The earliest Christians were much more open to mystery, in accepting that we in this age are incapable of knowing it all. As Paul said, like seeing through a glass darkly.
@@donatist59 Yes. As the video's selections from Augustine showed, there are many opaque areas in scripture. The task is to take scripture seriously and sincerely, without thinking we can interpret it all perfectly. God gives what we need, not what egotistical curiosity demands. To that end, the ultimate purpose of scripture is to point us to the living Christ who gives new life in the Spirit here and now, who will return and bring true peace and justice, who calls us to love others in practical ways in this age.
Best comment posted. I truthfully pray people read it many, many times with a truly open heart, without getting defensive. This comment, and I too don’t mean to upset anyone, but this comment is the most truthful words either written or spoken in both the video and comments. Thank you for the courage it took to say.
Yes, it’s okay to not fully understand some of these things. Almost arrogant to think that we have all the answers and have correctly interrupted the Bible to a T. “Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” - Thomas Campbell "In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love" (RESTORATION movement) We have to be open to discussion. And have grace and humility in these tertiary, unclear matters. This doesn’t need to be divisive. Saddens me it becomes that way. In the words of Peter: “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” May we not twist scriptures to our own destruction. May we give God’s word room to breathe and have nuance, as it so often does. May we have humility to realize there will be a lot of things that are hard for us to understand.
@@donatist59 who is the first human that is listed in the geneology of Mary? What does science prove with mitochondrial Eve? On these two premises alone we can prove Adam and Eve were the first two human beings, literally created by God.
Apologists are only good for reinforcing confirmation bias. If you have the intellectual appetite for it, you’ll always get more out of scholars who’s been subject to peer review like John Barton, Raymond Brown, DB Hart, Mark Goodacre (these four all have vastly different perspectives, but any one of them can help steer you down a more intellectually honest path)
@@paulallenscards Are not all Christians called to give a defense (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in [us]? 1 Peter 3:15 My advice is to be careful of the wisdom of the world and stick to spreading the story of truth in Christ. His words will guide you in reaching sound conclusions.
Finished deconstructing my fundamentalist views last year, and it is difficult and humbling, but so refreshing, and Gavin has been such an encouragement. No more Young earth creationism. No more dispensational rapture theology. No more hyper-literal KJV-only view of the Scriptures
Fundamentalism is just one of those words nobody knows what it means these days, but the usage of the word has been really positive until today, because the fundamentalists were the ones opposing to liberal theology in the 19th century.
I would describe myself as a fundamentalist christian, and I don't believe any of those doctrines. Of those three believes only young earth creationism is something I could be convinced to believe in. Fundamentalism taken in its proper sense simply means that you believe, and refuse to abandon, the fundamental teachings. The problem with many american "fundamentalist" groups is that they overreact against liberal and critical reading, erring too far in the other direction. Their defensive position has lead them to make fundamental believes that were never meant to be fundamental.
@@santtuhyytiainen I consider myself a conservative that holds to the fundamental truth of the Bible. However, "fundamentalists" would consider me very liberal🤷
Job well done. This video does a remarkable job of canvassing the land on this question from a biblical point of view with an open mind to modern science. Can't say I've seen it put better. People are often missing what counts and what matters in this discussion, from both the YEC camp all the way to the theistic evolutionist/mythos readers.
I think this video is going to turn out to be very important. I've spent a lot of time researching this and seeking answers and perspectives on this and this video is the best I've seen in terms of succinctly covering the topic. It's one that is difficult because some of us want to seek the truth even if it's really challenging to our worldview and there is a lot of pressure on this point both from the secular world and fellow Christians to not take the topic seriously and simply blindly believe one way or the other.
Brother, no apologies for talking about your books! 📚 This is your channel, you have put your time, heart and God-given abilities into your work and that is worth mentioning! 👏🏽
Loved hearing that theologians in the 1600s were wrestling with the idea of "pre-adamites." Having historical context breaks through the rigorous modern binary; it gives us space to consider and explore without feeling guilt about betraying one side or another. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund.
Gavin just took almost all the thoughts that have been pin balling around my brain as I've studied this, and articulated them in one video. Outstanding work!
Gavin, God bless you! It was these types of videos that brought me back to faith. It fills my heart and soul to see one of my favorite online theologians tackle these issues!
Once again - this is phenomenal. And once again - this is a video that I would eagerly and gladly share with my fellow believers, elders, pastors, as well as non-believing friends and strangers.
As a YEC, I appreciate Dr. Ortlund's works like this. I'm still not convinced of evolution due to scientific reasons, but I accept the second oint: we need patience and humility to review attempts at harmonization.
Patience and humility is what is allowing this trash theory of theistic evolution to spread. Look at the comments, 90% of people or more are just praising Gavin for being a fence sitter and allowing this filthy false doctrine to keep putting doubt in the mind of believers. More and more people are abandoning the idea of divine inspiration of scripture and joining the heretical teachings of the catholic church and the orthodox (falsely so called) church. I refuse to give an inch to the liars spreading this nonsense.
Thing is there is alot of science for it. I.e. the 98 percent similarity to humans with chimps Even answers geneticists will say universal that the closer the genes the closer the relationship Remember there thing called traced Here's the thing the scientist that have been on there saying chips are less than 80 has been discredited numerous times rewrites his research alot. This girl is a athiest she is a leftist. I apply the test all things to all. Her names gutsick gibbon She has a series that goes over the huge amount that answers and icr. Do. It's not important to salvation It's not ultimately important but I'd check it out.
Gavin You may never hear from people that you have helped the most. You definitely will hear from people that aren't helping at all. keep up the good work.
Gavin, I so appreciate the intent of your channel, to seek truth and share a discussion of that search with others. Your boldness, not to shrink from hard things, benefits me and so many others. We have to be able to have these discussions and have honest, careful and generous discussions with each other. This may be one of your best videos yet, and that is saying something. I personally found this so, so helpful. In a month’s time, I am spending several weeks teaching apologetics to high school students. My heart is for young people who will, in the years ahead, face tough questions, and it would grieve me, it would be tragic, if they did not know that they can always honestly seek the truth and that it may be different from things they have been told before, but all truth is God’s truth. You have expressed the same heart and concern for young people. So, Gavin, please keep this going. I endorse everything in this video and myself will seek to approach understanding and harmonization with humility.
I really appreciate all the work you put into this excellent video. One note: None of the three challenges you gave for "Ancient Adam" apply to Dr. Craig's proposal. They apply to the RTB model and maybe other Ancient Adam views; but not to Craig's. I just thought that should be mentioned since you specifically talk about Craig's approach right before going to the 3 potential problems. In any case, this is an excellent video, and I really appreciate what you're doing with this topic overall.
I'm not endorsing Craig's view, btw; I just worry that somehow even very sharp people (like Gavin) have not really understood it so as to address it directly.
Great and balanced overview. I'll be sending it to anybody (lots of people) that still gets shocked about even considering anything different from the most literal reading of the text possible.
Yes very binary thinking. It’s like someone reading a poem and then saying they interpret it literally. People confuse the word “literal” to mean “true” they use those words synonymously. And things that are non literal obviously can be true. An artist’s description of a sunrise would be true and so would a scientists view of a sunrise. They’d both describe that event differently yet both would be true.
When Jesus says he is the Door, we do not immediately think that he is made of wood and has a doorknob. Instead of saying that we interpret the Bible literally, one ought to say we interpret the Bible straightforwardly, that it is saying what it is trying to say given the genre of the text, and a fair and open reading of the text in that light.
In reply to @catholicguy1073 In the first place, not all of the Bible, (and certainly not Genesis) is "poetry." In the second, the artist's and scientist's description of a sunrise can only both be true if both believe in truth. Starting from the standpoint that God is real, then all science, or knowledge, is from Him. Likewise, the artist who whose work is based in truth will be trying to convey what God has shown Him. So yes, both would be telling the truth, but you spoke of "non literal" things. A "sunrise" is a literal and real thing. A scientist, who when asked what a sunrise was, gave a description of a tree, Or an artist, if asked to paint a sunrise, painted a cavern, would not be painting or describing the correct thing, or even the same thing. Truth does not change.
This is such a wonderful treatment Dr. Ortlund, it is very much in line with where I landed on the issue after spending a year studying it to satisfy my own questions and troubles.
As a Christian and an Anthropologist, it is so refreshing to see an Evangelical Protestant Apologist tackle this topic of faith and science with a line of reasoning other than the Bible being true and science being evil. I struggle every day to harmonize what science tells us with what Scripture tells us. The best I can do is say science shows us God's great creative intelligence. I tend to agree with Dr. William Lane Craig regarding H. heidelbergensis (700,000 to 200,000 years ago) because we know they had moved out of Africa, as we have found fossils in Germany and France, as well as other parts of Europe. In fact, the first fossil of H. heidelbergensis was found in 1907 in the Rösch sandpit north of the village of Mauer, which is near Heidelberg, Germany. As previously stated, they have found fossils in France as well, specifically Terra Amata, France. So, H. heidelbergensis would have traveled into the Near East to get to what we consider modern Europe. Here is another thing to consider regarding Adam and Eve. Supposing for a moment they are as real as you or I, how would we identify their fossils? Of course, the answer is that we can’t, and it’s unlikely that this question will ever be answered because we simply have no way to tell if the fossils we have found or will find in the future are the biblical Adam and Eve. Personally, I don’t need Adam and Eve to be real, as it were, just like I don’t need the Earth to have been created in six days or the flood of Noah to be real for the Bible to be literally theologically true and for God to be in my life. We have all manner of proof that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected, and for me, that’s really all I need. I know that’s being over-simplistic, but isn’t our faith just that simple: the life, death, and resurrection of Christ? Without that, our faith is pointless, the rest of the Bible notwithstanding.
Well said!! As a scientist at a university, no scientific topic has challenged me theologically as much as human evolution. It does require the faith and simplicity of Augustine to trust that God can do things whatever way He deems fit. God bless you on your journey
I appreciate your candor and honest reflection. Interestingly, I eventually grew to reject the non-literalistic view (I still affirm a literal reading of Genesis) once I understood genre-analysis and literalistic vs literal distinctions. The established science on the issue with tertiary to my settling in on old earth interpretations.
@@stagename2 dating methods will never be 100%, and there will always be some questions of accuracy, but overall, I have high confidence in the methods.
I think this is SO incredibly interesting and I feel so blessed to stumble on your channel! I feel like my kids are going to want answers one day and the best we can do is be prepared to answer questions. But also, I'm just fascinated by all this! I am slowly accumulating all your books!!! 😍
Excellent video Gavin. As always, we need to explore these questions and can find the glory of God through scientific discoveries as well. But ultimately it's okay for us not to know yet. Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements-surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Excellent way to frame this difficult issue and basically sums up exactly where I am on it. I would love for a follow up video sometime diving into each of the three models you mentioned as kind of a compare/contrast. I find content on each view individually but not a lot of content comparing the evidence for and against each view.
These kinds of discussions are so needed. There is no need to stifle thought and biblical discussion, simply because we are afraid. If all truth is God’s truth, we can be open to the biblical text and the fact that there is MUCH nuance and many things that the Bible simply is silent on. And in the words of [someone from the RESTORATION movement] said. We are silent where the Bible is silent. It’s okay to not understand or even have a clue the details about things we do not have the details on. Reading through Genesis 4 recently, I remember asking my dad when I was young if God made other people besides Adam And Eve. I think he said something along the lines of, “he could have.” It’s okay for us to have humility and say we don’t know. We don’t need to. These are just such important things to discuss, as we all have many around us who believe the Bible and science are at odds with one another. I am seriously so thankful for your work on these topics! (I first found you by your videos on Catholicism, which were also so great!)
Most proponents of the recent Adam view, such as myself, would state that genesis 1 declares all humans as being made in the image of God prior to the creation of Adam. So there would be no need for a propagation of the image of God throughout humanity.
Hey Gavin, I know you get a lot of pushback on these videos. I think they're great and thought-provoking, whether I agree with you on everything or not. God Bless You, brother.
He doesn't. 90% of comments are people praising everything he says no matter how much it contradicts scripture. The sign of a cult. Maybe neither he or his followers notice it, but that's what is happening here.
@JesusProtects What he’s saying doesn’t contradict scripture. Adam is still historical, the Fall is still historical, and Adam is still the ancestor of every modern human today. The area of speculation is where the Bible does not elaborate on, namely if there were people outside the Garden. If Cain feared his brothers, how could he possibly end up marrying his sister and have enough people to build a city? This view ends up reading as much into the text as the view that there were other people outside the Garden who eventually married into Adam’s line and therefore Adam became geneological ancestor of everyone. Also, I don’t think you know what a cult actually is. I heavily disagree with Gavin on some things, as I’m sure others do here. Cults require a personality cult, manipulation, love bombing and gaslighting. Gavin doesn’t engage in that. Not liking someone is not credible evidence that they’re a cult leader.
I love that you're tackling these issues! And doing such a fantastic job...I think this should be required seeing for every Christian to at least understand some differences in approach to these verses.
We have got to the section where Augustine asks a question about whether Adam was created as a grown man or a baby - seems to me a strange question. He is referred to as a man ( not a child ) who needs a helpmate and God creates a wife for him and commands them to populate the world. So how could that be if he had a mother already who obviously had a husband and were populating the world?.. THINK IT WAS Calvin who said do not go beyond what Scripture says - all we do is create chaos in our minds and get ourselves into knots.
@@JesusProtectsSearching for truth, although daunting and confusing, is not 'causing chaos' and can not be branded as such in an effort to suppress it. It is vital that we are able to earnestly seek the truth, and if we were in a world where everyone had the same attitude as you we would be stuck in ignorance. Whether or not Ortlund is correct on this topic or not is irrelevant to that.
Love how you approach these topics brother! I’ve learned so much about the history of the early church, RCC, and Protestant Church from you. I’m even reading The Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel atm based on your recommendation and I’m really loving it! It’s so fascinating to me. I used to caricaturize Roman Catholics and Protestants somewhat too before I found your channel. Idk if you’ve ever watched Inspiring Philosophy channel, but he’s got a very interesting take on Genesis in his playlist, I think you’d enjoy it. Anyways thanks again and God Bless! I truly feel you’re doing the Lords work! May Gods Grace and Mercy be with you. 🙏✝️🙏👍😎
So glad you made this, Gavin! Would love to see a Part 2 sometime, maybe with some focus on late 19th/early 20th century responses from people like Bavinck and Warfield. I'd also really like to hear more about your own personal struggles and experiences with this over the years. I'm encouraged by you, and I hope that you'll be encouraged as well! Better brace for impact after this one, brother...
A YEC reading Genesis 1-11, a dispensationalist reading Revelation, and a Roman Catholic reading the eucharistic passages all suffer from the same misapprehension. Literal is not the superlative of true.
Very refreshing to hear this kind of openness while still holding the highest view of Scripture. Thank you, Gavin, this is a heavy topic that I've been wrestling with for years. As a homeschool mom I find it hard to approach some of these questions with the science and ancient history curricula that's available- I wish there were more people who take this approach rather than 100% secular macro evolution or 100% young earth creationism. Thanks for all your hard work!
I am in the same boat as you. I want science curriculum that is open to a biblical old earth view - no staunch stance. And most of all, I want to be one hundred percent prepared to have open conversations about these things with our kids. The kids have to learn there are different viewpoints on this within FAITHFUL Christian worldviews. There is room for varying, faithful interpretation. We need grace and UNITY, and especially humility on things the Bible doesn’t actually tell us…. (Age of the earth, heliocentrism, gravity, photosynthesis.) I’m concerned about friends’ kids who will only get the YEC, with no consideration that an old earth can be a reasonable, BIBLICAL world view. It matters for their future and the others they’ll encounter throughout their life.
Okay this video is interesting… I’m not sure if I agree but thank you for always teaching that it’s okay to disagree. You’ve definitely helped me to practice figuring out what is the right hill to die on and what are secondary issues, but most importantly listening and not thinking that I am always right. It is my favorite thing about your TH-cam channel may God bless it and continue to grow it brother!
Great job. As a former atheist who came to Christ in 2012. I have always struggled with this. I cling to Christ and The historicity of our accounts of him. His verifiable resurrection. With that said I have spent years of mental energy racking my brain on creation because I just can't unlearn evolution. When I hear folks like Ken Ham saying if you don't believe it their way you aren't saved to me I hear salvation comes from the Gospel + some additional doctrine. I am encouraged to hear Gavin basically land exactly where I land on this issue. Which is I don't know. I just know Genesis describes the human condition perfectly and Christ really was God in flesh who died to save us and was raised. How I reconcile that with the fact that we evolved is beyond me.
Ken Ham goes too far, but not believing in YEC causes a lot of problems, no doubt. The first one is to stop believing in divine inspiration of scripture, which can lead to many, many, many false doctrines by false teachers.
@@justinpriest734 Maybe I can give you my input as an former atheist too. I took a lot of pride in my intellectuality and intelligence and seemed Christians as foolish, despite of I didn't know much about it. science was like a dogma to me. But when I came to faith, I knew his Word is infalliable, it's me who is fallible. So I tested my faith one or two weeks after I came to faith and read Genesis. It was a litmus test for me. And guess what, I believed it pure heartetly as it was written. I told to myself: "Better to be a fool in the eye of men than a fool in the eyes of God". I just denied my own intellectual pride. What does it profit me, that I believe in evolution and try to "reconcile" it with the Bible? I will still be a fool for the enemies of God because I believe the Gospel and still compromise. Men and their interpretation and trust in scientific data can err, even to an extent that leads to horrible actions. The appliance of the scientific method is just as good as the people working with it. For example: The Theory of Evolution led to even more disgusting study subjects like Race Theory, Eugentics, Social Darwinism and not to mention with the "speedy science" of the pandemic. And today we cannot even agree on the definition of male and female. But the Bible says "In the beginning God made them male and female". And that is widely accepted science nowadays as the prior mentioned subjects of "study". Those reconciliations by so called "intellectual christians" are mere compromises and mental gymnastics leading to even more watered-down and false doctrines. Sometimes to doctrines never heared before. Like modern sciences itself: "Always new Discoveries..." We cannot save people by sugar-coating the Word of God and make it more appealing to the masses. It's not a product for sale but a Free Gift of God to all mankind. Sugar-coating it may attract the insects, but they soon will leave because cannot digest the bitter truth beneath it. That's why my stance is this: For me personally, I consider myself to be a fool in the eye of men, my own eyes or even some people reading this. However being a fool in the Eyes of God I don't want to be, even if I have to endure the mockery of my beloved brothers and sisters. I know that His Word is reliable and true because I know Him. I believe it as a child would do. "For it is written: » I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. « Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" *1 Corinthians 1:19-20*
This is something that has caused me great stress over the years. Somehow, in all my reading I only ran across YEC, OEC & attempts to harmonize the account with evolutionary theory. I appreciate that you've brought additional views to the table - even if that creates a different type of stress, it at least creates space to learn and understand. Thanks, Gavin.
Great video brother, this whole topic needs a roundtable discussion with other scholars who are also working through this, and like Agustine are willing to be intellectually curious and follow scripture wherever it leads :)
As usual, I really enjoy and find your thoughtfulness and honesty challenging and refreshing. Patience and humility - fruits of the Spirit and love for God and one another. Keep it up, brother!
I SO appreciate your perspectives, Gavin, and how your thinking is both wholistic and synergistic. All the while you respect others’ views and think critically about it all! BTW, how many books do you read in a year? I hear you speak about these topics and your bibliography always seems so expansive! Would love a show where you speak to how to read well; how to read critically.
Thank you so much for this video! Really enjoying videos on this topic, and I’m sure they are helpful for many people! Your book on Augustine was great as well!
Luke thought Adam was a real, historical man (Luke 3:38), and the very son of God. Paul thought the Genesis account that Adam existed and that sin entered the world through him was real (Rom 5). Paul also confirms the account of Genesis in 1 Cor 11, and covers how sin entered the world through one man in chapter 15. Paul confirms the serpent deceived Eve in 2 Corinthians 11-3. Paul confirms the creation order of man, then woman, in 1 Tim 2-11-14. Jesus said that God made them male and female at the beginning of creation (Mt 19-4, Mark 10-6-9). I live a simple life. When the Bible tells me something, and then confirms that thing over and over again, I stop worrying about what the world thinks about it, or how they rail against it. I simply believe it, because it's the Word of God.
Thanks for this Gavin, this actually came up in a conversation i had with someone recently, and this is a very helpful balanced approach! I've found your videos to be super helpful and honestly a bit confused to hear that some of the more conservative views seem to have such controversy attached!
Good stuff Gavin! At the very least we can approach this subject with more humility and love, esp. for those who stay away from Christ because of a lack of it.
@Gavin, it would be interesting for you and Fr. Stephen DeYoung to dialogue about the creation of man. I think there would be a lot of crossover and shared thoughts. You can listen to Fr. Stephen's commentary on Genesis at Ancient Faith Radio.
This is a great summary of the diffrent views. I default to a view like Dr. Craig's but I think you make a good point, theirs no reason to take a hard stand on these issues.
My concern is just the lack of exegetical information, the focus is just entirely in harmonizing and helping young people not fall away from the Church. I believe you when you say you don’t want the world’s applause and so on. But the problem is just the lack of exegetical consistency on the theistic evolutionist, and this can lead so easily to liberalism, it’s one leap into Genesis poem.
The lack of exegetical consistency is a concern to me too though I also absolutely do not think Gavin's motives are anything other than solid and Godly. I just caution anyone going this route to look foremost at the theological issues posed and not to assume that "the science" is necessarily accurate by default. The scientific establishment has changed its view on a wide number of things, and recently too.
@@tategarrett3042 Yes, I mean the pandemic shows us that we can’t just trust the science and that’s it. Many people in the answers in Genesis who are genuine scientists have made articles that pose serious problems to it, so why is Gavin accepting it right out the gate?
@@OseiasChiquellaJunior-jm2id I would suspect he accepts it because of the experiences he's had and the people he's known. Perhaps he hasn't seen the darker and deceptive side of things in that regard, but I am certain he is not in the least attempting to be deceptive.
I don't think that is the aim of this work. He stated this is a survey to flag these issues, introduce them to a wider audience. I think the fact that many in church history we hold up as faithful figures in the faith gives some credence to being less dogmatic over non-salvation issues. He did give biblical explanations as to why one should be open to giving further consideration (towards beginning, he outlined: biblical, theological, and theodicy). True exegetical or academic work isn't going to reach a wide audience, nor is youtube the medium for it. A classroom with books seems better for that. I think he's attempting to be a bridge between exegesis/scholarship and popular level. I think that's what best communicators and pastors do. They do a lot of work behind the scenes (exegesis, reading, research) and find a way to communicate things most clearly. Otherwise, these videos would be hours long and rather tedious if you did real historical grammar type exegesis in the original languages. I personally don't subscribe to any of these views, but I'm glad to learn more. If I choose to dig deeper, I'm glad to know he's provided countless resources to do just that.
I also don't think it's accurate to say he is "accepting it right out of the gate". I lost count how many times his main position and proposal to others was "it's okay to not know some things"
Gavin, I appreciate how careful you are being, and your desire to perform good theological triage. I am willing to hear out various different harmonization efforts and analyze them seriously. My concern is that you do not mention as a possibility, along with these other possibilities, a more literalistic (as you call it) interpretation of Gen 2-3 and a reinterpretation of scientific data. There are at least some scientists that contest some of the population genetics conclusions that you mention, so it seems like it is at least theoretically possible that the data could be understood different ways. You stress that you are unsure of the correct option, but you do not include the literalistic interpretation even simply as one of many options. Why not? It seems to me that the effect of this is to exclude that view, just as you complain that many who hold that view have excluded the views you discussed. I have certainly witnessed the kind of harsh criticism that you reference from strict literalists against anyone with a less literalistic position, but I have also seen an increasing amount of harsh criticism going the other way too. If part of the point is to have theological openness to all non-heretical views, why not include the literalistic one since (even though you disagree with it) it is clearly not heretical? Basically, my concern is that it seems like the theological openness only goes in one direction.
Being charitable, I think the answer to your question is in who he is speaking to. Much of the care and information he's presenting is specifically for those folks who adhere to a rigid literalistic interpretation. So he didn't list it as an option because it was already implicit. Put another way, if I'm speaking to a crowd of YECs, why would I explain their position when I'm trying to explain, list and defend alternatives to their approach? You know? It wouldn't be neglect or oversight, just technically off topic.
@@telleroftheone I don't think he is only addressing people with a literalistic interpretation. If you watch the introduction again, you will notice that he specifically says that two of his goals are to provide answers to secular critiques and to reduce anxiety for struggling Christians. To use your example, it would be like addressing a crowd with evolutionists and young earth creationists and explaining the evolutionist view and its merits, but not explaining the young earth creationist view and its merits. It seems one-sided. He also explicitly says in the introduction that he is pushing back against the literalistic way of reading Gen. 2-3, while also saying that he wants to bring clarity about the "various options that are on the table for Christians." I think that pretty clearly gives the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that the literalistic interpretation is not on the table for Christians. At the very least, we could say that he did not provide "clarity" that it was an option on the table for Christians.
Thanks for opening up this topic for discussion. I appreciate your words and ministry. It’s very hard to harmonize the story we hear from the current secular/scientific paradigm. Really hard. I don’t want to feel like I’m stretching it all to make it fit. Would enjoy hearing some more detailed proposals.
appreciate this content soo much, but my mind wanders when it comes to long videos, if it's possible i'd love to see a visual summary to make it more memorable :) Thanks Gavin
Thank you Gavin. I don't find myself liberal either, but this is exactly how I think, about these things. I like your views a lot and find myself really Blessed by them. I don't say, that Trent ain't right at times, but I feel no blessing, coming FOR ME out of Him, but I held him in high regards. You are close to my heart.
Thank you for discussing Genesis in this manner. It’s drastically needed in the body of Christ. I've talked to many people who have left the faith because of this subject. I pray that this video and your others will help those who are struggling with this topic. They have helped give me another Biblical perspective on Genesis.
38:59 bis -- Was just to the library. No, it wasn't a Loeb edition, but it was similar. Twice over it was pointed out that Adam was the first man and had no parents, and when it comes to normal gestational development, it was pointed out that Jesus didn't take a year to make wine from water via the soil, the plant in the sunshine, the harvest and pressing and fermentation, but God in the flesh did it in one moment. So, whether you were an inattentive reader or not quite candid, you were giving the wrong impression.
I really like this topic, ie showing how an old universe view is compatible with scripture. This makes christianity more inviting for outsiders, despite what YEC people say.
Ok, I'll give you that we should be patient with considering the evidence but not with trying to harmonize Scripture with Science. Rather we should see WHETHER Science can be harmonized with Scripture. This is where WLC goes off the rails. He starts with Science and tries to harmonize Scripture. That's the WRONG starting point.
That's what the Catholics said when they rejected Galileo's heliocentrism. It's only the correct approach when we first establish what scripture is saying when rightly understood. No point in bringing science into the discussion if the church can't decide on if the text is written in an ancient near east context or not.
@@CDK008-hm3ue //It's only the correct approach when we first establish what scripture is saying when rightly understood.// LOL Thanks for agreeing with me.
Regarding the discussion of dust-I understand “to dust you will return” to mean that as our dead body decays, it literally returns to dirt. It makes sense then, if it returns to dirt, that we (or our ancestors) originated from literal dirt, since we are to return to it. Another word for dust (or dirt) is earth-the name of the planet we inhabit. Adam was a creature whose origins are of the earth, while the God-Man Jesus’s origins are from heaven. What am I missing?
In the Bible, all of mankind is made of dust and is from the earth. And so, what that means is, being mortal and of the earth, does not preclude having a mother. Ergo, Adam may have had a mother. Abraham is made of dust as well for example, but Abraham had a mother. So it would follow that Adam being made of dust, does not preclude the possibility that he had a mother.
My problem with including evolution is the total gaps. When you look at the Cambrian explosion, millions of species just appear. Even if it is "guided", they all still appear ex nihilo. It is not gradual and it is not by stages.
The cambrian explosion spans tens of millions of years, with many precursors found among things like microshellies, cloudina, and ancestral species of cephalopod, cnidarians, sponges, corals, arthropods, and more. So it's not actually true that species just appeared out of nowhere. Many ancestral fossils have been found over the past 200 years.
The Cambrian explosion lasted for 50-100 million years… and there are pre Cambrian fossils. And of course not a single land animal existed during that time.😉
What makes modern people so sure that we can't express inspired truth by using metaphorical figures of speech? Some things are too difficult to express clearly and succinctly in common declarative language even today. Moreover, we must remember that those ancient peoples had barely begun to develop their historical sense, and had very few records that kept their memories from the previous centuries. Indeed, most of their "history" was legendary and carried in ballads. Just look at how their writing systems were still developing. Moses had a very archaic alephbet to write with. When we need a common story for our people to stick together and base our common identity on, the story has to be simple enough for ordinary folk to remember. Strict adherence to facts (especially facts not yet discovered) needs to take a back seat to expressing Truth clearly. Thus, Adam & Eve don't have to be singular historical original people. They are representative figures who exemplify all of our human forebears. God created all of our ancestral progenitors and designed every advance toward modern humans to reflect his image and likeness. The world is fallen as of the moment we began to try to discern what is good from what is evil. We need instead to seek God's advice, not our own opinion. The antediluvian stories with their thousand year lifespans are also metaphorical. They are true myths about early culture heroes, the abuse of technology, and idolatry leading people into corruption. God is offended by those who choose corruption, evil, and death. He doesn't want the rich and politically savvy to rule as oppressors and make helpless slaves of the poor. Nor does He want them to teach us to worship materialism, sensual lusts, or selfish disregard for those weaker than ourselves. His plans for civilization are significantly different from ours. Thus, He comes down from Heaven to take a personal interest in us and participates in history to lead us to salvation. Our endless problem of conflict, rebellion and disobedient selfishness is the same problem of sin that God has always been working on. Yet, He is choosing to have personal relationships with us because of his mercy, even to the extent that He is willing to save some of us into Heaven. We are now that close to what He is trying to achieve. Soon, we may be "redeemed" to overcome material inclinations with divine spirituality. That is our personal salvation, to be recreated into the final form He desires. For that, we need to have faith, to love Him and trust that He desires our good. The Bible and Gospels are true. When Moses uses metaphor, he is recalling the stories of the cultures around him in his milieu, and following God's inspiration to tell them so that we may understand their real meanings. The stories give us a background and orientation so that we can choose a proper perspective and framework for faith. Before Abram, history is given in a more general sense. That is all we need. After God chooses Abraham, to claim a people for his own, history gets more specific. The later the stories are, the more historical facts are retained. This culminates in the completely factual historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God Himself. In Jesus, God is stepping directly into society to speak his own words to our ears and choose his people from those who respond in faith. Do not be surprised if all the prophecies in the Bible come true. What God really wants is a people who trust Him and share his moral sensibilities and are willing to follow his plans. We only need to follow, and learn all we can about loving each other and how the Kingdom is supposed to work.
Genuine question from a patient viewer. You brought up the potential issue of incest in Gen 4. Wouldn't that be necessary at some point in the evolutionary view as well? Another question is if there were other people around in Gen 4, were they under the federal headship of Adam when he fell? Or do they have a different standing somehow?
In the theory of evolution, there was never a time in which there were only two people. So the incest issue wouldn't apply. I would recommend John Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve".
@@CDK008-hm3ue So did God create a multitude of people ex-nihilo and not just two? I'm curious how it could work for their to "never have been a time where there was only two people".
@@tategarrett3042 in Genesis, creation, or bara, is ex materia, not ex nihilo. But I would go further to say that the creation of mankind was a supernatural creation, not material or biological. Kind of like creating a football team. The players were already there. God stepped in and hand selected them for a purpose.
@@CDK008-hm3ue Yeah, respectfully, I completely disagree. I think the Scriptures are very clear that God created ex nihilo. You are going to run into some pretty dangerous theological problems believing that in creation God was merely reordering or rearranging "pre-existing matter".
Thanks for this, Gavin! To me, the most impactful point was one Augustine made: If a view of a literalistic account of the first few chapters of Genesis is found to be untrue, will we then give up our belief in the Scriptures, or will we modify our beliefs to harmonize with the truth--even if that means a less literal account?
Thank you 🙏 This is exactly what I have been pondering and praying abt recently since I was questioned by a non believing friend abt the creation story and authenticity of these biblical stories
Thanks, Gavin for the way that you've handled this topic. It has been a real challenge for me for the last few years, and you've given me a beneficial framework to think about this. I recently finished your book on Augustine's Doctrine of Creation, and it was so helpful and thought-provoking. I lead an inductive Bible study ministry in South Africa and would appreciate your thoughts on how to implement this in studying and leading Genesis 1-11 in an inductive method. At face value I am pressured to observe and interpret in a very literalistic way, which I in good conscience cannot do anymore. Maybe my question is more on who to present a consistent hermeneutic throughout Genesis. Any suggestions?
Coincidentally I am reading James Jordan's creation in 6 days right now. One observation he makes that causes me to chuckle is how this issue is only of concern to a very small number of people. Modern conservative evangelicals. non-Christians have no problem believing that what's laid forth is a 6-day creation and Adam and Eve being the first two people made from the earth. They understand that's what's being said and they reject it. Likewise, modern liberal christians have no problem with it. They say that the greater truth is still maintained even if the passages are understood allegorically. The historical church had no problem accepting the chapters at face value. The only people for which this is concern is modern conservative evangelicals who feel they need to somehow reconcile the Bible's straightforward narrative with 'modern science'.
I love that you’re doing this, Gavin. A lot of people who are enmeshed in a fundamentalist church and community don’t realize how vulnerable a literalist view is outside that bubble (typically college). If evolution (or at least an old earth) is not an option then you’re cutting out a lot of people (and almost all the developed world outside the US).
For me I love discussing this with fellow believers. Even if I disagree it's just fun and interesting to think about. Thanks for trying to be fair and acknowledging each take does have some awkward issues they have to deal with.
Thanks for doing this Gavin. Bless you. One question - say Adam and Eve are purely archetypal but represent every human who has ever existed. How is that view not acknowledging a historical fall? For insofar as humans fell (whenever and however that happened) Adam & Eve tell that story. I ask because, given the fact that no one historical view of Adam is without significant issues (mirroring, in my opinion, the problems YEC confonts with scientific findings) - couldnt this be another option on the table? It may be counter-intuitive to our established sensibilites, but as you say, we must have patience and humilty with such ancient texts. What do you think?
I’ve been on a similar journey trying to harmonize these truths for a while. The turning point for me came from a careful study of Gen 1-3, when I realized how much the text was not saying what I had previously read into it from a YEC perspective.
There is nothing that indicates evolution in Genesis. That's fantasy. It's not in the text, not even a little hint. There's no allegorical language, is all stated literally.
If man had descended from chimps, God would have told us that in His revelation. As it is, God has given us in Genesis an account of man's origin that we can trust, and which would have been misleading if we had come here by evolution and He gave us absolutely no indication of that.
The Bible also doesn't give any indication of heliocentrism or a spherical earth either. Why? Because the authors lived thousands of years ago before such things were discovered. See? That wasn't so hard of an obvious conclusion.
@@CDK008-hm3ue The obvious conclusion is that God has given us in Scripture the factual account of human origin, and if it had been by descent from apes, as the Darwinist myth has it, He would have told us that. Simple. See?
@@anselman3156 you're making an awful lot of assumptions about the ancient isrealites authors and audience. Are you aware that the old testament describes 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology and not modern 21st century cosmology? The Bible wasn't written by Bill Nye the science guy in the 21st century. Genesis is some 3,000 years old. Because remember, the Bible is written in Hebrew. Who writes and speaks in Hebrew? That's right, Moses and the original isrealites audience. It's not written in modern 21st century English.
@@anselman3156 in fact, you won't actually find a single verse in the Bible that says anything that accords with modern 21st century science or technology. You won't find any verses about DNA, you won't find any verses about cell division. You won't find any verses about space travel. You won't find any verses about social media. You won't even find any verses about the brain being used for thinking. You won't find any verses about the spherical shape of the earth. You won't find any verses about heliocentrism. You could go to any verse in the Bible, and you'll never find, not even one, verse that reflects any modern scientific or technological concept. So likewise, there's really no reason to expect the Bible to have information about 21st century biological origins either.
@@CDK008-hm3ue The Scriptures were written for US, as St Paul reminds us. If God had created us through descent from other animals, it would have been quite easy for ancient Israelites to grasp that fact if it were told them by God. The Daarwinist fable does not fit the inspired God -given account of human origin and the origin of death, rather it contradicts it. God's revelation was given for all generations of humanity. It would be a neglect of God to give a true account of our origin if it were by derivation from lower life forms. God is not a God of confusion but of truth. The fact that Genesis does not teach man's descent from other life forms means that it did not happen.
I really appreciate this video. I am a scientist and have gone through the gauntlet of secular scientific education. And, though I love it, I hesitate to recommend it to other Christians. Not because I don’t enjoy it, but because I feel the dogmatic view of many Christians on this issue sets up young Christians for failure and could cause them to lose faith. I can honestly say after studying it is not hard to hold a more open opinion on the topic as I do that entertains multiple possible Genesis readings. Yet I don’t feel free to share these opinions with my own church. We desperately need a more open discussion in this area.
Glad to see Gavin is staying away from controversy.
Love the balanced takes as always!
LOL. This is why we love Gavin.
LOL
It's all about John Walton's Lost World of Adam and Eve lectures.
Hehe. My first reaction is 'glutton for punishment.'
i like Gavin's attitude. if God exists, then all truth is God's truth and we should not be afraid where truth leads.
Yes!
Exactly young earth 🌎
Amen
@@CamGaylor Exactly, otherwise death is natural.
@@CamGaylorNO: Theistic Evolution and Old Earth!!!
Gavin, don't feel like you need to rush these important topics. I'd gladly watch much longer videos of you addressing these issues.
My exact thoughts. Go for it, Gavin!
I really enjoy the long form videos. I do a lot of listening while doing other things.
"Augustine will just throw out possibilities and not try to harmonize everything he says."
I can relate to that.
Bruh same lul
The earliest Christians were much more open to mystery, in accepting that we in this age are incapable of knowing it all. As Paul said, like seeing through a glass darkly.
Precisely why fundamentalism is at heart a form of modernism.
@@donatist59 Yes. As the video's selections from Augustine showed, there are many opaque areas in scripture. The task is to take scripture seriously and sincerely, without thinking we can interpret it all perfectly. God gives what we need, not what egotistical curiosity demands.
To that end, the ultimate purpose of scripture is to point us to the living Christ who gives new life in the Spirit here and now, who will return and bring true peace and justice, who calls us to love others in practical ways in this age.
Best comment posted. I truthfully pray people read it many, many times with a truly open heart, without getting defensive. This comment, and I too don’t mean to upset anyone, but this comment is the most truthful words either written or spoken in both the video and comments. Thank you for the courage it took to say.
Yes, it’s okay to not fully understand some of these things. Almost arrogant to think that we have all the answers and have correctly interrupted the Bible to a T.
“Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” - Thomas Campbell
"In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love" (RESTORATION movement)
We have to be open to discussion. And have grace and humility in these tertiary, unclear matters. This doesn’t need to be divisive. Saddens me it becomes that way.
In the words of Peter: “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
May we not twist scriptures to our own destruction. May we give God’s word room to breathe and have nuance, as it so often does. May we have humility to realize there will be a lot of things that are hard for us to understand.
@@donatist59 who is the first human that is listed in the geneology of Mary? What does science prove with mitochondrial Eve? On these two premises alone we can prove Adam and Eve were the first two human beings, literally created by God.
So refreshing to see a Protestant apologist.
He is our champion
Wow. That's an interesting comment. If you like Gavin, you may also like Dr Craig, Voddie Baucham, Frank Turek. RC Sproul, Dr Hugh Ross, Jeff Durbin….
@@Mr.Whitenton James white
Apologists are only good for reinforcing confirmation bias. If you have the intellectual appetite for it, you’ll always get more out of scholars who’s been subject to peer review like John Barton, Raymond Brown, DB Hart, Mark Goodacre (these four all have vastly different perspectives, but any one of them can help steer you down a more intellectually honest path)
@@paulallenscards Are not all Christians called to give a defense (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in [us]?
1 Peter 3:15
My advice is to be careful of the wisdom of the world and stick to spreading the story of truth in Christ. His words will guide you in reaching sound conclusions.
Finished deconstructing my fundamentalist views last year, and it is difficult and humbling, but so refreshing, and Gavin has been such an encouragement.
No more Young earth creationism.
No more dispensational rapture theology.
No more hyper-literal KJV-only view of the Scriptures
Fundamentalism is just one of those words nobody knows what it means these days, but the usage of the word has been really positive until today, because the fundamentalists were the ones opposing to liberal theology in the 19th century.
I would describe myself as a fundamentalist christian, and I don't believe any of those doctrines. Of those three believes only young earth creationism is something I could be convinced to believe in. Fundamentalism taken in its proper sense simply means that you believe, and refuse to abandon, the fundamental teachings. The problem with many american "fundamentalist" groups is that they overreact against liberal and critical reading, erring too far in the other direction. Their defensive position has lead them to make fundamental believes that were never meant to be fundamental.
@@santtuhyytiainen I consider myself a conservative that holds to the fundamental truth of the Bible.
However, "fundamentalists" would consider me very liberal🤷
@@ayobithedark2772What do you consider fundamental?
@@santtuhyytiainen Christians that hold to the 3 views I mentioned earlier, they are what is considered fundamentalists today
Job well done. This video does a remarkable job of canvassing the land on this question from a biblical point of view with an open mind to modern science. Can't say I've seen it put better. People are often missing what counts and what matters in this discussion, from both the YEC camp all the way to the theistic evolutionist/mythos readers.
thank you my brother!
Nothing warms my heart more than Christians from different groups expressing love for each other
This channel is such a breath of fresh air
I think this video is going to turn out to be very important. I've spent a lot of time researching this and seeking answers and perspectives on this and this video is the best I've seen in terms of succinctly covering the topic. It's one that is difficult because some of us want to seek the truth even if it's really challenging to our worldview and there is a lot of pressure on this point both from the secular world and fellow Christians to not take the topic seriously and simply blindly believe one way or the other.
Brother, no apologies for talking about your books! 📚
This is your channel, you have put your time, heart and God-given abilities into your work and that is worth mentioning! 👏🏽
Really appreciate your channel Gavin. You’re a fantastic addition to TH-cam overall but especially apologetics, church history, and philosophy.
Loved hearing that theologians in the 1600s were wrestling with the idea of "pre-adamites." Having historical context breaks through the rigorous modern binary; it gives us space to consider and explore without feeling guilt about betraying one side or another. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund.
As always, we're appreciative of your humility, sincerity, and call to unity despite talking about traditionally divisive topics.
Gavin just took almost all the thoughts that have been pin balling around my brain as I've studied this, and articulated them in one video. Outstanding work!
Great video! It should maybe be in the Creation-playlist, so it could be easier to find😊
Gavin, God bless you! It was these types of videos that brought me back to faith. It fills my heart and soul to see one of my favorite online theologians tackle these issues!
Once again - this is phenomenal. And once again - this is a video that I would eagerly and gladly share with my fellow believers, elders, pastors, as well as non-believing friends and strangers.
As a YEC, I appreciate Dr. Ortlund's works like this. I'm still not convinced of evolution due to scientific reasons, but I accept the second oint: we need patience and humility to review attempts at harmonization.
Patience and humility is what is allowing this trash theory of theistic evolution to spread. Look at the comments, 90% of people or more are just praising Gavin for being a fence sitter and allowing this filthy false doctrine to keep putting doubt in the mind of believers. More and more people are abandoning the idea of divine inspiration of scripture and joining the heretical teachings of the catholic church and the orthodox (falsely so called) church. I refuse to give an inch to the liars spreading this nonsense.
Thing is there is alot of science for it.
I.e. the 98 percent similarity to humans with chimps
Even answers geneticists will say universal that the closer the genes the closer the relationship
Remember there thing called traced
Here's the thing the scientist that have been on there saying chips are less than 80 has been discredited numerous times rewrites his research alot.
This girl is a athiest she is a leftist.
I apply the test all things to all.
Her names gutsick gibbon
She has a series that goes over the huge amount that answers and icr. Do.
It's not important to salvation
It's not ultimately important but I'd check it out.
🎉🎉🎉
Gavin You may never hear from people that you have helped the most. You definitely will hear from people that aren't helping at all. keep up the good work.
Amen to this comment.
Gavin, I so appreciate the intent of your channel, to seek truth and share a discussion of that search with others. Your boldness, not to shrink from hard things, benefits me and so many others. We have to be able to have these discussions and have honest, careful and generous discussions with each other.
This may be one of your best videos yet, and that is saying something. I personally found this so, so helpful. In a month’s time, I am spending several weeks teaching apologetics to high school students. My heart is for young people who will, in the years ahead, face tough questions, and it would grieve me, it would be tragic, if they did not know that they can always honestly seek the truth and that it may be different from things they have been told before, but all truth is God’s truth. You have expressed the same heart and concern for young people.
So, Gavin, please keep this going. I endorse everything in this video and myself will seek to approach understanding and harmonization with humility.
thanks so much Colin!
By far the best video I’ve seen on the topic
I really appreciate all the work you put into this excellent video. One note: None of the three challenges you gave for "Ancient Adam" apply to Dr. Craig's proposal. They apply to the RTB model and maybe other Ancient Adam views; but not to Craig's. I just thought that should be mentioned since you specifically talk about Craig's approach right before going to the 3 potential problems.
In any case, this is an excellent video, and I really appreciate what you're doing with this topic overall.
I'm not endorsing Craig's view, btw; I just worry that somehow even very sharp people (like Gavin) have not really understood it so as to address it directly.
Great and balanced overview. I'll be sending it to anybody (lots of people) that still gets shocked about even considering anything different from the most literal reading of the text possible.
O grande Bruno Arruda, te vejo em quase todos os vídeos que assisto macho.
Yes very binary thinking. It’s like someone reading a poem and then saying they interpret it literally. People confuse the word “literal” to mean “true” they use those words synonymously.
And things that are non literal obviously can be true. An artist’s description of a sunrise would be true and so would a scientists view of a sunrise. They’d both describe that event differently yet both would be true.
When Jesus says he is the Door, we do not immediately think that he is made of wood and has a doorknob.
Instead of saying that we interpret the Bible literally, one ought to say we interpret the Bible straightforwardly, that it is saying what it is trying to say given the genre of the text, and a fair and open reading of the text in that light.
In reply to @catholicguy1073
In the first place, not all of the Bible, (and certainly not Genesis) is "poetry."
In the second, the artist's and scientist's description of a sunrise can only both be true if both believe in truth.
Starting from the standpoint that God is real, then all science, or knowledge, is from Him.
Likewise, the artist who whose work is based in truth will be trying to convey what God has shown Him.
So yes, both would be telling the truth, but
you spoke of "non literal" things.
A "sunrise" is a literal and real thing.
A scientist, who when asked what a sunrise was, gave a description of a tree,
Or an artist, if asked to paint a sunrise, painted a cavern, would not be painting or describing the correct thing, or even the same thing.
Truth does not change.
Agree with all of this.
What I actually said is that some things are not meant to be taken literally.
This is such a wonderful treatment Dr. Ortlund, it is very much in line with where I landed on the issue after spending a year studying it to satisfy my own questions and troubles.
So good to hear someone talking sensibly about this. Isn't it wonderful that we have several feasible working theories on the table?
As a Christian and an Anthropologist, it is so refreshing to see an Evangelical Protestant Apologist tackle this topic of faith and science with a line of reasoning other than the Bible being true and science being evil. I struggle every day to harmonize what science tells us with what Scripture tells us. The best I can do is say science shows us God's great creative intelligence.
I tend to agree with Dr. William Lane Craig regarding H. heidelbergensis (700,000 to 200,000 years ago) because we know they had moved out of Africa, as we have found fossils in Germany and France, as well as other parts of Europe. In fact, the first fossil of H. heidelbergensis was found in 1907 in the Rösch sandpit north of the village of Mauer, which is near Heidelberg, Germany. As previously stated, they have found fossils in France as well, specifically Terra Amata, France. So, H. heidelbergensis would have traveled into the Near East to get to what we consider modern Europe.
Here is another thing to consider regarding Adam and Eve. Supposing for a moment they are as real as you or I, how would we identify their fossils? Of course, the answer is that we can’t, and it’s unlikely that this question will ever be answered because we simply have no way to tell if the fossils we have found or will find in the future are the biblical Adam and Eve.
Personally, I don’t need Adam and Eve to be real, as it were, just like I don’t need the Earth to have been created in six days or the flood of Noah to be real for the Bible to be literally theologically true and for God to be in my life. We have all manner of proof that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected, and for me, that’s really all I need. I know that’s being over-simplistic, but isn’t our faith just that simple: the life, death, and resurrection of Christ? Without that, our faith is pointless, the rest of the Bible notwithstanding.
Well said!! As a scientist at a university, no scientific topic has challenged me theologically as much as human evolution. It does require the faith and simplicity of Augustine to trust that God can do things whatever way He deems fit. God bless you on your journey
I appreciate your candor and honest reflection.
Interestingly, I eventually grew to reject the non-literalistic view (I still affirm a literal reading of Genesis) once I understood genre-analysis and literalistic vs literal distinctions. The established science on the issue with tertiary to my settling in on old earth interpretations.
What is your confidence level in the dating methods?
@@stagename2 dating methods will never be 100%, and there will always be some questions of accuracy, but overall, I have high confidence in the methods.
Congrats on 60k subs!
I love these videos. Thank you for the grace and wisdom you bring to these difficult topics.
Thankful for the research you put into these and the clarity and gentleness you present with! I always look forward to your videos!
Hard topic with lots of emotions! Thankful for you walking thru it so clearly as usual
I think this is SO incredibly interesting and I feel so blessed to stumble on your channel! I feel like my kids are going to want answers one day and the best we can do is be prepared to answer questions. But also, I'm just fascinated by all this! I am slowly accumulating all your books!!! 😍
Excellent video Gavin. As always, we need to explore these questions and can find the glory of God through scientific discoveries as well. But ultimately it's okay for us not to know yet.
Job 38:4-7
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements-surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Excellent way to frame this difficult issue and basically sums up exactly where I am on it. I would love for a follow up video sometime diving into each of the three models you mentioned as kind of a compare/contrast. I find content on each view individually but not a lot of content comparing the evidence for and against each view.
These kinds of discussions are so needed. There is no need to stifle thought and biblical discussion, simply because we are afraid. If all truth is God’s truth, we can be open to the biblical text and the fact that there is MUCH nuance and many things that the Bible simply is silent on.
And in the words of [someone from the RESTORATION movement] said. We are silent where the Bible is silent. It’s okay to not understand or even have a clue the details about things we do not have the details on.
Reading through Genesis 4 recently, I remember asking my dad when I was young if God made other people besides Adam And Eve. I think he said something along the lines of, “he could have.”
It’s okay for us to have humility and say we don’t know. We don’t need to.
These are just such important things to discuss, as we all have many around us who believe the Bible and science are at odds with one another.
I am seriously so thankful for your work on these topics!
(I first found you by your videos on Catholicism, which were also so great!)
Most proponents of the recent Adam view, such as myself, would state that genesis 1 declares all humans as being made in the image of God prior to the creation of Adam. So there would be no need for a propagation of the image of God throughout humanity.
Hey Gavin, I know you get a lot of pushback on these videos. I think they're great and thought-provoking, whether I agree with you on everything or not. God Bless You, brother.
thank you!
He doesn't. 90% of comments are people praising everything he says no matter how much it contradicts scripture. The sign of a cult. Maybe neither he or his followers notice it, but that's what is happening here.
@JesusProtects What he’s saying doesn’t contradict scripture. Adam is still historical, the Fall is still historical, and Adam is still the ancestor of every modern human today.
The area of speculation is where the Bible does not elaborate on, namely if there were people outside the Garden. If Cain feared his brothers, how could he possibly end up marrying his sister and have enough people to build a city? This view ends up reading as much into the text as the view that there were other people outside the Garden who eventually married into Adam’s line and therefore Adam became geneological ancestor of everyone.
Also, I don’t think you know what a cult actually is. I heavily disagree with Gavin on some things, as I’m sure others do here. Cults require a personality cult, manipulation, love bombing and gaslighting. Gavin doesn’t engage in that. Not liking someone is not credible evidence that they’re a cult leader.
I love that you're tackling these issues! And doing such a fantastic job...I think this should be required seeing for every Christian to at least understand some differences in approach to these verses.
We have got to the section where Augustine asks a question about whether Adam was created as a grown man or a baby - seems to me a strange question. He is referred to as a man ( not a child ) who needs a helpmate and God creates a wife for him and commands them to populate the world. So how could that be if he had a mother already who obviously had a husband and were populating the world?.. THINK IT WAS Calvin who said do not go beyond what Scripture says - all we do is create chaos in our minds and get ourselves into knots.
And Gavin is helping to create more chaos, and his cult followers in the comment section are treating him like an idol.
@@JesusProtectsSearching for truth, although daunting and confusing, is not 'causing chaos' and can not be branded as such in an effort to suppress it. It is vital that we are able to earnestly seek the truth, and if we were in a world where everyone had the same attitude as you we would be stuck in ignorance. Whether or not Ortlund is correct on this topic or not is irrelevant to that.
@@edward3320 If Old Earth Theory is true, then why do I aggressively misunderstand what you believe!?
Love how you approach these topics brother! I’ve learned so much about the history of the early church, RCC, and Protestant Church from you. I’m even reading The Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel atm based on your recommendation and I’m really loving it! It’s so fascinating to me. I used to caricaturize Roman Catholics and Protestants somewhat too before I found your channel. Idk if you’ve ever watched Inspiring Philosophy channel, but he’s got a very interesting take on Genesis in his playlist, I think you’d enjoy it. Anyways thanks again and God Bless! I truly feel you’re doing the Lords work! May Gods Grace and Mercy be with you. 🙏✝️🙏👍😎
So glad you made this, Gavin! Would love to see a Part 2 sometime, maybe with some focus on late 19th/early 20th century responses from people like Bavinck and Warfield. I'd also really like to hear more about your own personal struggles and experiences with this over the years. I'm encouraged by you, and I hope that you'll be encouraged as well! Better brace for impact after this one, brother...
DR. Ortlund: Would love a collaboration with Michael Jones on anything!!!
yes, been messaging him lately, hopefully it will happen
A YEC reading Genesis 1-11, a dispensationalist reading Revelation, and a Roman Catholic reading the eucharistic passages all suffer from the same misapprehension. Literal is not the superlative of true.
Very refreshing to hear this kind of openness while still holding the highest view of Scripture. Thank you, Gavin, this is a heavy topic that I've been wrestling with for years. As a homeschool mom I find it hard to approach some of these questions with the science and ancient history curricula that's available- I wish there were more people who take this approach rather than 100% secular macro evolution or 100% young earth creationism. Thanks for all your hard work!
I am in the same boat as you. I want science curriculum that is open to a biblical old earth view - no staunch stance.
And most of all, I want to be one hundred percent prepared to have open conversations about these things with our kids. The kids have to learn there are different viewpoints on this within FAITHFUL Christian worldviews. There is room for varying, faithful interpretation.
We need grace and UNITY, and especially humility on things the Bible doesn’t actually tell us…. (Age of the earth, heliocentrism, gravity, photosynthesis.)
I’m concerned about friends’ kids who will only get the YEC, with no consideration that an old earth can be a reasonable, BIBLICAL world view. It matters for their future and the others they’ll encounter throughout their life.
Okay this video is interesting… I’m not sure if I agree but thank you for always teaching that it’s okay to disagree. You’ve definitely helped me to practice figuring out what is the right hill to die on and what are secondary issues, but most importantly listening and not thinking that I am always right. It is my favorite thing about your TH-cam channel may God bless it and continue to grow it brother!
Great job. As a former atheist who came to Christ in 2012. I have always struggled with this. I cling to Christ and The historicity of our accounts of him. His verifiable resurrection.
With that said I have spent years of mental energy racking my brain on creation because I just can't unlearn evolution.
When I hear folks like Ken Ham saying if you don't believe it their way you aren't saved to me I hear salvation comes from the Gospel + some additional doctrine.
I am encouraged to hear Gavin basically land exactly where I land on this issue. Which is I don't know. I just know Genesis describes the human condition perfectly and Christ really was God in flesh who died to save us and was raised.
How I reconcile that with the fact that we evolved is beyond me.
Ken Ham goes too far, but not believing in YEC causes a lot of problems, no doubt. The first one is to stop believing in divine inspiration of scripture, which can lead to many, many, many false doctrines by false teachers.
@@JesusProtects trust me. If anyone wants to believe in YEC it's me. It would make life so much easier.
I do enjoy content from ICR from time to time.
@@justinpriest734 Maybe I can give you my input as an former atheist too. I took a lot of pride in my intellectuality and intelligence and seemed Christians as foolish, despite of I didn't know much about it. science was like a dogma to me. But when I came to faith, I knew his Word is infalliable, it's me who is fallible. So I tested my faith one or two weeks after I came to faith and read Genesis. It was a litmus test for me. And guess what, I believed it pure heartetly as it was written. I told to myself: "Better to be a fool in the eye of men than a fool in the eyes of God". I just denied my own intellectual pride. What does it profit me, that I believe in evolution and try to "reconcile" it with the Bible? I will still be a fool for the enemies of God because I believe the Gospel and still compromise. Men and their interpretation and trust in scientific data can err, even to an extent that leads to horrible actions. The appliance of the scientific method is just as good as the people working with it. For example: The Theory of Evolution led to even more disgusting study subjects like Race Theory, Eugentics, Social Darwinism and not to mention with the "speedy science" of the pandemic. And today we cannot even agree on the definition of male and female. But the Bible says "In the beginning God made them male and female". And that is widely accepted science nowadays as the prior mentioned subjects of "study". Those reconciliations by so called "intellectual christians" are mere compromises and mental gymnastics leading to even more watered-down and false doctrines. Sometimes to doctrines never heared before. Like modern sciences itself: "Always new Discoveries..."
We cannot save people by sugar-coating the Word of God and make it more appealing to the masses. It's not a product for sale but a Free Gift of God to all mankind. Sugar-coating it may attract the insects, but they soon will leave because cannot digest the bitter truth beneath it. That's why my stance is this: For me personally, I consider myself to be a fool in the eye of men, my own eyes or even some people reading this. However being a fool in the Eyes of God I don't want to be, even if I have to endure the mockery of my beloved brothers and sisters. I know that His Word is reliable and true because I know Him. I believe it as a child would do.
"For it is written: » I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. « Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
*1 Corinthians 1:19-20*
Great lighting by the way. Very helpful channel for me 👍🏻
What a blessing Gavin is!
This is something that has caused me great stress over the years. Somehow, in all my reading I only ran across YEC, OEC & attempts to harmonize the account with evolutionary theory. I appreciate that you've brought additional views to the table - even if that creates a different type of stress, it at least creates space to learn and understand.
Thanks, Gavin.
Great video brother, this whole topic needs a roundtable discussion with other scholars who are also working through this, and like Agustine are willing to be intellectually curious and follow scripture wherever it leads :)
As usual, I really enjoy and find your thoughtfulness and honesty challenging and refreshing. Patience and humility - fruits of the Spirit and love for God and one another. Keep it up, brother!
I wish you could get Hugh Ross on here to talk about this subject.
I SO appreciate your perspectives, Gavin, and how your thinking is both wholistic and synergistic. All the while you respect others’ views and think critically about it all!
BTW, how many books do you read in a year? I hear you speak about these topics and your bibliography always seems so expansive! Would love a show where you speak to how to read well; how to read critically.
Thank you so much for this video! Really enjoying videos on this topic, and I’m sure they are helpful for many people! Your book on Augustine was great as well!
What a fantastic video. Will be my go-to in helping others sort through these kind of issues. Thank you, Gavin.
Luke thought Adam was a real, historical man (Luke 3:38), and the very son of God. Paul thought the Genesis account that Adam existed and that sin entered the world through him was real (Rom 5). Paul also confirms the account of Genesis in 1 Cor 11, and covers how sin entered the world through one man in chapter 15. Paul confirms the serpent deceived Eve in 2 Corinthians 11-3. Paul confirms the creation order of man, then woman, in 1 Tim 2-11-14.
Jesus said that God made them male and female at the beginning of creation (Mt 19-4, Mark 10-6-9).
I live a simple life. When the Bible tells me something, and then confirms that thing over and over again, I stop worrying about what the world thinks about it, or how they rail against it. I simply believe it, because it's the Word of God.
Unfortunately, actual evidence shows another truth.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu ah yes, the shifting sands of man's evidence.
@@BM-si2ei You comment is meaningless.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu I'm standing on the only source of meaning.
@@BM-si2ei I thought your eyes were watering!
This was super helpful and interesting. Thankful for your humility and grace.
Thanks for this Gavin, this actually came up in a conversation i had with someone recently, and this is a very helpful balanced approach!
I've found your videos to be super helpful and honestly a bit confused to hear that some of the more conservative views seem to have such controversy attached!
Having anxiety right now and we are only on the introduction!!!😳 But will hang in there and listen to what is being said. K
God is using you greatly, Gavin.
Thank you for this lecture, Dr. Ortlund. It was a great help.
Thanks Gavin I'm always curious about this topic.
Good stuff Gavin! At the very least we can approach this subject with more humility and love, esp. for those who stay away from Christ because of a lack of it.
I love these videos, Mr. Ortlund. This, and your video on the flood, has been very thought-provoking. Keep up the great work!
@Gavin, it would be interesting for you and Fr. Stephen DeYoung to dialogue about the creation of man. I think there would be a lot of crossover and shared thoughts. You can listen to Fr. Stephen's commentary on Genesis at Ancient Faith Radio.
This is a great summary of the diffrent views. I default to a view like Dr. Craig's but I think you make a good point, theirs no reason to take a hard stand on these issues.
Bravo! I enjoyed this. It didn't get bogged down in stuff that only scientists would understand.
Yes they’re historical persons. If Jesus who is historical is called the “second Adam”, then there must be a historical first Adam.
@thomasglass9491 I’m an Old Earth creationist and I agree. Adam and Eve are historical.
I think this was a good and thorough video.
Yup
My concern is just the lack of exegetical information, the focus is just entirely in harmonizing and helping young people not fall away from the Church. I believe you when you say you don’t want the world’s applause and so on.
But the problem is just the lack of exegetical consistency on the theistic evolutionist, and this can lead so easily to liberalism, it’s one leap into Genesis poem.
The lack of exegetical consistency is a concern to me too though I also absolutely do not think Gavin's motives are anything other than solid and Godly. I just caution anyone going this route to look foremost at the theological issues posed and not to assume that "the science" is necessarily accurate by default. The scientific establishment has changed its view on a wide number of things, and recently too.
@@tategarrett3042 Yes, I mean the pandemic shows us that we can’t just trust the science and that’s it. Many people in the answers in Genesis who are genuine scientists have made articles that pose serious problems to it, so why is Gavin accepting it right out the gate?
@@OseiasChiquellaJunior-jm2id I would suspect he accepts it because of the experiences he's had and the people he's known. Perhaps he hasn't seen the darker and deceptive side of things in that regard, but I am certain he is not in the least attempting to be deceptive.
I don't think that is the aim of this work. He stated this is a survey to flag these issues, introduce them to a wider audience. I think the fact that many in church history we hold up as faithful figures in the faith gives some credence to being less dogmatic over non-salvation issues. He did give biblical explanations as to why one should be open to giving further consideration (towards beginning, he outlined: biblical, theological, and theodicy). True exegetical or academic work isn't going to reach a wide audience, nor is youtube the medium for it. A classroom with books seems better for that. I think he's attempting to be a bridge between exegesis/scholarship and popular level. I think that's what best communicators and pastors do. They do a lot of work behind the scenes (exegesis, reading, research) and find a way to communicate things most clearly. Otherwise, these videos would be hours long and rather tedious if you did real historical grammar type exegesis in the original languages. I personally don't subscribe to any of these views, but I'm glad to learn more. If I choose to dig deeper, I'm glad to know he's provided countless resources to do just that.
I also don't think it's accurate to say he is "accepting it right out of the gate". I lost count how many times his main position and proposal to others was "it's okay to not know some things"
Gavin, I appreciate how careful you are being, and your desire to perform good theological triage. I am willing to hear out various different harmonization efforts and analyze them seriously. My concern is that you do not mention as a possibility, along with these other possibilities, a more literalistic (as you call it) interpretation of Gen 2-3 and a reinterpretation of scientific data. There are at least some scientists that contest some of the population genetics conclusions that you mention, so it seems like it is at least theoretically possible that the data could be understood different ways. You stress that you are unsure of the correct option, but you do not include the literalistic interpretation even simply as one of many options. Why not? It seems to me that the effect of this is to exclude that view, just as you complain that many who hold that view have excluded the views you discussed. I have certainly witnessed the kind of harsh criticism that you reference from strict literalists against anyone with a less literalistic position, but I have also seen an increasing amount of harsh criticism going the other way too. If part of the point is to have theological openness to all non-heretical views, why not include the literalistic one since (even though you disagree with it) it is clearly not heretical? Basically, my concern is that it seems like the theological openness only goes in one direction.
I like this! ❤
Being charitable, I think the answer to your question is in who he is speaking to. Much of the care and information he's presenting is specifically for those folks who adhere to a rigid literalistic interpretation. So he didn't list it as an option because it was already implicit. Put another way, if I'm speaking to a crowd of YECs, why would I explain their position when I'm trying to explain, list and defend alternatives to their approach? You know? It wouldn't be neglect or oversight, just technically off topic.
@@telleroftheone I don't think he is only addressing people with a literalistic interpretation. If you watch the introduction again, you will notice that he specifically says that two of his goals are to provide answers to secular critiques and to reduce anxiety for struggling Christians. To use your example, it would be like addressing a crowd with evolutionists and young earth creationists and explaining the evolutionist view and its merits, but not explaining the young earth creationist view and its merits. It seems one-sided. He also explicitly says in the introduction that he is pushing back against the literalistic way of reading Gen. 2-3, while also saying that he wants to bring clarity about the "various options that are on the table for Christians." I think that pretty clearly gives the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that the literalistic interpretation is not on the table for Christians. At the very least, we could say that he did not provide "clarity" that it was an option on the table for Christians.
We want more of this series !!!
This video was very well put together
God bless
Thanks for opening up this topic for discussion. I appreciate your words and ministry.
It’s very hard to harmonize the story we hear from the current secular/scientific paradigm. Really hard. I don’t want to feel like I’m stretching it all to make it fit. Would enjoy hearing some more detailed proposals.
Adam started with a Glorified Body. That is FALSE. Genesis 3:22 clearly says that Adam was NOT immortal.
appreciate this content soo much, but my mind wanders when it comes to long videos, if it's possible i'd love to see a visual summary to make it more memorable :) Thanks Gavin
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Thank you Gavin. I don't find myself liberal either, but this is exactly how I think, about these things. I like your views a lot and find myself really Blessed by them. I don't say, that Trent ain't right at times, but I feel no blessing, coming FOR ME out of Him, but I held him in high regards. You are close to my heart.
Thank you for discussing Genesis in this manner. It’s drastically needed in the body of Christ. I've talked to many people who have left the faith because of this subject. I pray that this video and your others will help those who are struggling with this topic. They have helped give me another Biblical perspective on Genesis.
38:59 bis -- Was just to the library.
No, it wasn't a Loeb edition, but it was similar.
Twice over it was pointed out that Adam was the first man and had no parents, and when it comes to normal gestational development, it was pointed out that Jesus didn't take a year to make wine from water via the soil, the plant in the sunshine, the harvest and pressing and fermentation, but God in the flesh did it in one moment.
So, whether you were an inattentive reader or not quite candid, you were giving the wrong impression.
I really like this topic, ie showing how an old universe view is compatible with scripture. This makes christianity more inviting for outsiders, despite what YEC people say.
These Genesis videos are gold!
Ok, I'll give you that we should be patient with considering the evidence but not with trying to harmonize Scripture with Science. Rather we should see WHETHER Science can be harmonized with Scripture. This is where WLC goes off the rails. He starts with Science and tries to harmonize Scripture. That's the WRONG starting point.
That's what the Catholics said when they rejected Galileo's heliocentrism. It's only the correct approach when we first establish what scripture is saying when rightly understood. No point in bringing science into the discussion if the church can't decide on if the text is written in an ancient near east context or not.
@@CDK008-hm3ue //It's only the correct approach when we first establish what scripture is saying when rightly understood.//
LOL Thanks for agreeing with me.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome touche
So good!
This was excellent, with a necessary bit of prolepsis at 51:10 to ward off some of the less dogged criticizers and mockers.
Regarding the discussion of dust-I understand “to dust you will return” to mean that as our dead body decays, it literally returns to dirt. It makes sense then, if it returns to dirt, that we (or our ancestors) originated from literal dirt, since we are to return to it.
Another word for dust (or dirt) is earth-the name of the planet we inhabit. Adam was a creature whose origins are of the earth, while the God-Man Jesus’s origins are from heaven.
What am I missing?
In the Bible, all of mankind is made of dust and is from the earth. And so, what that means is, being mortal and of the earth, does not preclude having a mother. Ergo, Adam may have had a mother.
Abraham is made of dust as well for example, but Abraham had a mother. So it would follow that Adam being made of dust, does not preclude the possibility that he had a mother.
My problem with including evolution is the total gaps. When you look at the Cambrian explosion, millions of species just appear. Even if it is "guided", they all still appear ex nihilo. It is not gradual and it is not by stages.
The cambrian explosion spans tens of millions of years, with many precursors found among things like microshellies, cloudina, and ancestral species of cephalopod, cnidarians, sponges, corals, arthropods, and more. So it's not actually true that species just appeared out of nowhere. Many ancestral fossils have been found over the past 200 years.
The Cambrian explosion lasted for 50-100 million years… and there are pre Cambrian fossils.
And of course not a single land animal existed during that time.😉
What makes modern people so sure that we can't express inspired truth by using metaphorical figures of speech? Some things are too difficult to express clearly and succinctly in common declarative language even today. Moreover, we must remember that those ancient peoples had barely begun to develop their historical sense, and had very few records that kept their memories from the previous centuries. Indeed, most of their "history" was legendary and carried in ballads. Just look at how their writing systems were still developing. Moses had a very archaic alephbet to write with.
When we need a common story for our people to stick together and base our common identity on, the story has to be simple enough for ordinary folk to remember. Strict adherence to facts (especially facts not yet discovered) needs to take a back seat to expressing Truth clearly. Thus, Adam & Eve don't have to be singular historical original people. They are representative figures who exemplify all of our human forebears. God created all of our ancestral progenitors and designed every advance toward modern humans to reflect his image and likeness. The world is fallen as of the moment we began to try to discern what is good from what is evil. We need instead to seek God's advice, not our own opinion.
The antediluvian stories with their thousand year lifespans are also metaphorical. They are true myths about early culture heroes, the abuse of technology, and idolatry leading people into corruption. God is offended by those who choose corruption, evil, and death. He doesn't want the rich and politically savvy to rule as oppressors and make helpless slaves of the poor. Nor does He want them to teach us to worship materialism, sensual lusts, or selfish disregard for those weaker than ourselves. His plans for civilization are significantly different from ours. Thus, He comes down from Heaven to take a personal interest in us and participates in history to lead us to salvation.
Our endless problem of conflict, rebellion and disobedient selfishness is the same problem of sin that God has always been working on. Yet, He is choosing to have personal relationships with us because of his mercy, even to the extent that He is willing to save some of us into Heaven. We are now that close to what He is trying to achieve. Soon, we may be "redeemed" to overcome material inclinations with divine spirituality. That is our personal salvation, to be recreated into the final form He desires. For that, we need to have faith, to love Him and trust that He desires our good.
The Bible and Gospels are true. When Moses uses metaphor, he is recalling the stories of the cultures around him in his milieu, and following God's inspiration to tell them so that we may understand their real meanings. The stories give us a background and orientation so that we can choose a proper perspective and framework for faith. Before Abram, history is given in a more general sense. That is all we need. After God chooses Abraham, to claim a people for his own, history gets more specific. The later the stories are, the more historical facts are retained. This culminates in the completely factual historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God Himself. In Jesus, God is stepping directly into society to speak his own words to our ears and choose his people from those who respond in faith.
Do not be surprised if all the prophecies in the Bible come true. What God really wants is a people who trust Him and share his moral sensibilities and are willing to follow his plans. We only need to follow, and learn all we can about loving each other and how the Kingdom is supposed to work.
Genuine question from a patient viewer. You brought up the potential issue of incest in Gen 4. Wouldn't that be necessary at some point in the evolutionary view as well? Another question is if there were other people around in Gen 4, were they under the federal headship of Adam when he fell? Or do they have a different standing somehow?
good point. I wonder this too. The theistic Evolutionist views don't actually solve any of the challenges that the YEC view has.
In the theory of evolution, there was never a time in which there were only two people. So the incest issue wouldn't apply. I would recommend John Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve".
@@CDK008-hm3ue So did God create a multitude of people ex-nihilo and not just two? I'm curious how it could work for their to "never have been a time where there was only two people".
@@tategarrett3042 in Genesis, creation, or bara, is ex materia, not ex nihilo. But I would go further to say that the creation of mankind was a supernatural creation, not material or biological. Kind of like creating a football team. The players were already there. God stepped in and hand selected them for a purpose.
@@CDK008-hm3ue Yeah, respectfully, I completely disagree. I think the Scriptures are very clear that God created ex nihilo. You are going to run into some pretty dangerous theological problems believing that in creation God was merely reordering or rearranging "pre-existing matter".
Thanks for this, Gavin! To me, the most impactful point was one Augustine made: If a view of a literalistic account of the first few chapters of Genesis is found to be untrue, will we then give up our belief in the Scriptures, or will we modify our beliefs to harmonize with the truth--even if that means a less literal account?
Thank you 🙏
This is exactly what I have been pondering and praying abt recently since I was questioned by a non believing friend abt the creation story and authenticity of these biblical stories
Thanks, Gavin for the way that you've handled this topic. It has been a real challenge for me for the last few years, and you've given me a beneficial framework to think about this. I recently finished your book on Augustine's Doctrine of Creation, and it was so helpful and thought-provoking.
I lead an inductive Bible study ministry in South Africa and would appreciate your thoughts on how to implement this in studying and leading Genesis 1-11 in an inductive method. At face value I am pressured to observe and interpret in a very literalistic way, which I in good conscience cannot do anymore. Maybe my question is more on who to present a consistent hermeneutic throughout Genesis. Any suggestions?
Coincidentally I am reading James Jordan's creation in 6 days right now. One observation he makes that causes me to chuckle is how this issue is only of concern to a very small number of people. Modern conservative evangelicals. non-Christians have no problem believing that what's laid forth is a 6-day creation and Adam and Eve being the first two people made from the earth. They understand that's what's being said and they reject it. Likewise, modern liberal christians have no problem with it. They say that the greater truth is still maintained even if the passages are understood allegorically. The historical church had no problem accepting the chapters at face value. The only people for which this is concern is modern conservative evangelicals who feel they need to somehow reconcile the Bible's straightforward narrative with 'modern science'.
And Gavin is helping to confuse more people, and the people love it, and they sing praises to him for his lukewarmness. And I hate it.
This was genuinely phenomal!
I love that you’re doing this, Gavin. A lot of people who are enmeshed in a fundamentalist church and community don’t realize how vulnerable a literalist view is outside that bubble (typically college). If evolution (or at least an old earth) is not an option then you’re cutting out a lot of people (and almost all the developed world outside the US).
Just going to go ahead and “smash like” and comment before I have time to watch because I think this is an important question
For me I love discussing this with fellow believers. Even if I disagree it's just fun and interesting to think about. Thanks for trying to be fair and acknowledging each take does have some awkward issues they have to deal with.
I appreciate these videos a lot and the effort you take at trying to present all perspectives thank you!
Thanks for doing this Gavin. Bless you. One question - say Adam and Eve are purely archetypal but represent every human who has ever existed. How is that view not acknowledging a historical fall? For insofar as humans fell (whenever and however that happened) Adam & Eve tell that story.
I ask because, given the fact that no one historical view of Adam is without significant issues (mirroring, in my opinion, the problems YEC confonts with scientific findings) - couldnt this be another option on the table? It may be counter-intuitive to our established sensibilites, but as you say, we must have patience and humilty with such ancient texts.
What do you think?
I’ve been on a similar journey trying to harmonize these truths for a while. The turning point for me came from a careful study of Gen 1-3, when I realized how much the text was not saying what I had previously read into it from a YEC perspective.
There is nothing that indicates evolution in Genesis. That's fantasy. It's not in the text, not even a little hint. There's no allegorical language, is all stated literally.
If man had descended from chimps, God would have told us that in His revelation. As it is, God has given us in Genesis an account of man's origin that we can trust, and which would have been misleading if we had come here by evolution and He gave us absolutely no indication of that.
The Bible also doesn't give any indication of heliocentrism or a spherical earth either. Why? Because the authors lived thousands of years ago before such things were discovered.
See? That wasn't so hard of an obvious conclusion.
@@CDK008-hm3ue The obvious conclusion is that God has given us in Scripture the factual account of human origin, and if it had been by descent from apes, as the Darwinist myth has it, He would have told us that. Simple. See?
@@anselman3156 you're making an awful lot of assumptions about the ancient isrealites authors and audience. Are you aware that the old testament describes 3-tiered ancient near east cosmology and not modern 21st century cosmology? The Bible wasn't written by Bill Nye the science guy in the 21st century. Genesis is some 3,000 years old.
Because remember, the Bible is written in Hebrew. Who writes and speaks in Hebrew? That's right, Moses and the original isrealites audience. It's not written in modern 21st century English.
@@anselman3156 in fact, you won't actually find a single verse in the Bible that says anything that accords with modern 21st century science or technology. You won't find any verses about DNA, you won't find any verses about cell division. You won't find any verses about space travel. You won't find any verses about social media. You won't even find any verses about the brain being used for thinking. You won't find any verses about the spherical shape of the earth. You won't find any verses about heliocentrism.
You could go to any verse in the Bible, and you'll never find, not even one, verse that reflects any modern scientific or technological concept.
So likewise, there's really no reason to expect the Bible to have information about 21st century biological origins either.
@@CDK008-hm3ue The Scriptures were written for US, as St Paul reminds us. If God had created us through descent from other animals, it would have been quite easy for ancient Israelites to grasp that fact if it were told them by God. The Daarwinist fable does not fit the inspired God -given account of human origin and the origin of death, rather it contradicts it. God's revelation was given for all generations of humanity. It would be a neglect of God to give a true account of our origin if it were by derivation from lower life forms. God is not a God of confusion but of truth. The fact that Genesis does not teach man's descent from other life forms means that it did not happen.
I really appreciate this video. I am a scientist and have gone through the gauntlet of secular scientific education. And, though I love it, I hesitate to recommend it to other Christians. Not because I don’t enjoy it, but because I feel the dogmatic view of many Christians on this issue sets up young Christians for failure and could cause them to lose faith. I can honestly say after studying it is not hard to hold a more open opinion on the topic as I do that entertains multiple possible Genesis readings. Yet I don’t feel free to share these opinions with my own church. We desperately need a more open discussion in this area.