perfectly honest, this is my favorite title of any of your videos
😂
One thing I've learned from Gavin over the time I've listened to him is how we should humble ourselves before scripture and over issues like these. A lot of Christians and even pastors are prepared to die on certain theological hills rather than accepting some of the ambiguity in scripture. I don't think we will ever fully understand the creation of the world here on earth and do not need to become divisive over these topics. Thank you Gavin!
The church will be far better off and stronger when we finally learn to stop looking to Ken Ham as though he is an actual leader or reliable source concerning these important issues. How he ever came to have the influence he has genuinely boggles my mind.
Ham has influence because he correctly diagnoses the fulcrum of the problem. Origins. He's right when he says that Genesis 1:1 is everything. But he then insists that the only solution is a literal reading of the creation account combined with a hypercalvinist reading of Romans 5. Nuance is the enemy.
Naturalistic science overplayed its hand, creating mistrust. I have read "scientific" accounts of origins and evolution that read like fairy tales.
Wow! Some who is bringing biblical answer should be disregard? Gavin's arguments are not biblical and contradicts Sola Scriptura. Imposing his beliefs onto Scripture.
I'll go with the Bible and observable science. Death before sin in evolution. Evidence of a world wide flood across the Earth. Creationists are also PhD. from the same universities as Gavin. Amazing how you people believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection and annonment of sins, but young Earth and God doing it all in 6 days as said in Genesis is just too much. All of God's word is truth.
I couldn’t agree more.
@@thomasglass9491How does "sola scriptura" play into your argument here?
Talk about picking the wrong hill to die on, Ken Ham’s insistence on attacking fellow christians like Gavin and William Lane Craig who I would argue are doing way more to propagate the Gospel on todays intellectual battlefield than he is, is outstanding. I cringed so hard throughout Ken Ham’s debate with Bill Nye, if I wasn’t already a believer I would think christians didn’t really have a foot to stand in the modern scientific world and leave fully convinced science has debunked Christianity.
Ya. We can only hope he sees real science a day the lord convicts him to belive the truth. Becuase yec and flat earth have made christians out to be bulling fools... sad thing he fooled me around last christmas as I got fired and was depressed.
Went to bed one night remembering wat I wanted to be. (A geologist)
I gave the dream up. Life happened. And he scared me with u ain't christian unless u think this
Wonderful video, Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for your patient, informed responses on these issues.
I've seen how the attitude and statements of those like Ken Ham's remarks have been damaging to the body of Christ. This kind of response is not only helpful, but necessary.
Your humble heart, consistent demeanor, and lack of accusatory tone along with your desire to seek clarification and help explain is something this world needs a lot more of, especially in the body.
You are an exemplary teacher that resembles the teachings of our Lord. Thank you for what you do.
As a yec I’ve had to distance myself from Ken Ham. His back bitting and name calling are unchristian and unhelpful to the discussion
He's not a good teacher if he doesn't teach the truth. So explain to me how Ken's remarks have done harm to the body of Christ, and please provide examples. Because I don't think you have a clue of what you're talking about.
@@BillMurrey Ken Ham's remarks cause damage to the body of Christ by throwing accusations against other Christians of not being 'true' Christians by questioning their commitment to the scriptures.
When Ken Ham says that you must agree with his interpretation of the Bible, he equates it with the Bible itself. This kind of conflation elevates his interpretation to infallible status not unlike God Himself.
My friend, we as human beings are not infallible. Can you see why suggesting that your interpretation is infallible saying it is on par with the Bible itself could be damaging to the body of Christ?
@@Narikku If the 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree? Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible? Just happen to write it first? Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible? You think God would've thought of that? Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth? We are talking about God's authority here. Does He have absolute authority over you? If He told you to do something you thought was wrong would you do it? If God promised you a son that He was going to make a great nation from and then He told you to take your promised son and sacrifice him on an altar, would you do it? Abraham did. He respected God's authority and knew that He could do what He had promised. You think God could do the things mentioned in Genesis? Or has a group of self-worshipping scientists, who are known for making mistakes, proven God to be a liar? You believe that? I'm sorry for you if you do. Ken NEVER says "This is MY interpretation, you must obey it!" He always says "God has told us..., God says this....God has written..." He knows it's not his Bible, it's God's Bible. Most of what he teaches is about the Authority of God, not young earth, you got a problem with the authority of God? He stands on the authority of God and preaches what it says in the Bible. Show me where he doesn't preach from the Bible! Genesis is plain reading, a child can understand it, but if you want to go clipping verses from it, because you don't like what it says, go ahead. But don't be surprised if God does a little clipping Himself. As far as I can see you are being willingly ignorant regarding God's word.
@@BillMurrey> If 'other christians' are not teaching the Bible correctly then they need to be confronted with that. You agree?
Yes, my friend. This is precisely why discussion about this topic is warranted: because Ken Ham is teaching the Bible wrongly in many ways. This is one example.
> Why is Genesis the first book of the Bible?
Because that is the way that we, as a people, organized it. There is nothing in scripture that says that Genesis has to be the first Book of the Bible. There is nothing in scripture that says Revelation has to be the last. To illustrate what I mean, why is Proverbs after Psalms?
> Or is it because it lays the groundwork and foundation for everything else in the Bible?
Is Christ your foundation, or your personal view of creation?
> Do you believe that God's word is the ultimate authority on the earth.
Yes. That's why I don't trust Ken Ham at his word, and I examine every word he says with scripture. And I don't find Ken Ham's interpretations to fit well with scripture.
> Ken never says "This is my interpretation, you must obey it." He always says, "God has told us... God has written... God has says..."
Then promptly after saying these things, Ken Ham gives his interpretation of what those mean. Are you trying to tell me Ken Ham doesn't have a preferred interpretation of the Bible? That he understands it 100% correctly? Every single meaning of every single word?
There are so many questions here, my friend. I cannot answer them all. Hopefully this suffices to get my point across.
I totally agree with your position, but had always been taught the world-wide flood position growing up. I love how you bring light to these subjects in such a thoughtful and gracious way.
It is the Bible that teaches a world-wide flood. Take heart Kathleen! The world won't accept you anyway even if you compromise.
Always so thankful for the gracious and yet informed way that you handle such topics. You model Christ-likeness well Gavin.
I have been a big fan of AIG and Ken Ham. I have been following your channel for about 4 months now and you have given me some things to think about on a variety of topics. I will add this one to the list. I appreciate your humble and grace approach as you interact with people. It is a great example of how we should dialogue with those we don't agree with.
Thank you for how humbly and graciously you continue to interact with this issue, and also how you are standing firm on your position and not backing away under pressure. These videos have all been so incredibly helpful and insightful
Gavin, your videos have given such clarity to my own thoughts on these issues. I have been deconstructing in a sense my upbringing of “young earth creation or else”. There’s so much humility needed on this topic and I think your work is pointing that out. Recently I have experience such relief by acknowledging I don’t thing Genesis intends to be a scientific historical account. Honestly I think coming to Genesis with that understanding helps me see the greater theological truths that are revealed in it. All this to say, thank you, Gavin. Please keep up the good work.
I had a huge falling out at my previous job (teaching at a Christian high school) when my employers found out I didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve as historical individuals - they told me they had “never heard of a Christian who thought that.” They both went to Christian colleges. I was flabbergasted.
They were "flabbergasted" because it is hard to understand how someone can teach children to deny the plain reading of Scripture. They probably were relying on only "one book" of Creation, the True one.
@@DavidThigpen-yp7ko I teach every individual to the level I feel they are capable - the younger, the simpler. The older, the more complex and critical. My high schoolers were capable of critical thinking (especially in a supportive environment with trusted educators) where multiple perspectives could be weighed and compared. So when they asked about Genesis and creation, I encouraged them to think deeply instead of blindly accepting the “plain” reading they’d grown up with that was proving unsatisfactory when compared to the heavens, which declare the glory of God and make his invisible qualities known.
@@2wheelz3504 that’s an anemic understanding of original sin, and also an anemic understanding of the Gospel. But hey, I don’t work for you so I guess it doesn’t matter 🤷🏻♂️
@@2wheelz3504 But all you’ve done is referenced a different passage that is clearly using metaphor and literary devices to communicate a spiritual truth rather than a literal-historical one. By referencing Adam as a “type” of one to come, Paul is clearly not insisting that Jesus is somehow a clone or copy of Adam, but that he fulfills the role that Adam did - but that nowhere requires Adam be a literal historical individual. You’re referencing a metaphor to prove a historical figure existed.
My Greek and Hebrew professors also recommend a “plain” reading, but that does not mean an unthoughtful or uncritical reading. “When I was a child, I thought like a child…”
@@2wheelz3504 I’m not “making” it a metaphor as though a literal reading is the default. And reading it literally absolutely does raise spiritual issues - namely, how does the Bible interact with general revelation? Can I trust my own senses if all the evidence suggests the Earth is very old but the Bible “says” it’s young? It’s nonsensical to say “God did things in an illogical order so that we would have to guess at the legitimacy of the text.”
And frankly, I’m not being a smart ass ❤️ I’m being very serious in how I’ve used that passage, and I stand by it. You came and revived this thread to say you would have hypothetically fired me with the goal of what, exactly? You didn’t engage in good faith with what I said and try to have a meaningful discussion - you simply attacked. So… no smart-assery. Take it how it was said.
Excellent and thoughtful video. KH seems to rhink his interpretation is infallible- a dangerous assumption re the Holy Scriptures. KH dismiises other great Christian theologians throughout Church history. Sad !
Thanks for respectfully keeping your ground on this issue.
"Trying to 'Hammer' home" I see what you did there! ;)
Sorry about the cheesy dad joke. Loved the response video and I am learning a lot from these video, Dr. Ortlund.
It is so cool to me that one day you are extending a charitable hand to Rhett and Link and then the next day you are extending a charitble hand to Ken Ham and other YEC proponents. As I've said before, you are a pastor's pastor. Thank you for mentoring me from afar.
Even if Ken Hams view is correct, the way he interacts with other Christian’s leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Jason Lisle does a much better job advocating for his position that Ken Hamm does. Hamm has no bedside manner.
@@domblack6288 agreed
Ken Ham unfortunately, is a brand. He made himself into one. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. It's really difficult for anyone to interact with him honestly because of that fact. There are other creationists to look to if you want people to have actual conversations with, but Ken Ham has made his name synonymous with his position, and that's a problem.
The way he interacts with everyone is super unpleasant and unconvincing to those who aren’t already bought in.
I remember this section he had on some show called “wack an atheist”
@@koolarooo lol exactly
Excellent point -- anyone's interpretation of a text is not, cannot be infallible, but Scripture is. I think you're right that many times people get these two things tangled up. And they defend their interpretation with an intensity that's too much, don't allow anyone to disagree as if that negates the authority of Scripture. But it's not called for.
“Every act of interpretation involves our fallible brains.”
Then you can’t _know_ that Christ the God-man died for the sins of the world and rose again for the justification of His sheep; you can’t know _anything._ Your interpretation could be wrong.
Your post-modernist view of the truth of God’s word relegates Christians to a life of “always learning and never arriving at a knowledge of the truth.”
@@matthewdyer2926
Sticks and stones
Some topics (like Jesus Son of God came save us from death and sin) get a lot more development than others (like rapture or age of the earth).
And so somethings are more reliably understood. If an idea has less to support it, interpretation is more needed. And we shouldn't be more certain than is called for in Scripture.
@@matthewdyer2926
And NT Scriptures tell us that we are given the Holy Spirit after salvation as a guarantee, a down payment, of our place in heaven. This is an added confirmation of salvation, outside the realm of interpretation.
There is nothing comparable for lesser doctrines, as mentioned earlier. We must do our best to study to arrive at a true understanding, but it's not the same degree of confidence. There should be humility, acceptance that error is possible. And kindness to those who disagree in non-essentials -- signs the HS is present in a person's heart. Traits Gavin shows in his videos.
@@Joan-ph2es
This…
“And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that *all* the high mountains under *the whole heaven* were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And *all flesh* died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and *all mankind.* *Everything* on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out *every living thing* that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth.”
Is no less clear than this-
“And we apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear.”
Or this-
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.”
“Humility” is _believing what is plain and obvious in God’s word._ Syncretizing scientism with Scripture is the height of arrogance in the guise of “humility”. The only reason you and Ortland don’t, is because of cowardice, syncretism, and capitulation to the pressures of modernity.
@@matthewdyer2926
Still with the ad hominem? Rhetoric unreliable?
Even in English, "all" and "every" don't have to carry a global-wide meaning.
-- I lost my keys! I searched everywhere, all over!
1 Kings 10:23-24 "So King Solomon exceeded all.... And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart."
"All the earth" -- it's not syncrynistic (or even cowardly) to think that the Kings of Tahiti, Incas, or Australian aborigines never made to Jerusalem. Because "all" can cover just the Levant or even the Middle East, and still be an absolutely true statement according to all rules of grammar.
You're doing your interpretation in a hyper-literal manner, and leaving regular text meaning and word sense behind. Sometimes "all" is a smaller set of possibles. To anybody speaking a language. Context matters.
Really encouraged by your response. I personally adhere to literal days in Genesis 1, but I appreciate that you've shown that other interpretations aren't heretical (though we can't both be right). And I appreciate you showing that a lot of the arguments against your position are historically ignorant and attributing motive.
Praise God for filling you with His Spirit Gavin! You are a gift to us all.
Thank you so much for speaking up and speaking out. As a pastor who has been grappling with Genesis 1-11 for the last 20 years, it has painful to see so few conservative pastors or theologians going public and speaking up about these important but not 1st order matters. Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful responses to quick judgments and over simplistic exegesis.
When trying to understand Genesis 1, why is God's explanation always seemingly neglected. In the giving the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20, God said, "SIX DAYS you shall labor, and do all your work,” then He said, “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
How were the Israelites to understand the meaning of SIX DAYS as it relates to labor and creation, which seem to be connected? If "six days" meant one thing in verse 9 and another thing in verse 11, how could they make sense of this? They could not wait thousands of years for the "church fathers" to weigh in on this.
The old testament describes 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology, not modern science.
Amen. Also the sabbath being celebrated every week. God's word is clear. The serpent comes in and asks questions that beguile minds and suddenly it's a "confusing" issue. Nothing new under the sun.
@@bettyblowtorthing3950 No it doesn't. You're trying to make an excuse.
Excellant scripture!
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
Exactly. Nobody engaged in this debate was actually there when it happened.
Only God was.
What he has given in scripture is sufficient for his salvific purposes. But he didn't give us everything. And how we read (interpret) the beginning chapters of Genesis are arguable, not settled.
It's very possible that the interpretations of men are all wrong, not exactly the way that God accomplished these things. Our physical universe, space, and time are mysterious in themselves. The Divine is even more so. Now, we see as through a glass darkly.
As Dr. Heiser said, "The Bible is not a history or science textbook."
You say nobody was there when creation happened. I disagree. You see God in His wisdom wanted us to see His "eternal power, being known by what was made, so that men are without excuse." When you see the sun, you see it as it was 8 minutes ago. It takes light 8 minutes to reach us on earth. You are looking at the past not the present. The deeper we look into space the further back in time or the past we see. We actually get to peer all the way back to the origin of space, time, and energy. This creation event demands a trancendant creator who all powerful, all knowing, has wisdom like a craftsman before he makes the first cut. He is also personable, to let us enjoy this earth He fashioned for us to live and experience Him. Everything is just right in our universe so we can experiance life and have this conversation.
@@jonpadilla4321 Men have looked at the universe. There is no beginning when they look, just more.
God has curtained certain things off from us.
Only He knows the beginnings and the ends.
I agree, rejoice in what we have, and He will reveal what is for our good. Speculation leads only to men in dispute.
@@stephenbailey9969 you say men see no begining when they look. I agree that we can not peer behind the curtain at the exact mombet of creation. Our physics do not work, at it all becomes speculation at this point. But a fraction of a second before this moment he lets us look behind the cutain and see the birth of creation. He gives us a a baby picture of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. He knew we would study and observe his creation and he built physical laws and order it so we would could see his handiwork. For all practical purposes he does let us see the begining even though we are confined to the dimensions of space and time.
I could listen to these "debates" non stop. Thank Gavin for posting!
The shortcut to discrediting Ken Ham is his final statement in his debate with Bill Nye. He was asked what evidence would ever change his mind and he said there's no evidence that would change his mind. That reveals his epistemic position is not the rational evidentialism of Paul in 1 Cor 15. Farewell Ken Ham.
We are just starting our verse by verse on Genesis and just came to a similar conclusion but without your valuable quotes of church fathers. Thanks for this clear perspective.
Great video. I recently did a study on the Hebrew translation based on the work of David Instone Brewer, and I came away thinking that in the original language, the global flood view is much less certain than most of us realize. It was surprising to see how much more open the Hebrew is to the local flood interpretation compared to the English translations.
prior atheist and evolution advocate, i don't think anything will sway my opinion on being a young earth creationist, i'm glad you don't push it to say its a necessary belief, but i'm not convinced of natural evolution.
This discussion here isn’t about theistic evolution, which I believe is a huge error. This is a discussion of the age of the earth, which isn’t as great of an issue. So you can believe old-earth and we don’t need to be so divisive about it as ppl like Ken Ham are. With theistic evolution, I think we can and should be more dogmatic about.
Btw, praise God he took you out of darkness into the light of the gospel of Christ. I praise God for that brother! 🙌
Hi Gavin, I'm an Orthodox Christian married to a protestant. My (also protestant) family as well as my wife's family all believe in young earth creationism. These videos have been really beneficial. I've believed in an old earth view for a while. I greatly appreciate especially your discussion of the development of this idea, as well as how many notable Protestants didn't believe in 19th century-style young earth creationism.
I am wondering if you have any book recommendations on Augustine's favorable reception in the east? As I am sure you are aware, Orthodoxy is split on St. Augustine's theology, and have been at least since the mid-20th century. I'd be very interested to learn more about how other Eastern fathers viewed his work especially!
Yes I was also curious about that because from what I’ve heard St. Augustine has had a major West influence but the East not so much.
Reading how others interpret the Scriptures can be very helpful, but at the end of the day they are not infallible like the Bible.
I think a lot of people are missing something when they read the first part of Genesis. It states that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. A point in time? Or a point before time? Who knows? Then we have the curious statement that the ‘earth was without form and void’! Why? Why didn’t God create the earth perfectly at this time? Mystery! And had a vast time passed between the first creation of the heavens and the earth, and this ‘forming and fashioning’ of the earth as a home for mankind which the Bible says God then took 6 days to do? Who knows? But something is definitely going on here, that is why we need to be humble. When we consider the ‘ages’ of rocks etc, we need even more humility, for in creating the earth originally, everything was of the same age wasn’t it, or was it? And if scientists talk of the ‘age’ of certain rocks etc, aren’t they made up of particles of other substances of perhaps varying ‘ages’? A rock is only a conglomeration of sand, in the case of sandstone isn’t it? And other types, igneous for instance, didn’t start out ready made, but formed from the melting of other rocks and materials. So ‘ages’ surely are a bit of of a puzzle. I for one do not understand how science can ‘age’ rocks when they are formed this way. I am not arguing against rocks being millions of years old, for in the original creation they are mature ‘rocks’ aren’t they? So much mystery! And we shall perhaps never be able to reconcile all the puzzling facts. So science can show its findings and the Bible have the infallible explanation for our existence. Either one does not have to exclude the other!
I’m a new follower after seeing you on The Remnant Radio. As a homeschool mom I have so many thoughts here. Briefly:
- thank you!
- Ken Ham has a huge corner of the HS/Christian market. Probably more than a corner. Any resources for families, kids, curriculum that teaches differently?
- I have no doubt this is how Ken Ham has gained so much traction in this conversation (via homeschool/family curriculum). If we don’t have other resources we can’t easily teach anything different. I see a beautiful opportunity for someone. 😊
- Lastly, your humility and humble approach is so refreshing! I believe the gospel is steeped in mystery from beginning to end. It's important we all learn to say "I dont know." Thank you for leading by example!
thanks so much, and glad to be connected! :)
I wonder if Reasons to Believe has any curriculum? They are a great ministry. God bless.
Thank you for taking the time to answer! I will check it out. My son is very science minded and I have always been hesitant to teach Young Earth straight but it's everywhere. This is helpful! @@TruthUnites
@@ME-hsmomof4 I'm a homeschool dad, though my wife has done most of the research for curriculum. I've wondered the same thing recently as I'm an OEC.
I always figured I would just tell my kids when they're older that some people think the Bible is saying YEC and some, like me, OEC and leave it at that unless they have more questions.
@@telleroftheone my kids are elementary age and home schooled. I’m YEC but am very open that there are many interpretations of Genesis. My main concern is they retain their faith in Christ and the resurrection. If they decided the flood was not global, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Ken Ham bothers me a lot. His goal doesn’t seem to share the gospel but to get people to believe his version of it.
And his version of it IS the gospel! Tell me why you think it's not.
Citing church authorities who don’t agree with a literal reading doesn’t demonstrate that the literal reading is incorrect, or that you aren’t doing eisegesis.
Also, where the light came from is rather plain from the rest of the Bible. God is the one who is light, who wraps himself in unapproachable light, etc. - God was the source of light. When visible light was created, God’s glory became visible.
As with Day 6, when God delegates ruling authority to humanity, on Day 4 God delegated light bringing to creatures made to carry on the task.
Further, comparing genesis 2 to 1 with regard to plants - it’s different plants that had not yet come up. God creates grain and fruit trees in 1, but the small plants of the field were to wait because “God had not yet caused it to rain and there was no man to work the ground.” It’s an indication that aspects of the creation come about in and through human involvement in the work, as God gives the growth.
Yes, Augustine was wrong, Athanasius, Machen, et. al. were wrong. Why do we work six days and rest on the seventh each week? Because God did. And that logic carries forth everywhere the days are referenced in the Bible.
That the text isn’t immediately easy to grasp in how it worked doesn’t mean that it’s unclear with regard to the time frame.
I very much like Ken Ham, but Gavin definitely makes some great points. Definitely has made me reconsider my view on Genesis
Did death enter into the world before or after sin?
I think it would be very interesting if you responded to Christian Combatives 20 minutevideo about your flood concerns. His focus is on the theological issues a local vs global flood raises and I think interacting with his points would be a great way to move the conversation forward since his objections are some of the strongest and best thought out of any that I've seen so far.
thanks for the suggestion -- are his arguments different from those I already addressed in my follow-up video? I went through 6 common responses there.
@@TruthUnites yes. His main concerns are things like the new testament references to it, the extent of the flood corresponding to the extent of the covenant (small flood, small covenant) and what the connections between the flood and baptism can tell us about it. His response video is about 20 mins long as opposed to the initial video(s) you might have seen which were watching through your video. The shorter response has much more condensed arguments and points.
I discovered Christian Combatives because of the Truth Unites local flood video and thought his response was literally moving the conversation forward….he is or recently was a military chaplain so he can be a little different the way military folks can be…but he walked the conversation forward a few steps. Example: if the flood was local, was God’s promise afterwards just for that local area. Why did God cause the flood? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just move Noah and the family and the animals to safe ground rather than move them all to the ark? What about tectonic plate shifting to explain those pesky lemurs and koalas?
@@onepingonlyplease Yeah I really appreciated that he was genuinely focusing on what he thought the central theological issues are, not speculating about motive, or mudslinging in any way. I really hope Gavin can maybe do a discussion with him, or a response video because I think the two of them are both intelligent, charitable, and genuinely Christian. Their discussion of these questions would be very fruitful and insightful.
I hope they do a video! I’m certain that the first thing Christian Combatives (Paladin Actual) will ask Dr Ortlund will be “what in the text leads you to believe it was a local flood?” Not if the text allows for a local flood. I want to hear Dr Ortlund respond and keep moving this train forward!!
God is using your ministry to restore faith. Thank you so much
Thanks for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. I particularly appreciate your thoughts on opposing the "...everybody who doesn't agree with this way..." mentality.
The same attitude is present across a wide range of issues. Perhaps we should all take time to examine our own "hard lines" that we have drawn so large as to obscure Jesus.
I do respect you Gavin, but I think Ham is right. The reason and motivation for your position seems to come from secularism and evolution. I have a really hard time respecting this approach to the Bible. The folks I personally know who flock to this are extremely liberal in politics and in their dismissing of large portions of the Bible.
The primary purpose of this particular video was to show other Christians view before evolution was even thought of. That is why Gavin focused so much on early Church Fathers. The Church was unsure of this argument long before evolution was a thought and by people that were not pressured by secularism.
AMEN!
You are incredibly kind and respectful to someone who is never kind and respectful. Ham has done a great deal of harm to the body of Christ as well as harming our witness. Keep up the fantastic work in your ministry.
My approach is to read Genesis and accept its message whilst acknowledging today's scientific claims without having to resolve the two. Paradox can be quite comforting.
I do something similar.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.
Yep, very helpful sometimes.
Genesis is a revelation of Jesus, look for him you will see.
I’ll take the Bible as it says and the theory of evolution as what scientists say…neither are compatible or intertwinable, why cant we just accept what the Bible says, why cant we be proud of Scripture and Tradition, why must we appease secularists that dont care for us. We witness to them, not appease them.
I think you mean, being able to say “I don’t know” is comforting. Paradox is discomforting because it requires God to be either illogical or dishonest. But having the humility to admit one’s limitations and trusting the solution to God is what brings comfort.
Well done Gavin. Very useful to restate your points several times, building upon them- just like Ken Ham does. I also confess I used to teach AIG material as though it was essential gospel truth. Also also you remind me of my mere infantile exposure to church fathers.
I can't stand Ken Ham. He and his zealots have done more harm than All the new atheists combined
Christians should gently instruct those who oppose them, and even love their enemies! For the sake of Christ you should stand Ken Ham in love!
@@bettytigers I know I know.... It's just hard with this guy because he's not just wrong... He's actually a liar. After I got a degree in geology I looked at what AIG said about the fossil/rock record... They're liars, they're not just mistaken or coming to different conclusions about science, they are actively dealing in half-truths and lies to manipulate people who don't know any better
Oh yeah? Prove it liar.
Prove he's a liar or you are.@@SneakyEmu
As one who would currently agree with a literal six-day creation and global flood, Ken Ham’s comments are uncharitable and makes me sad.
Great response. I appreciate that you addressed the slippery slope accusation. It’s a very common objection that doesn’t acknowledge the complexity of interpreting the Bible
I appreciate the videos. My background is being influenced primarily by the young earth creation focus. I think we all agree on Genesis 1:1. As I read and listen I agree that we should be able to have discussions and disagreements about the specific details and time frame and still maintain respect.
Exactly, YEC and OEC both agree God made the heavens and the earth. We just disagree about *how and when.* It’s really not an issue to disfellowship over imo
We are all united in the spirit, we shouldnt disfellowship over sth like that
@jncon8013
I'd argue most things aren't worth disfellowing over. The theif on the cross is our fellow and yet he probably had a very limited theology. That said, we should absolutely stand for truth when it presents itself absolutely, like for instance, now we have the full revelation of scripture and we know there will be new heavens and new earth so we should stand for that 100% but we shouldn't disfellow someone that may disagree if they haven't been exposed to that knowledge yet or are extremely young in the faith
Only if they present bad fruit, i.e. they start rejecting clear evidence
But the yec oec debate doesn't have clear evidence so while we can discuss it I strongly think polemics should be avoided :)
Just my personal opinion
Ultimately this will all pan out how God wants, what matters is that we are faithful to him in spirit even with limited knowledge of the faith (like the thief on the cross or like cornelius) or the OT saints as well!
We have varying responsibilities (based on the knowledge each of us has) (some are mentally disabled and so I strongly believe God has nuance for them on judgement day) God is all knowing, reveals all hidden secrets on day of judgment, is all just!
And, ofcourse, Jesus is the way the truth the life and no one will reach the father but by him. It's just how the mechanics of that pan out that we have to entrust to God
There is nothing wrong with your statement about people just being ignorant and never studying these topics, because it's true. I fit into this category for many years on many topics. Your also right about some believers acting as if their views hold as much authority as scripture and is part of it. I witnessed this for most of my life being raised in pentecostal churches and schools on the topic of dispensationalism. They would act as if any other view was new age heresy. Once I started studying and learning on my own and stopped being ignorant excepting everything, I changed several of my views on creation, and eschatology. I still hold to the gifts of the spirit, tongues, miracles, etc, but rebuke and hurt when people use these things to take advantage of people and make a mockery out of it. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for all you do, I enjoy your videos so much!
Thank you for addressing this. You are right, it becomes a stumbling block. I felt that way when I became a Christian. I felt "browbeaten" into believing this super-literal interpretation. It got me so mentally frustrated, and took away from other areas of my faith where I needed to grow.
I don’t agree with you on this topic but I truly appreciate the way you respond and handle situations.
Pastorally, I have found that most people want plain, simple, and easy answers. Few desire to wrestle for the truth. It easier to accept a simple solution and just fight for it than it is to think deeply and humbly. Those who seek find... only few seek and therefore few find.
I think you hit it right on the head. I believe most Christians are content with the fortune cookie version of their beliefs and it is rare to find those who are willing to wrestle with the Scriptures. I see Ken Ham as being the one who provides the bare minimum to these much deeper theological discussions while Gavin Ortlund and others are providing deep theological study on these matters. The question we must always ask ourselves is, are we content with the quick google search or are we the one’s who will sometimes have multiple commentaries open along with several translations of the Scriptures in order to get to the bottom of subject? I know for me, the latter describes my studying.
100% I stand with you on your final points here. I tend to lean young-earth (but not with a great degree of confidence, and I'm certainly open to many possibilities in this area). However, I am definitely opposed to the enemy's attempts to divide and weaken the church through unnecessary insistence on this issue. I know many dear brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree about it, and are able to get past that disagreement to remain in fellowship with one another. That should be the case for all of us.
Two things to consider: Did death enter the world before or after sin? (Is sin the cause of death?) and Hebrews 11:1-3 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Did it really take billions of years for God's Word to effect the earth and universe (along with death piling up throughout the world before the first sin)?
Honestly, his "dedication piece" on Justin Peter's channel seemed as if he hasn't listened to your arguments at all.
Agreed. Neither did the person trying to answer his critiques of the Cessationist film. 😬 I tried watching both of those interviews and ended up complaining to my phone screen, "You didn't even respond to Gavin's point!!!" 😅
@@AndreaWhoGoesByAndrea Glad I wasn't the only one, Andrea. I kept waiting...and waiting...
Also, I'm in neither camp on these issues that have nothing to do with my salvation. In fact, I lean more on the literal 24-hour creation days. The flood not being global makes sense.
I also think Calvinism is non-Biblical, and very destructive. Uh-oh.
Christ died for me. Calvinists are saved by Grace, through Christ.
Does anything else matter?
Because Gavin's arguments have been debunked a long time ago.
@@thomasglass9491 Ah, another one that hasn't listened. 🙂
No - Ken Ham, as well as you it seems - were simply ignoring everything Gavin anticipated. They acted as if he made no mention of it.
I just hope you lie out of ignorance, and not out of malice. Because lie you do.
@szilardfineascovasa6144 honest question. Is it actually lying if it’s out of ignorance?
I never get tired of this topic. The ages of the patriarchs too. These are not trivial points but major "deconversion" talking points.
Yeah I think it shouldn't be ignored that the ages of people when down drastically after the flood.
And I kind of wish Christian scientists would address the expanding earth model, since our science overlords who expect us to appeal to authority wont look into it. I do not think it is a coincidence that the continental crusts form a perfect sphere if you make the earth shrink at oceanic boundaries. That is too many coincidences to ignore for me.
"These are not trivial points but major 'deconversion' talking points." Yes, and it's made much worse that the church is having trouble even dialoguing on these points. Plenty of people don't want to be part of a group where you can't question things without being attacked.
@@PreciousMeddler I think with a thorough honest dialogue Christians could actually resolve 85% of the mysteries presented by Genesis and modern geology and anthropology.
My first Truth Unites video and I enjoyed it greatly. I think you adhered well to not reviling in return.
Well done. Well communicated. A picture of grace, You serve us all well. THANK YOU!
Let's face it, Ham and his organization have absolutely made an idol out of their young-earth creationist obsession with the length of time of the Creation days - to the point of maligning those with different views on this specific topic (TIME day length), asserting Christians that disagree don't take Scripture seriously or are merely trying to accommodate Darwinism, etc. - which is absolutely false! But they, like so many other groups that are hyper-focused on a side issue, waste FAR too much time and cause so much division over this secondary, non-doctrinal issue! What does Titus 3:9 say? "But avoid foolish CONTROVERSIES, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
Excellent video! Starting with the text requires asking the questions of the text. The one thing that Ken Ham does not do is attempt to understand the text in context. He completely disregards ancient worldview as a grid to understand ancient Scripture.
Thank you for a this video on the Genesis debate. I have studied and researched various interpretations. You used the word “browbeaten.” That is exactly how I feel in the church pew with respect to this issue. Any teaching is reduced to YEC and evolution, extremely simplistic. Thank you for putting into words how I experience this issue in the church.
Gavin, when I listened to your initial response last fall I came away feeling like your view starts outside of Scripture and tries to reconcile Scripture with scientific claims or you appeal to church fathers to justify your belief. I was hoping to hear you put forth a Scriptural argument for your view.
Ken: "It's man's science, or God's word".
Only a sith deals in absolutes
“No man comes to the Father but by Me.”
Seems absolute.
Also, though I believe Ken Ham is sincere and a brother in Christ, I do not look to him for interpretations about Genesis. I have spent maybe an hour’s worth of time looking into some of his teachings. I spent more time listening to his debate with Bill Nye, I’ve heard him in person, and felt like there were big portions he has either not considered or refuses to consider.
He says some good things, mainly that salvation comes only by faith in the death, resurrection, and return of Jesus Christ and repentance of sin.
He who is not with me is against me. -Jesus
@@heather602 For he who is not against us is for us. -Jesus
I think you guys took this joke way too seriously. It was a Star Wars reference. It was supposed to be funny.
God deals in absolutes, so are you calling God and evil Sith? I think YOU need to choose your words very carefully.
Happy you picked this title lol
It sounds like a Dr. Seuss book title. =D
... Didymus the Blind... was... Clear on his view.... that made me chuckle, Gavin I feel like you should have said "no pun intended" there.
thanks for the video, I love the effort you put into your videos, I know it's not easy packing so much into short form videos.
The light was always a problem for me…
This is wow
One thing that disturbs me about this thinking regarding "Interpretation of Scriptures with no outward sources" is that it could prime us for becoming unable to validate scripture based on outside evidence. Science, philosophy, and archeology are just some feilds that can serve to offer a lot of evidence and validation for scripture. This is not to say that our faith is merely rooted in the latest archeological study. But, as you noted, Dr. Ortlund, we ultimately all Interpretate scripture through the outside source of our own perception on reality. Science and philosophy are disciplines which have alwsys been fueled because of thinkers wanting to interpret scripture, not in spite of them.
Ham has always given me Nuda Scriptura vibes, which is not the same as Sola Scriptura.
Ham starts with presuppositions about the nature of the text; he never considers what genre of text he's reading.
We throw terms like “false teacher” and “heretic” at each other so easily these days. Whether you’re right or wrong on this issue, that type of accusation is uncalled for.
Well, in my "little orbit", I read lately, Isa. 45:18, "...He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited...". Common sense does not see the earth as 4 or more billions of years old, with man being inhabited only in the last 6,000 years or so.
This is a very important video. Thank you Gavin.
"Interpreting Genesis figuratively? That means the whole Bible is up for grabs!"
Allow me to run a parallel argument
"Interpret Joshua 10:13 [the passage that says viewers saw the sun stop in the sky] non-literally? That means the whole Bible is up for grabs!"
At the end of the day, our first inquiry is not whether we want to apply literal or figurative interpretations to a text, but simply what the text itself intends to communicate.
I don't have a problem with miracles, so I don't have a problem with the Sun stopping in the sky. The creation story, however, is not a single instance miracle, but a general explanation of several phenomena, with very much physical evidence in opposition. God is not the author of confusion, so a discrepancy between scripture & science is not a discrepancy at all, in my opinion. The fact, to my mind, is that we're obviously misinterpreting one or the other. Both are true, but in what way(s)? I always start from that point, though. The Bible I'd true & physical evidence & principles of physics are also real.
I don't see the point of the parallel argument, considering YEC usually would agree with that
@@bnjmnwst the point is the sun stopping assumes the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the earth revolving around the sun as modern science tells us
@@Christian-ut2sp I never thought of it that way. I know about celestial mechanics, but I would still describe that happening in the same way that they did.
No, that's not true that the whole Bible is up for grabs. That's an emotional, uninformed reaction based upon your desire to be right. There are many genres of texts in the Bible. Some are obviously historical, other are not.
Please keep up the good work, Gavin. It's a blessing to the church.
I'm currently sympathetic to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration view that Inspiring Philosophy has been highlighting. I think it's based mostly on work by John Walton, but also some of Michael Heiser's Divine Council work. Ultimately I was a Young Earth proponent in my youth. I'm now only adamant about God created the Heaven's and the Earth.. Everything else is interesting but not essential. Our faith is based on an Empty Tomb in Jerusalem. That's what is essential. I don't find the YEC account to be impossible, but at this point I think there's too much missing context for us to know with certainty. I don't find YEC dogmatists to be particularly persuasive, but I also have strong doubts about anti-supernatural explanations of cosmogeny.
Realizing that early church fathers didn't believe in literal 24 hour days and young earth creationism only becoming popular in the early 20th century helped me get out of this mentality you're talking about. Thanks for bringing this issue up, a lot of people need to hear it.
If that's the case then you believed a lie.
@@heather602 In what way? I said a lot of stuff and I am sure at least a good chunk of it is true.
@@emryswilliams9190 The early church absolutely believed in literal days. There is no indication in scripture that they did not.
@@heather602 St. Augustine. I think that's all I need to say.
And you're using a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, to say that the Early Church did not disagree on creation.
@@emryswilliams9190 Augustine was one of the first to introduce such ideas. He also believed in purgatory.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It was very helpful and encouraging, and I do hope you will continue talking about this. Christians need to hear about these things and about the church fathers you mentioned. I want to get your book on Augustine
Side note: I came across a CZcams video with Ken Hamm, Josh McDowell, Ray Comfort, Hugh Ross, and I can’t remember who else. But Ken Hamm was attacking Hugh Ross’s beliefs and criticizing his book on Genesis. It was very clear that Ken has a problem with pride. I pray that God will humble him and all the other church leaders who are accusing their brothers and sisters in Christ of being heretics for believing in an old earth rather than a young earth; that the six days of creation were long periods of time rather than 24 hours. There is no reason to attack people for something that is not a salvation issue, or a different gospel.
I appreciate your insights, and your humble response.
Btw when I was a little girl I recall my grandmother listening to your grandfather’s radio program, Haven of Rest…I think it was called.
Ken has a problem with wrong teaching. Ross's book denies the flood and I'm pretty sure he believes in evolution too. the Bible does not teach these things.
@BillMurrey Hugh Ross does not deny the flood! He believes it destroyed all of mankind and a huge area of land - most of the Middle East, but not the whole planet. And Ross doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution. Please check facts before commenting...
@@BillMurreyHugh Ross does NOT believe in evolution. He believes in 6 long periods of time, rather than 6 literal 24 hour days.
And I did not come across anything that alludes to him denying the flood.
If any fault in in his beliefs, it would be relying on science to explain everything rather allowing God room to operate outside of science.
Well done Gavin! Your words are filled with grace, mercy and TRUTH!
I was an atheist who came to Christ in my twenties with a combination of Old Earth and Young Earth teachers. The young earth/universe theology was interesting to me at first, but when I realized that I would have to believe that God created a universe with a mere "appearance of age," I became very skeptical of young universe claims. The young universe answers for why God would create a universe that is not what it appears to be were completely unavailing.
I also saw that young earth teachers like Ken Ham were often insulting and dismissive of those who disagreed with them. I saw the young earth creationist "arguments" were too often veiled or overt insults, mere rhetoric, or obvious informal fallacies. Once I heard a John MacArthur radio broadcast on Genesis in which he referred to Christians who do not believe in a 24-hour "day" in Genesis as "so-called Christians." I was deeply saddened. Why would anyone from the pulpit utter such a thing against someone he doesn't even know? I'm merely a "so-called Christian" because I think each creation day is a long period? I saw this more often from prominent young universe creationists who whose methods of preaching and teaching were rhetoric, insult, and dismissiveness to suppress those who disagree with them.
I also saw that many in the young-universe community were emotionally tied to their commitments, so much so that they were unable to listen. And now those who do not listen teach their children to act the same way. I have seen it. I fear for our children at the hands of emotionally committed young earth parents who are passing their children into the hands of the Ken Hams of the world who think insult, rhetoric, and informal fallacies are acceptable methods of engaging fellow believers and their ideas. I hope the young universe parents who are still open-minded, gentle and respectful, will help others be the same way.
As I studied more, I found that the old-earth teachers were like Gavin: open-minded, willing to listen, never attacking anyone. Other old universe creationists like Hugh Ross and John Lennox, never insulted anyone. They just present their cases logically and biblically, and where scientific matters were at issue, they were scientifically rigorous. The old universe scholars seemed much more like Christ than their young universe brethren.
Believe the universe is young or old--you're my sister or brother in Christ no matter what. But please act like it.
I promise if you and I speak on why I believe the universe is billions of years old and the six periods of creation in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour periods, I will listen to you and never insult or dismiss you. I will treat you respectfully, and I'll present what I know and learn what you may teach me. This is how we grow as disciples of Christ. We can do this.
I'm thankful Gavin is so clear on his work of uniting us. We need it!
Ken Ham has painted himself into a corner... And it's a corner that he likes. His entire reputation and status revolve around his being 'right' about 24hr days. Look at the huge amounts of money that have been invested in his organisations! He has a big fan club. He will always hammer his views because thinking outside his self imposed box would undermine his status.
His entire ministry is built on 24 hour days and a global flood. And he believes HIS interpretation of Genesis is infallible.
As you say "huge amounts of money that have been invested in his organisations"..........totally agree ! As they say in the classics.....Just follow the money ! He has too much to lose.
Occording to Ken Ham's own logic he ought to be a flat earther aswell?
Just ask a Jewish Rabbi how they interpret “the first day” if it’s definitive? No death before fall?
Jewish Rabbis crucified their own messiah
You mean a modern day rabbi their judaism started after Christ.. Christianity is the real judaism
Augustine had things wrong sometimes. He sinfully left his girlfriend after having a child with her and took another lover out of wedlock. He was not infallible. He was a human. He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist, and the necessity of infant baptism. My point is, he made plenty of mistakes.
Ken Ham will never change. He’s staked way too much money on museums and lectures. That’s the only thing people look to him for, and he’s not even particularly good when it comes to his debates.
It is against every instinct in his flesh to humbly admit he might be wrong about this.
Ken believes his interpretation is infallible .
Both of you are dead on right.
His entire ministry is built on 24 hour days and a global flood not worldwide.
Does Ken Ham believe the earth *literally* has 4 corners?
Ham doesn't think we should take the Bible literally but rather we should interpret it according to its genre and taking into account figures of speech. If you find "the four corners of the earth" in Genesis 1-2 that might be a problem but if you find it in 'visionary literature ' like Revelation it's not.
@@stephenglasse9756 too bad Ken Ham ignores ancient near east cosmology in the old testament.
@@bettyblowtorthing3950 You are really hung up on that phrase, and I'm betting you don't even know what it means. You're either a troll or someone who can only keep one sentence in your head. Go ahead and explain it and how it relates to the Bible.
@@BillMurrey Amos 9:6NASB, The Lord walks upon the vaulted dome of heaven.
In ancient Israel, and in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria etc, people believed that the sky was blue because it was made of water. And they refer to this as the waters above. The waters were held up by a vaulted dome in the sky known as the firmament in the KJV. And the earth rested upon pillars. 1st Samuel 2:8.
The vaulted dome of the sky was understood to be solid in some sense. Job 37:18, Exodus 24:10 describes it similar or as a pavement of sapphire stone, similar to in the book of Ezekiel.
Thick clouds veil him so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven. Job 22:14.
@@bettyblowtorthing3950 This explains nothing. Bye!
Does your theological triage not find it suspicious when an interpretation requires the individual chapters ,not books but chapters are each different genres? The notion that for thousands of years Jews where reading that text preserved as it was together and expected to understand its genre changed between individual chapters is pretty silly. It sounds like nonsense that gives too much credit to the compilation theory of the text that was created to discredit the bibles authority and make you believe its all made up nonsense trying to synchronize the religious beliefs towards 2 different gods into one.
Did Augestine believe Adam was an apes child? Did he believe Dinosaurs walked the earth for millions of years before mankind or did he believe Dragons lived in his very own day and still roamed the earth?
So he he overthought the issue of light before stars as if such things would be an issue for God. Why would time be the thing we think is not ordinary in that text versus the nature of creation itself that is what's un-ordinary and special and unique during this time? So for 3 days their was light that was left unordered/organized by stars or the moon or sun. Then God created sources for all that light to give them order. No matter your view I think it's very clear God's act of creation and the universe was in a special state for this passage, I don't see where time is implied to be abnormal.
Not as many Christian thinkers as there should be, welcome to the club.
I've been praying for Gavin Ortland and Ken Ham to finally have the opportunity to debate each other in-person. I'm not picking sides, I just want to see what would come out of it.
My problem with the idea of the six days of creation meaning more than six days isn't the fact that the word day has more than one meaning because it does in English and in the Bible. The English definition is based on the biblical usage. My problem is the context of Genesis Chapter One points to a 24-hour period. “There was evening, and there was morning, the first day,” Genesis 1:5. That seems to define the first day as a 24-hour period. If it doesn't, then I haven't had that explained to me or shown how it doesn't. To me, the usage on Genesis seems to confine the concept of a day to the 24-hour period we’re familiar with and exclude the concept that means more than that. Most people appealing the concept of a longer period of time refer to other usages of the word day that is not used in Genesis 1, like the phrase, “in his day,” or “in the day of,” which implies more than one 24-hour period. Those are accurate statements but not applicable to Genesis 1. I just need this explained and demonstrated to me for me to consider it an honest and valid idea.
Stand fast in the truth. I believe God does mean creation was literally 6 days. However I do believe there may be a spiritual layer that the 6 literal days point to 6,000 years in which God will fulfill all things. With the 7th day, as the Sabbath, representing the 1,000 year millennium. This could be one reason why God doesn't mention evening and morning on the last day. Because for believers who take part in the resurrection, our rest will be permanent in that sense, even into the new heavens and new earth.
@@heather602we've been in the millennium for almost two thousand years. Nero was the beast. everyone knew it. it's why different translation used 666 and 616 for the applicable numerology on it. Christ is already reigning and will not return in physical form until "every enemy is under his footstool" it's the churches job now to change the world and reach the masses, not wishfully think we're just going to be beamed up and rescued was a tribulation.
@@heather602 take God at His word for literal 6 day creation and Christ's words that literally the generation wouldn't pass before that time. He's not a false prophet. so it happened.
So, here are some thoughts to consider re: "day" meaning "a 24-hour period."
1) Our insistence that the word "day" be thought of in terms of hours and seconds is culture-bound. Not all cultures today, and certainly not all cultures throughout history thought in terms of what we might call "clock-time." Other conceptions of a day are possible, such as a period of work and rest. These conform to what we might call "social-time." If these other conceptions are allowed into the conversation, then it becomes possible to see God's workdays in the creation week as being "normal days" consisting of periods of work and rest, but not necessarily knowing how many hours they took.
2) Much gets made of the definition of the word "day" in these discussions, but what about the word "hour?" What is an hour? Why speak of 24 of them? If we're defining an hour as "1/24 portion of a day" and a day as "a period of 24 hours" then the definitions become tautological and tell us nothing about the length of time involved. If we want to speak of hours in terms of our observation of the sun or stars, then we hit the conundrum of how to define an hour prior to day 4 of the creation week. Most YEC responses to this issue I've seen involve the supposition of some sort of "sun-substitute" existing on days 1-3, allowing for us to reckon time on the "normal" 24-hour scale. But then you have the problem that the text says that the sun, moon, and stars were created specifically for the purpose of marking out time, implying that this function wasn't being fulfilled prior to their creation.
3) The sixth day is a bit of an issue for the 24-hour view. While it's certainly possible that all the things the text says happened on that day happened in a period of 24 hours, it seems unlikely. Adam had to be created, be placed in the garden, have the animals brought before him, name them, be put into a deep sleep by God, have Eve formed from his rib, wake and name her. Also, when Adam sees Eve, he proclaims "at last!" This seems to imply that his wait for a suitable companion had been lengthy.
These are just a few of the issues that could be presented for a strict 24-hour view. There are others, but these are enough to show that the 24-hour view has difficulties that often aren't considered as deeply today as they were in the past, due to the rhetoric of the 24-hour view being the "obvious" or "plain" reading of the text.
@@gardyloogubbins God defines each day in the text. "Evening and morning."
Adam doesn't say "at last" in Hebrew. Only the NIV seems to add these words.
very helpful---prayers for you and your family
Love your videos, brother!
The very idea that pre-scientific people could have written a science text is absolutely ludicrous.
I appreciate your voice! You didn’t back down but speak in love. Blessings! I am standing with you in this. The struggle for the faith of our young people is real!
I used to be a young earth creationist who followed Ken Ham's material very closely. I know their arguments and talking points backwards and forwards. What I can tell people is that since I've stepped away from all of that my relationship with God and my walk with Jesus have grown immensely. YEC can be so devoted to seeing history and science in Genesis that they blind themselves to the powerful theological truths that the book is trying to convey. I don't care if people believe in a young earth with no evolution as long as that belief isn't inhibiting their ability to also see the profound and beautiful theology God is communicating. Unfortunately, for most, the literalistic reading seems to cause then to ignore symbolic truths that don't even contradict YEC.
There are indeed symbolic truths that don't even contradict YEC. Does this mean that YEC is wrong?
@@williamjpellas0314 no
I really do love this channel
Another thing that never seems to trickle down is that the OT, the entire Bible really, portrays a 3 tiered Ancient Near Eastern cosmology. So unless you’re gonna throw out our entire modern understanding of the solar system, you’re probably virtue signaling.
Shhh, old testament cosmology is a secret. Don't talk about it lest you scare your brothers and sisters into atheism.
I was literally thinking this when I saw ApoloJedi harping on Gavin on X.
Like bro, if you were as consistent as you thought you were you’d literally believe in a crystalline dome around the earth.
@@axderka they act like ancient cosmology doesn't exist and the crystalline dome is somewhere on the edge of the universe or something weird. Don't ask too many questions.
@@axderka For real lol, the bible is pre-scientific. Just let it be what it is. It's called accommodation, it's been around in the church for a long time. There's also a fine-line between pre-scientific and just dumb--which ancient people were not. The biblical authors knew that dead people stayed dead and that oceans don't randomly split, you don't need the enlightenment to know that. Ancient people also cared about history long before science came around---so none of those critiques work lol. Just let it go guys or have the balls to be consistent.
You're as bad as bettyblowtorthing3950 , one track mind. Go ahead explain that, I know I won't hear from her again.
I'll say it. Ken Ham is sanctimonious and arrogant. He will not allow anyone with a different opinion to be treated with respect.
I agree
I am 100% sympathetic to your point that a framework view can reasonably arise from the text. Is there an audio format work that youd point to where you or someone else goes through verse by verse & shows how that actually works?
I agree with Gavin. We should not fight over this issue, but I love friendly discussions. I wish Ken Ham were as generous as Gavin on this issue. But, as I see it, the most natural reading of Genesis 1 is a six-day creation account. Still, people like Dr. Hugh Ross make a fair case for an Old Earth Creation account for Genesis 1.
Also, I believe the Ante-Nicene Fathers' view of Scripture was much more sound than Augustine's or Origin's. The Ante-Nicene Fathers took a more serious view of the Scriptures than Augustine or Origin, and while the allegorical method eventually took over, the more serious view still held influence among the later Church Fathers even after Augustine.