Thanks for your exhaustive treatment to this issue! There is a Christian friend, who is confused and been trying to preach to me this view to me. I thank you for giving some clarity. I’m going to send this as an attachment so that he may understand some of the major flaws in that theory. He is not at all happy with the evolutionist, but also he doesn’t agree with Ken ham and the seven day view he presents of young earth creationism. He is confused, and I thank you again for providing this ministry.❤✝️🙏😇👍
I just found you. Listened to your PAN summary P1 first and then this review. Love your reviews! So glad I found you. Holy Spirit had perfect timing as always. Zei gezunt. Jonah from NY
Caleb. I’ve been enjoying your videos for a week or so now. Great content! Caleb, could you give a reference for Charles Taylor’s theory you mention around 7:05? Thank you!
Good summary, Caleb. I enjoyed it! Some interesting things to note for further study, perhaps, if you're so inclined: (1) In the case of the usage of בראשית in other places in Scripture, when it does seem indicative of a "period of time," is that the length of the "in the beginning" period in view is never more than half the total time period in reference in the series of succeeding narrative events for which בראשית is, for lack of a better word, beginning. While Sailhamer doesn't seem privy to this data, if בראשית is consistent in its usage throughout the HB, it is likely that the total time within this undefined "beginning period" is dependent upon whichever time period the author of the Pentateuch has in view after the beginning period (i.e., either the 7 days, or the time from day 1 until the end of the Pent.). (2) Regarding Genesis 1:14 and whether or not the proper sense of the verse pertains to the creation of the lights or, if you take Sailhamer's view, the declaration of the purpose of the lights that were created "in the beginning," much of this boils down to syntax. Particularly the relationship between the verb of being יהי and the infinitive להבדיל. At first glance, Genesis 1:14 appears much like Genesis 1:6. However, this isn't actually the case. The syntax of the two verses differ. And they differ enough to lean the discussion in Sailhamer's direction. In fact, you even see Sailhamer's understanding of Genesis 1:14 reflected in the Targums of the Pentateuch. Check out Shepherd, Michael B. "Targums as Guides to Hebrew Syntax," Themelios 47:1, if you're interested. Thanks for the vid!
Thank you very much for getting this precious theological books accessible to a wider audience like me. I like the way you expose a wide pannel of interpretation theories and their "vibes". The (evangelical) churches from wich I came asserted with self proclaimed authority that their interpretation was the one and only way to interpret the bible. Anybody who didn't align with their view was wrong, if not going straight to hell... Thank you for giving me vocabulary, like "sensus plenior" regarding a supposed deeper meaning intended by the Holly Spirit but not by the people He talks to. I must say I'm not a big fan of the idea... But in the end I guess that the goal isn't to be right or wong, but to try to love my neighbour as He loves all of us.
Sailhammer's view is not technically a version of gap theory. In part because Gen1:1 doesnt specify the length of time. Just that it happened before the rest of Gen 1. That period of time could be millions or years or just a few. The point is it that it doesnt say, precisely because its irrelevant. Moses point is not to tell us how old the universe is. That is a modern question. His point is to tell us WHO created everything, and what he is like. It is agnostic to how old the universe is. Also, the other point of Gen 1, according to Sailhammer, is that the promised land, which he equates to Eden, the land in view during Gen 1, belongs to God and so he has the right to give it to whomever he chooses.
Always appreciate your work. Do you have a citation about everyone holding the "gap theory" and equating that view with having a high view of Biblical Authority. That is fascinating.
Interesting that you mentioned how he wasn't a very engaging professor. I had John Walton my freshman year of college for Old Testament survey and I'd say the same for him.
I was gonna check out this book out since I just got through Walton’s book on genisis1 ,2-3 and the flood. I see you say John didn’t agree about the solid dome lotta people form that camp on science and bible have a big hurdle with that. I’ve been reading Denis Lameroueux and he was very upfront about that being the biblical understanding. I may still read this book, but I have a feeling I will not really agree.
@@CalebSmith3 He's quite the intellectual power in Orthodox theology, I believe he's the first American to become an Eastern Orthodox monk? Most of his work is quite dense but I think his book "God's Revelation to the Human Heart" is succinct and potent in revealing the Orthodox spiritual attitude.
Why do you care that atheists are laughing at creationists? Plenty of prophets and others have had far worse treatment than just being laughed at! The Bible says God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is IN them (Exodus 20:11). Did God make a whole sea INSIDE the Garden of Eden within the creation week? The Mediterranean Sea just doesn't fit, unless the garden took up more than an entire continent. Even if you were to be generous and grant the Mediterranean Sea as just being another part of the special creation that adjoined the garden, what effects would this formerly empty and lifeless sea have had on the surrounding geography and ecology before the special creation? How did it stay empty and lifeless up until the special creation when evolution was going on all around it? The only water mentioned as being in the garden was a river that divided into four heads (Genesis 2:10-14). Two of those heads were Euphrates and Tigris. If the Garden of Eden was in the Promised Land, it would have required some major geographical changes to get to the geography of today from the geography described in Genesis 2 with regard to the rivers. What does the wisdom of this world have to say about the evolution of this geography over the approximately six thousand years since? As for the word "ehrets" and its use in the Pentateuch, after the creation record (the section in question) it is used in reference to the entire area affected by the great flood. When the waters receded, the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in modern-day Turkey - far outside the Promised Land. Right through chapter 10, it is used of the lands that were inhabited by all nations after the flood, and six times in chapter 11, too, where there is only a single occurrence in which it refers to the land of Canaan, the Promised Land. It is also used to refer to Shinar (Babylon) and Ur of the Chaldees in the same chapter. It is only once Abram comes onto the scene (to whom the Promised Land was promised) that the word is mostly used in reference to the Promised Land. Trying to reconcile Biblical revelation about Creation with man's Theory of Evolution is a fast track to unbelief. Yes, we can learn a lot from scientists, but where they flatly contradict the scripture, which God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), they are wrong. As for why a rational person should believe the Bible over the scientists, two of my favorite reasons are archaeology and prophecy.
Great comment David! Genesis is a series of succinctly presented backdrops (in the early chapters) leading up to the larger story of the Patriarchs, all of which is background to the story of Moses, which begins in Exodus chapter one. The setup for understanding the birth and significance of the Nation of Israel, the subject of the balance of the entire OT. It is all meant to be read first as genuine history (regardless of any additional literary qualities that might be involved), though trimmed drastically to purely theological purposes. “Scholars” are notorious for tripping all over those early chapters, and it’s for one and only one reason: their thoroughly unexamined acceptance of the grand theory of evolution-which poisons everything! An utter fantasy believed (by them) to be the key to reality. Doesn’t end well.
I agree. Let's not let the fear of man influence our understanding of scripture, Jesus said he would send us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. I've seen people let the fear of man cause them to try and placate people, and they've gone down a pit of liberalism. Sadly now the fear of God is almost non-existent in their lives.
I would recommend Peter Leitharts work. He’s super smart but also very conservative kn these issues. Theopolis institute and Atanasius press are great resources. Not so much about creationism but theology.
Is there any way that I could contact you personally, phone or email? I would really like to speak with you briefly. (I am absolutely NOT a pitch man for anyone or anything. A serious fan, ‘tis all.)
Trying to force a pre-modern narrative into a modernist box is a category mistake. I wasn't (am still am not) willing to engage in the intellectual dishonesty required to make it work. My reward was to be called an enemy of the gospel.
Earth is flat. The Royal Society was founded by Freemasons.
Gotta love that you immediately pinned this! Classic. Some non sequiturs are just too good to pass up.
Thanks for your exhaustive treatment to this issue! There is a Christian friend, who is confused and been trying to preach to me this view to me. I thank you for giving some clarity. I’m going to send this as an attachment so that he may understand some of the major flaws in that theory. He is not at all happy with the evolutionist, but also he doesn’t agree with Ken ham and the seven day view he presents of young earth creationism. He is confused, and I thank you again for providing this ministry.❤✝️🙏😇👍
Was just sharing your video on the New Perspective with my brother. Glad to see some more content up!
Thanks!!
That house analogy was absolutely brilliant, man. Thanks for the video and congrats on the baby!
I just found you. Listened to your PAN summary P1 first and then this review. Love your reviews! So glad I found you. Holy Spirit had perfect timing as always. Zei gezunt. Jonah from NY
Caleb. I’ve been enjoying your videos for a week or so now. Great content! Caleb, could you give a reference for Charles Taylor’s theory you mention around 7:05? Thank you!
Thanks for a great summary!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good summary, Caleb. I enjoyed it!
Some interesting things to note for further study, perhaps, if you're so inclined: (1) In the case of the usage of בראשית in other places in Scripture, when it does seem indicative of a "period of time," is that the length of the "in the beginning" period in view is never more than half the total time period in reference in the series of succeeding narrative events for which בראשית is, for lack of a better word, beginning. While Sailhamer doesn't seem privy to this data, if בראשית is consistent in its usage throughout the HB, it is likely that the total time within this undefined "beginning period" is dependent upon whichever time period the author of the Pentateuch has in view after the beginning period (i.e., either the 7 days, or the time from day 1 until the end of the Pent.). (2) Regarding Genesis 1:14 and whether or not the proper sense of the verse pertains to the creation of the lights or, if you take Sailhamer's view, the declaration of the purpose of the lights that were created "in the beginning," much of this boils down to syntax. Particularly the relationship between the verb of being יהי and the infinitive להבדיל. At first glance, Genesis 1:14 appears much like Genesis 1:6. However, this isn't actually the case. The syntax of the two verses differ. And they differ enough to lean the discussion in Sailhamer's direction. In fact, you even see Sailhamer's understanding of Genesis 1:14 reflected in the Targums of the Pentateuch. Check out Shepherd, Michael B. "Targums as Guides to Hebrew Syntax," Themelios 47:1, if you're interested.
Thanks for the vid!
Thank you very much for getting this precious theological books accessible to a wider audience like me.
I like the way you expose a wide pannel of interpretation theories and their "vibes". The (evangelical) churches from wich I came asserted with self proclaimed authority that their interpretation was the one and only way to interpret the bible. Anybody who didn't align with their view was wrong, if not going straight to hell...
Thank you for giving me vocabulary, like "sensus plenior" regarding a supposed deeper meaning intended by the Holly Spirit but not by the people He talks to. I must say I'm not a big fan of the idea... But in the end I guess that the goal isn't to be right or wong, but to try to love my neighbour as He loves all of us.
Congratulations on the kiddo!
Thanks!!
Sailhammer's view is not technically a version of gap theory. In part because Gen1:1 doesnt specify the length of time. Just that it happened before the rest of Gen 1. That period of time could be millions or years or just a few. The point is it that it doesnt say, precisely because its irrelevant. Moses point is not to tell us how old the universe is. That is a modern question. His point is to tell us WHO created everything, and what he is like. It is agnostic to how old the universe is. Also, the other point of Gen 1, according to Sailhammer, is that the promised land, which he equates to Eden, the land in view during Gen 1, belongs to God and so he has the right to give it to whomever he chooses.
Always appreciate your work.
Do you have a citation about everyone holding the "gap theory" and equating that view with having a high view of Biblical Authority. That is fascinating.
Interesting that you mentioned how he wasn't a very engaging professor. I had John Walton my freshman year of college for Old Testament survey and I'd say the same for him.
Thanks Caleb!
I was gonna check out this book out since I just got through Walton’s book on genisis1 ,2-3 and the flood. I see you say John didn’t agree about the solid dome lotta people form that camp on science and bible have a big hurdle with that. I’ve been reading Denis Lameroueux and he was very upfront about that being the biblical understanding. I may still read this book, but I have a feeling I will not really agree.
Brother thank you for another great video! 'm curious if you have any of the works of Fr. Seraphim Rose?
Thanks! And no I haven't heard of that name. But I will look him up today. Any particularly good work to start with?
@@CalebSmith3 He's quite the intellectual power in Orthodox theology, I believe he's the first American to become an Eastern Orthodox monk? Most of his work is quite dense but I think his book "God's Revelation to the Human Heart" is succinct and potent in revealing the Orthodox spiritual attitude.
Have you read Seriously Dangerous Religion by Iain Provan?
Why do you care that atheists are laughing at creationists? Plenty of prophets and others have had far worse treatment than just being laughed at!
The Bible says God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is IN them (Exodus 20:11). Did God make a whole sea INSIDE the Garden of Eden within the creation week? The Mediterranean Sea just doesn't fit, unless the garden took up more than an entire continent. Even if you were to be generous and grant the Mediterranean Sea as just being another part of the special creation that adjoined the garden, what effects would this formerly empty and lifeless sea have had on the surrounding geography and ecology before the special creation? How did it stay empty and lifeless up until the special creation when evolution was going on all around it?
The only water mentioned as being in the garden was a river that divided into four heads (Genesis 2:10-14). Two of those heads were Euphrates and Tigris. If the Garden of Eden was in the Promised Land, it would have required some major geographical changes to get to the geography of today from the geography described in Genesis 2 with regard to the rivers. What does the wisdom of this world have to say about the evolution of this geography over the approximately six thousand years since?
As for the word "ehrets" and its use in the Pentateuch, after the creation record (the section in question) it is used in reference to the entire area affected by the great flood. When the waters receded, the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in modern-day Turkey - far outside the Promised Land. Right through chapter 10, it is used of the lands that were inhabited by all nations after the flood, and six times in chapter 11, too, where there is only a single occurrence in which it refers to the land of Canaan, the Promised Land. It is also used to refer to Shinar (Babylon) and Ur of the Chaldees in the same chapter. It is only once Abram comes onto the scene (to whom the Promised Land was promised) that the word is mostly used in reference to the Promised Land.
Trying to reconcile Biblical revelation about Creation with man's Theory of Evolution is a fast track to unbelief. Yes, we can learn a lot from scientists, but where they flatly contradict the scripture, which God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), they are wrong. As for why a rational person should believe the Bible over the scientists, two of my favorite reasons are archaeology and prophecy.
I totally agree with your comment. Dancing with science is having a fecal partner and sadly, too much Christians fall into this trap.
Great comment David!
Genesis is a series of succinctly presented backdrops (in the early chapters) leading up to the larger story of the Patriarchs, all of which is background to the story of Moses, which begins in Exodus chapter one. The setup for understanding the birth and significance of the Nation of Israel, the subject of the balance of the entire OT. It is all meant to be read first as genuine history (regardless of any additional literary qualities that might be involved), though trimmed drastically to purely theological purposes. “Scholars” are notorious for tripping all over those early chapters, and it’s for one and only one reason: their thoroughly unexamined acceptance of the grand theory of evolution-which poisons everything! An utter fantasy believed (by them) to be the key to reality. Doesn’t end well.
I agree. Let's not let the fear of man influence our understanding of scripture, Jesus said he would send us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. I've seen people let the fear of man cause them to try and placate people, and they've gone down a pit of liberalism. Sadly now the fear of God is almost non-existent in their lives.
I would recommend Peter Leitharts work. He’s super smart but also very conservative kn these issues. Theopolis institute and Atanasius press are great resources. Not so much about creationism but theology.
My third Vid of yours , and I do care what your opinion is 😜😎😘🙏👏👏
Is there any way that I could contact you personally, phone or email? I would really like to speak with you briefly. (I am absolutely NOT a pitch man for anyone or anything. A serious fan, ‘tis all.)
caleb.smith.220@gmail.com
It's in the details on my channel I think... Glad to connect!
@@CalebSmith3 - I actually looked. I must be blind. Lol. But thanks for responding.
Trying to force a pre-modern narrative into a modernist box is a category mistake. I wasn't (am still am not) willing to engage in the intellectual dishonesty required to make it work. My reward was to be called an enemy of the gospel.