@CDK008-hm3ue does John Walton ever really go into the Church Fathers? My impression from what I've read and heard from him is that he stays away from anything that late in history.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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! 👏🏽
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!
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.
The issue you’re probably having regards where the information comes from. The answer is that it comes from the environment. I would recommend looking into information science and machine learning, at least enough to grasp the basics. In particular, the evolutionary algorithm is a simplified model of how natural selection really can produce novel solutions to problems with no prior information.
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.
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.
It’s ironic that Gavin, as a Calvinist, is weary of people concluding that God is author of evil. All the while his tradition not only has doctrines that lead to that conclusion but they openly teach that very thing too!
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!!! 😍
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.
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.
@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?
@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.
@CDK008-hm3ue One expects, rightly, that God in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, would tell us facts about our origin and about how we came to be in our present fallen condition, and He does that. Unhappily, you have accepted the falsehood that science proves man's descent from non humans. It does not. That is a theory, and there are scientists who reject it, on scientific grounds. Just because something has become a dominant ideology does not make it true. Human beings are prone to being deceived by lies and to suppress truth. There are scientists out there, Christian and non Christian, who reject the evolutionary theory, if you care to look more deeply into the question.
@CDK008-hm3ue you are not showing the fruits of the spirit and your comments tell me you are clearly disturbed by this. Know that, the bible says scoffers will come in the end times. You don't need to lean on evolutionary assumptions ad a crutch for your faith, brother
Homo sapiens did not descend from chimps; we share a common ancestor with them. We evolved from the now-extinct Homo species, such as Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis
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. 🙏✝️🙏👍😎
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Yes I agree. Especially from the paleo-anthropology perspective which I was hoping he would have gone into more. I see it as a scientific fact that there have been other humans based on our current understanding and fossil records of humans. I also unfortunately see it as a logical fallacy that we must assume the Bible is a true historical account because it claims to be the word of God. But that is a whole different debate =)
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.
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
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"
As a Christian who has always believed in young earth, I want to thank you for how nicely you out all this. My issue has been and remains the actual scientific data. I just see way too many problems with the actual evolutionary paradigm to bring myself to believe it. I really do think it comes down to capitulation, because we just don't know the science, and it is very hard to be well-versed in both science and theology, and I'm not claiming to be both, but I have just read so much about genetics and natural selection from Christian microbiologists that I don't even see evolution as even an honest understanding of scientific data.
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!)
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.
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.
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?"
Gavin, regarding the other people around when Cain got married or whom he was scared of. Both of the options (YEC) will lead you to incest likely, and Theistic evolution/OEC would lead to incest or beastiality. Could there not be an option for other created people after Adam and Eve? I know it may have theological issues, but It avoids incest and beastiality. Just curious on your thoughts.
Oh you beat me too it, I was saying pretty much the same thing in my comment. The theistic evolution models don't actually solve any of the problems posed to the YEC reading of genesis.
@CDK008-hm3ue I don't see how that's the case. If God at one point recognizes that some breed of semi-ape is now human, then either he inducts a whole group of them into the category of "man" in which case he did not in fact create Adam and Eve in the beginning, but an entire race of beings (which by the way must have also had an original first mating pair that gives rise to the rest - the incest is now just removed to another species further back along the timeline) so whatever direction you go you are either having to multiply the things that must be read into scripture which are totally absent from the Genesis account, or you wind up having to say that Adam and eve and their children either did commit incest with each other, or else married other nonhuman creatures. That's what I'm getting at because I don't see an option here that actually solves these issues.
I would say that the only humans that are made in Gods image ARE Homo sapiens and evidence as such is that we have a rational soul. In my view neither Adam or Eve can be anything but Homo sapiens. So this doesn’t take away from Evolution as a possible theory either. William LaneCraig goes too far back to other humans who preceded Homo sapiens. Nor does the Bible says that Adam & Eve are the first humans this is being read into the text. Their failure though all mankind bore when they fell regardless of when and today we still live in a fallen world.
@CDK008-hm3ue between this and your other comment here though I can't tell what your'e arguing specifically though - that God actually created a multitude of people miraculously from nothing along with Adam and Eve? If so that's interesting, and does solve the incest as well as beastiality problems that other views have, but it's also something that requires adding in some degree of extra-Biblical assumptions in, not to say that automatically disqualifies the theory.
@CDK008-hm3ue That... seems like a very radical reinterpretation of Genesis which is exactly the kind of concern I have with these other views. Right out the gate this is denying creation ex nihilo which is an important doctrine, but this also opens up a array of other questions that have to be asked, such as: "where did all these people come from? How were they created? Did they sin or die before Adam and Eve were "chosen"?" and others too, but that's a good enough sample.
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?
@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".
@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".
@CDK008-hm3ue Yeah, I hear what you are saying, but, respectfully, I don't see that in Scripture. John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Unless you are trying to argue that this is NOT the same creation account we find in Gen 1, which would be perplexing to say the least, I'm not sure how you could see Gen 1 as anything but ex nihilo. Do you think that John's audience would be thinking of anything other than Gen 1 when they read these words?
@CDK008-hm3ue yes. I appreciate now more than I used to that some alternative views (to the YEC family of views) have more too them than I first thought, but I still think they have a number of serious theological issues.
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.
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 lasted for 50-100 million years… and there are pre Cambrian fossils. And of course not a single land animal existed during that time.😉
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.
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.
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.
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*
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?
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 :)
Really helpful video Gavin. I'm currently working through these issues in Gen 1-4 and I really appreciate your book recommendations. What book would you recommend as the best presentation of the Young Earth view?
Have you ever thought that the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be understood as the descendants of Israel, and not the entire world? I think this idea aligns with some of the theories on Adam and Eve not being the only humans on the planet, but the story hones in on them two as they were created by God to eventually lead to Jesus Christ. This allows the genological records to maintain intact, and this also allows for other humans on earth to have been present at the time. I was hoping this video would clear up some confusion but it has unfortunately just raised more questions. It is fascinating how much information can be packed into these 11 simple chapters. I have always loved the creation story.
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.
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!
Coming from the UK I don't understand why so many of my American brothers and sisters are so convinced the creation story is a hill to die on. I come from an atheist background and in the Potter's hands I've changed my mind on abortion, gay mariage and feminism but I never felt like my views on science were against God's Truth. I have had fundamentalist American friends trying to convince me of their beliefs but I just didn't think it was very important. Thank you for making this video. I think this is a balanced view.
@StudentDad-mc3pu there’s a difference between a historical Adam and a YEC framework. I don’t think there’s any denial of a historical Adam in British evangelical circles, and I’m here in the UK to verify what he’s saying.
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!
Also another thought - if young people are leaving the church over Adam & Eve - maybe we need to question if they are actually born again. God is truth. Jesus is truth. The word of God is truth. Humility is needed and if there are things we cannot answer we will find out in. Glory. K
Or maybe we need to stop putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in people's way. Just like if you told people they had to believe that there is dome over the earth and if they don't believe it they don't believe in God etc
@@jonathanw1106 telling people they need to believe God’ s word is not wrong! You may as well say they do not need to believe the gospel! The Gospel is directly connected to the story of Adam and Eve and their sin. They need to believe they are sinners because of the sin nature inherited from Adam and that they require salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. It all fits together. K
I'd look to Inspiring Philosophy's channel on that. In short, there isn't much data to suggest YHWH was a minor storm deity. Regardless, God's very name likely means, "He Is" (the third person of "I Am". The reason this is important is because it means the ancient Hebrews conceived of God as "He whose very nature is Being itself". A minor storm deity would not logically bear such an all encompassing name. Hope that's helpful!
Brother, thank you for the great content (as usual). Which authors and material (be it books, articles, or videos) would you recommend on potential pre-Adamic races? Probably something from John Walton, correct? Who else?
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.
So much of the NT depends on Adam being a literal person - starting from Luke 3, when he traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to son of Adam, who was the son of God. How can we give credibility to the Bible without a literal view of Adam?
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.
Gavin, all that can be answered by a simple question : is Jesus and the apostles considered Adam and Eve as real historical person or not? What is the New Testament saying about this?
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.
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.
Gavin, how can one practically walk through these interpretive difficulties as one has children? When I read Genesis to my children, and they ask if there was really a talking snake, how could one respond?
Gavin, have you considered Dr. Michael Heiser’s view related to the image of God and how that could play into the Adam and Eve/ age of the earth discussions?
I have been a dedicated Christian since my early adolescence and the spirit of God and Jesus Christ has been in my life! I earned my B.S. in Physics and Chemistry with a minor in Biology at Whitworth College. I went to Whitworth College at the same time as Dr. Stephen Meyer who earned his dual B.S. in Physics and Geology and he was a year ahead of me! I went on to complete my PhD Physics coursework at Purdue University about the same time as Dr. Tour of Rice University. PhD level Christian Physics and Geologists ALL understand the Earth is quite ancient and its not SIMPLY a matter of radiometric dating, there are many, many ways to date the Earth and they all agree with an Ancient Earth. Like it or not the Earth and the Universe is ancient, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist and it has nothing to do with the Salvation mission of Jesus Christ!! I teach at a Christian high school and the top 5 ESSENTIAL BELIEFS of the CHRISTIAN FAITH have Nothing to do with GENESIS or the AGE of the Earth!! Facts...
I think he'd say it's technically an option, but as he pointed out in the video, the reading of the text seems to heavily imply that a purely topological reading is much more unlikely.
Glad to see Gavin is staying away from controversy.
Love the balanced takes as always!
LOL. This is why we love Gavin.
LOL
Hehe. My first reaction is 'glutton for punishment.'
@CDK008-hm3ue does John Walton ever really go into the Church Fathers? My impression from what I've read and heard from him is that he stays away from anything that late in history.
i like Gavin's attitude. if God exists, then all truth is God's truth and we should not be afraid to go 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.
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.
"Augustine will just throw out possibilities and not try to harmonize everything he says."
I can relate to that.
Bruh same lul
Who cares what Augustine thought? And the reason he doesn’t want you to harmonize Augustine’s ideas is because he’s inconsistent.
Muslim sources are like this too. They present every version of a story and basically leave the critical evaluation to the reader lol
@@toddstevens9667 No single writer is always consistent. Augustine should be read because he was brilliant, not because he was infallible
@@jeremybamgbade I’m brilliant too, but nobody cares what I think 😜
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.
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….
@@ChristFirst-J14.6 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.
This channel is such a breath of fresh air
Fresh air? Lol. It’s just a bunch of liberal ideas and critical Bible scholarship that’s been around for over a century.
Really appreciate your channel Gavin. You’re a fantastic addition to TH-cam overall but especially apologetics, church history, and philosophy.
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!
I am one of those young people struggling with this. Thank you
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.
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! 👏🏽
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!
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.
🎉🎉🎉
The issue you’re probably having regards where the information comes from. The answer is that it comes from the environment. I would recommend looking into information science and machine learning, at least enough to grasp the basics. In particular, the evolutionary algorithm is a simplified model of how natural selection really can produce novel solutions to problems with no prior information.
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.
As always, we're appreciative of your humility, sincerity, and call to unity despite talking about traditionally divisive topics.
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
I haven't ever even thought about these issues, but enjoyed listening to this topic in its entirety. Thank you for all you do :)
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
It’s ironic that Gavin, as a Calvinist, is weary of people concluding that God is author of evil. All the while his tradition not only has doctrines that lead to that conclusion but they openly teach that very thing too!
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!!! 😍
Thankful for the research you put into these and the clarity and gentleness you present with! I always look forward to your videos!
Congrats on 60k subs!
I love these videos. Thank you for the grace and wisdom you bring to these difficult topics.
Gavin, thou dost almost persuade me to become a Christian.
Seriously, though, fascinating and thoughtful analysis. Enjoyable to listen to.
thanks for listening!
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.
Whoever rejects any article of faith throws off the entire faith and is an unbeliever.
Awesome video. You've helped me remove some of my anxieties and worries around this subject and be much more patient with scripture and science.
So good to hear someone talking sensibly about this. Isn't it wonderful that we have several feasible working theories on the table?
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.
@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?
@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.
@CDK008-hm3ue One expects, rightly, that God in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, would tell us facts about our origin and about how we came to be in our present fallen condition, and He does that. Unhappily, you have accepted the falsehood that science proves man's descent from non humans. It does not. That is a theory, and there are scientists who reject it, on scientific grounds. Just because something has become a dominant ideology does not make it true. Human beings are prone to being deceived by lies and to suppress truth. There are scientists out there, Christian and non Christian, who reject the evolutionary theory, if you care to look more deeply into the question.
@CDK008-hm3ue you are not showing the fruits of the spirit and your comments tell me you are clearly disturbed by this. Know that, the bible says scoffers will come in the end times. You don't need to lean on evolutionary assumptions ad a crutch for your faith, brother
Homo sapiens did not descend from chimps; we share a common ancestor with them. We evolved from the now-extinct Homo species, such as Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis
Great lighting by the way. Very helpful channel for me 👍🏻
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. 🙏✝️🙏👍😎
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.
By far the best video I’ve seen on the topic
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Yes I agree. Especially from the paleo-anthropology perspective which I was hoping he would have gone into more. I see it as a scientific fact that there have been other humans based on our current understanding and fossil records of humans. I also unfortunately see it as a logical fallacy that we must assume the Bible is a true historical account because it claims to be the word of God. But that is a whole different debate =)
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!
Good job, Gavin. Thank you for helping the church move forward on this one.
I made to the end, your podcast was recommended by my pastor. I'm getting alot out of your teaching. ❤
You did a great job framing the intricacy of this important issue.👍🏽
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
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
Just wonderful to hear Gavin patiently work through these complex and sometimes troubling issues
Hard topic with lots of emotions! Thankful for you walking thru it so clearly as usual
What a fantastic video. Will be my go-to in helping others sort through these kind of issues. Thank you, Gavin.
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"
have you not heard of a theogony?
As a Christian who has always believed in young earth, I want to thank you for how nicely you out all this. My issue has been and remains the actual scientific data. I just see way too many problems with the actual evolutionary paradigm to bring myself to believe it. I really do think it comes down to capitulation, because we just don't know the science, and it is very hard to be well-versed in both science and theology, and I'm not claiming to be both, but I have just read so much about genetics and natural selection from Christian microbiologists that I don't even see evolution as even an honest understanding of scientific data.
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!)
Great video! It should maybe be in the Creation-playlist, so it could be easier to find😊
Gavin is quickly becoming ome of favorite theologians
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!
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.
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?"
Gavin, regarding the other people around when Cain got married or whom he was scared of. Both of the options (YEC) will lead you to incest likely, and Theistic evolution/OEC would lead to incest or beastiality. Could there not be an option for other created people after Adam and Eve? I know it may have theological issues, but It avoids incest and beastiality. Just curious on your thoughts.
Oh you beat me too it, I was saying pretty much the same thing in my comment. The theistic evolution models don't actually solve any of the problems posed to the YEC reading of genesis.
@CDK008-hm3ue I don't see how that's the case. If God at one point recognizes that some breed of semi-ape is now human, then either he inducts a whole group of them into the category of "man" in which case he did not in fact create Adam and Eve in the beginning, but an entire race of beings (which by the way must have also had an original first mating pair that gives rise to the rest - the incest is now just removed to another species further back along the timeline) so whatever direction you go you are either having to multiply the things that must be read into scripture which are totally absent from the Genesis account, or you wind up having to say that Adam and eve and their children either did commit incest with each other, or else married other nonhuman creatures. That's what I'm getting at because I don't see an option here that actually solves these issues.
I would say that the only humans that are made in Gods image ARE Homo sapiens and evidence as such is that we have a rational soul. In my view neither Adam or Eve can be anything but Homo sapiens. So this doesn’t take away from Evolution as a possible theory either. William LaneCraig goes too far back to other humans who preceded Homo sapiens.
Nor does the Bible says that Adam & Eve are the first humans this is being read into the text. Their failure though all mankind bore when they fell regardless of when and today we still live in a fallen world.
@CDK008-hm3ue between this and your other comment here though I can't tell what your'e arguing specifically though - that God actually created a multitude of people miraculously from nothing along with Adam and Eve? If so that's interesting, and does solve the incest as well as beastiality problems that other views have, but it's also something that requires adding in some degree of extra-Biblical assumptions in, not to say that automatically disqualifies the theory.
@CDK008-hm3ue That... seems like a very radical reinterpretation of Genesis which is exactly the kind of concern I have with these other views. Right out the gate this is denying creation ex nihilo which is an important doctrine, but this also opens up a array of other questions that have to be asked, such as: "where did all these people come from? How were they created? Did they sin or die before Adam and Eve were "chosen"?" and others too, but that's a good enough sample.
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.
@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".
@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".
@CDK008-hm3ue Yeah, I hear what you are saying, but, respectfully, I don't see that in Scripture. John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Unless you are trying to argue that this is NOT the same creation account we find in Gen 1, which would be perplexing to say the least, I'm not sure how you could see Gen 1 as anything but ex nihilo. Do you think that John's audience would be thinking of anything other than Gen 1 when they read these words?
@CDK008-hm3ue yes. I appreciate now more than I used to that some alternative views (to the YEC family of views) have more too them than I first thought, but I still think they have a number of serious theological issues.
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.
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 lasted for 50-100 million years… and there are pre Cambrian fossils.
And of course not a single land animal existed during that time.😉
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.
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.
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.
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*
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?
Great video!
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 :)
What a blessing Gavin is!
Really helpful video Gavin. I'm currently working through these issues in Gen 1-4 and I really appreciate your book recommendations. What book would you recommend as the best presentation of the Young Earth view?
Have you ever thought that the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be understood as the descendants of Israel, and not the entire world? I think this idea aligns with some of the theories on Adam and Eve not being the only humans on the planet, but the story hones in on them two as they were created by God to eventually lead to Jesus Christ. This allows the genological records to maintain intact, and this also allows for other humans on earth to have been present at the time. I was hoping this video would clear up some confusion but it has unfortunately just raised more questions. It is fascinating how much information can be packed into these 11 simple chapters. I have always loved the creation story.
That view makes sense, but how do you explain what the fall is in this view?
@@Ismael-r3nprob the land of isreal
Thanks Gavin I'm always curious about this topic.
This video was very well put together
God bless
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.
Thank you for this lecture, Dr. Ortlund. It was a great help.
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!
Coming from the UK I don't understand why so many of my American brothers and sisters are so convinced the creation story is a hill to die on. I come from an atheist background and in the Potter's hands I've changed my mind on abortion, gay mariage and feminism but I never felt like my views on science were against God's Truth. I have had fundamentalist American friends trying to convince me of their beliefs but I just didn't think it was very important. Thank you for making this video. I think this is a balanced view.
Without Adam and Eve, Paul's propitiation theology kind of falls apart.
@StudentDad-mc3pu there’s a difference between a historical Adam and a YEC framework. I don’t think there’s any denial of a historical Adam in British evangelical circles, and I’m here in the UK to verify what he’s saying.
We want more of this series !!!
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!
What do you think of Nancey Murphy's approach? Did you discuss it with her at Fuller?
Also another thought - if young people are leaving the church over Adam & Eve - maybe we need to question if they are actually born again. God is truth. Jesus is truth. The word of God is truth. Humility is needed and if there are things we cannot answer we will find out in. Glory. K
Or maybe we need to stop putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in people's way. Just like if you told people they had to believe that there is dome over the earth and if they don't believe it they don't believe in God etc
@@jonathanw1106 telling people they need to believe God’ s word is not wrong! You may as well say they do not need to believe the gospel!
The Gospel is directly connected to the story of Adam and Eve and their sin. They need to believe they are sinners because of the sin nature inherited from Adam and that they require salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. It all fits together. K
@@jonathanw1106God is truth and so is his word. If you cannot be trusted with the small things how can you be trusted with great things? ~ Paul
Mr Gavin what to make of Alex O’Connor video on Our God was a storms god or something. I am troubled please help.
I'd look to Inspiring Philosophy's channel on that.
In short, there isn't much data to suggest YHWH was a minor storm deity.
Regardless, God's very name likely means, "He Is" (the third person of "I Am". The reason this is important is because it means the ancient Hebrews conceived of God as "He whose very nature is Being itself". A minor storm deity would not logically bear such an all encompassing name. Hope that's helpful!
I love these videos, Mr. Ortlund. This, and your video on the flood, has been very thought-provoking. Keep up the great work!
Brother, thank you for the great content (as usual). Which authors and material (be it books, articles, or videos) would you recommend on potential pre-Adamic races? Probably something from John Walton, correct? Who else?
God is using you greatly, Gavin.
This was super helpful and interesting. Thankful for your humility and grace.
Was watching a TU video when I got this video’s notification, great feeling on a Monday morning! 😂
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.
So much of the NT depends on Adam being a literal person - starting from Luke 3, when he traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to son of Adam, who was the son of God. How can we give credibility to the Bible without a literal view of Adam?
According to your point of view, how do you explsin corruption (death and violent competition) before the fall?
Animal death was part of God's creation. Hence why mankind is instructed to subdue creation and to have dominion over the animals in Genesis.
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.
Gavin, all that can be answered by a simple question : is Jesus and the apostles considered Adam and Eve as real historical person or not? What is the New Testament saying about this?
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
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.
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.
Gavin, how can one practically walk through these interpretive difficulties as one has children? When I read Genesis to my children, and they ask if there was really a talking snake, how could one respond?
It might be helpful to explain that the snake is also a play on words
What do you mean by that?
@@MBellerinoDr. Michael Heiser has talked about how genesis 3 is a triple entendre
I am so thankful for your channel
Gavin, have you considered Dr. Michael Heiser’s view related to the image of God and how that could play into the Adam and Eve/ age of the earth discussions?
I have been a dedicated Christian since my early adolescence and the spirit of God and Jesus Christ has been in my life! I earned my B.S. in Physics and Chemistry with a minor in Biology at Whitworth College. I went to Whitworth College at the same time as Dr. Stephen Meyer who earned his dual B.S. in Physics and Geology and he was a year ahead of me! I went on to complete my PhD Physics coursework at Purdue University about the same time as Dr. Tour of Rice University. PhD level Christian Physics and Geologists ALL understand the Earth is quite ancient and its not SIMPLY a matter of radiometric dating, there are many, many ways to date the Earth and they all agree with an Ancient Earth. Like it or not the Earth and the Universe is ancient, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist and it has nothing to do with the Salvation mission of Jesus Christ!!
I teach at a Christian high school and the top 5 ESSENTIAL BELIEFS of the CHRISTIAN FAITH have Nothing to do with GENESIS or the AGE of the Earth!!
Facts...
Mature creation. Take Satan's tail out of your ass.
I appreciate these videos a lot and the effort you take at trying to present all perspectives thank you!
Good stuff, Gavin!
Gavin, is a purely typological Adam not an option? It seemed like that would be an option based on the title of the video.
I think he'd say it's technically an option, but as he pointed out in the video, the reading of the text seems to heavily imply that a purely topological reading is much more unlikely.