Adam is not a doctrine...he was a real man. He's listed in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke chapter 3. How do you get around that? There's nothing to be confused or anxious about.
Did Jesus clarify “historical?” Or did He just refer to Adam? If He didn’t give any concrete, definitive reference to a historical Adam, then that doesn’t solve any literary issues. This is another example of the problem that Craig laid out with people claiming “the Bible says what it says, I read it literally.” That’s not how we read any piece of literature. Having studied the Bible, interpretation and theology in college and still not having landed on an answer with this topic, I do find Craig’s settlement of Adam being a bit of both historical and figurative to be quite comforting. Whatever anyone thinks about Adam does not change the truth of God or the plan He set forth and secured through Jesus however. That much we all can agree on as fallible humans
Adam is listed as a member of Jesus' genealogy along with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc. How is that possible if Adam was not a real individual? Where do we draw the line in those records between the real people and the "mythical"? And why would Jesus refer to the Flood of Noah's time as though it were real? Thank you, but I will just read my Bible and ask God all my questions about how it came together when I get to Heaven. I know that's not good enough for some people, but it is for me.
So disheartening in so many ways. I'm not sure how if going with what it sounds like the speaker was saying we can't just throw out the Bible 😢 I'm of course not surprised that unbelievers would wholeheartedly applaud such thinking but yes, how can there be a non line, now saying that the scriptures are mythical. A point in which we say, oh yeah, its true here but just old folk tales there. In that line of argument, the Bible is of no value, only maybe one of children's fairy tales and a mockery of those who believe the words of Jesus. I'm sticking with Jesus and trusting him who changed my life. Nothing is to hard for him. Very discouraging to listen to in so many ways with all the respect that I've gained of Dr McDowell.
Ask your god why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke have contradictory genealogies for Jesus and which one, if either, is the correct one? If and when your god answers record it and upload it onto TH-cam so that we can all hear it. If you can’t record it then I will suspect that no god has answered your question and you are just conflating your own internal dialog into something it isn’t.
@@bentebbensNo one said the bible included folk tales. It was claimed that some parts are figurative, but have a connection with history. You don't have to be a scholar to recognize the shift between Genesis 11 and 12, or that Rev shifts into figurative language.
It really bothers me that we can 18:42 accept miracles in the Bible such as resurrection of our Lord or The parting of the Red Sea but we cannot accept that God would start the universe and places us right into our place in the universe.
@@jeremyfrost3127 bro... you need to stop with this comment. It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about: (getting tired of refuting this) Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Seriously, just stop.
We need to call this man what he is, a heretic, and stop elevating this man who denies the history as God gave it to Moses and confirmed it through Jesus. He's making God a liar.
When we put the Bible (God’s word) and Science (Man’s word) on the same level, that’s when the whole foundation crumbles. How can we possibly compare our own wisdom to God’s?? That is completely nonsensical. Science keeps being disproven and updated. The Bible holds true and remains unchanged eternally.
I see 3 problems. 1) science is not disproven….however when technology increases in capability we do update our current understanding in light of those discoveries. 2) every book can be said to hold true….can you disprove Julius Cesar Gallic wars? Once something is penned it forever remains unchanged eternally. 3) for some individuals they do not start with the Bible is gods word rather they measure it contents….if scientific discoveries reveals certain passages as inaccurate or no other historical works can validate its contents then those individuals simply will not elevate it to gods word and give it more weight than the scientific knowledge humanity as attained to.
I figure if Jesus , Paul, Peter, and Jude believed in Adam and Eve and Noah literally, I'll stick with their "primitive" beliefs over this guy who follows "The Science" over the Word of God. Jesus refers to the creation account in Mt 19:4-6 and to the fact that with God all things are possible in Mt 19:26. Paul argued for sin coming into the world through one man, Adam, in Romans 5 12-21. Peter refers to earth's destruction by the literal flood in 2 Peter 3:5-7. And Jude, the brother of Christ, speaks of Enoch being the 7th from Adam in Jude 1:14, which seems a strong statement that Adam was an actual person. He also warned us to contend for the faith against people who creep in and deny God's grace and words. I don't say this unkindly about Mr Craig, but faith does require us to believe what God says rather than the words of men or talking serpents, especially in what we cannot easily believe, understand, defend, or explain.
Just last week I was listening to a scholar do a word study and in passing he made the comment that william lane Craig is dangerous. NOW I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT. Bad MOJO Mr Craig
Dear Sean, can you please have a YEC on your show. I want to compare ideas in this kind of short form format. Thank you for all your content. May God bless you!!
He skips so quickly over his reasons for why literal views are "impossible," instead filibustering with the alternatives he thinks must be incorporated to allow him to cling to a bare bones but inescapably distorted view of scripture. There are many points with which I would argue, but the comments section is a poor place to conduct a conversation.
Jup. I have never seen him "wrestle" with C14 like he deminishes the biblical testimony. He would go out of his way to defend science but pictures creationists like they are clowns.
2Peter3: 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly….ESV
I did not find this conversation to be very edifying. I love and have so much respect for Dr. Craig but i cant believe he misses the picture entirely. If Gen. 1-11 are myth than so is our need for redemption and a savior. Genesis is the foundation for everything that follows in the Bible. Dr. Craig values modern day scholarship over scripture, and this distorts his hermeneutic.
with all due respect I think you’re missing a key point that ‘mythohistory’ is no less true than the poetry of the psalms or the apocalyptic writings of revelation or indeed the parables of Jesus… Craig is not arguing that Adam and Eve are mythical, (or that genesis is untrue) but indeed that they were real people and that the mytho-historical language of early genesis gives a cogent account of why the biblical narrative is not opposed to the findings of modern science… this is such important work - particularly if the gospel is to reach those in the scientific community whose telescopes and microscopes already reveal to them the wonders of God’s creation, but according to a timeline that does not marry with a literal reading of early genesis… I implore us not to put up unnecessary barriers to the faith due to our insistence that genesis be read through a particular lens 🙏❤
That simply doesn’t follow. The Bible clearly says that we are sinners. Genesis somehow being a myth doesn’t magically get rid of all the other references. We know Jesus is our redemption and savior because that’s what the text says. We don’t need to know the origin of something to know it’s true. That’s like saying we need to know the origin of a disease to know one exists.
I find Dr. Craig‘s interpretation of Genesis 1-11 entirely confusing and it doesn’t ring true. But I think I am even more concerned with his denial of original sin. Pelagius was declared a heretic for this at the council of Carthage way back in 418 A.D. This is why I was troubled with Sean saying it’s great that we have these alternative views on Genesis to consider, when it was rejected so long ago by the church.
Can you bring on someone from the young earth side that has studied this in depth and concludes a literal Adam and Eve are possible? Nathaniel Jeanson from answers in Genesis has done a lot of study on this.
There's a couple YT channels dedicated to this. I've watched a few videos and found some interesting stuff, but also some "explanations" that are rather far fetched. Adam & Eve serve as a foundation for doctrinal truth, so regardless of the timeline (not sure we'll solve that one!), God's involvement in creation and what transpired in the garden is central to Christian doctrine. The discussion in this video is anathema (and also makes no sense, it's a jumbled attempt to explain the bible in a manner requiring current modern discoveries, which will be passe soon enough).
Does this position that believes Genesis 1-11 myth-history not effectively discredit the inspiration of scriptures and the necessity of Christ's incarnation, virgin birth, death and resurrection? When Peter speaks of the creation of the world, it's flooding and it's future destruction by fire (2 Peter 3:5-7) does he speak of an ancient myth (the flood) and a future myth (destruction by fire)? Does this not fly right in the face of the gravity of man's need for salvation and the necessity of God having to come down to Earth to bring this salvation?
Yes, WLC is discrediting scripture. He is _actively teaching_ against the record God gave in His word. Jesus said many will coming in his name, saying he, Jesus, is the Christ _and will deceive many._ Just because someone says Jesus is Christ does not mean they are not a deceiver. Even demons believe and shudder. Demon's know who Yeshua is, not just think it, but know it. The difference is a child of God believes their Father and obeys their Father. WLC is casting doubt on what our Father said.
Thank you for your comments - I only got 21 minutes in to this video and couldn’t continue watching as I felt the Holy Spirit was saying this is false teaching. I’m glad I’m not the only one ❤
This is nonsense. WLC absolutely believes in the inspiration of scripture. This entire conversation is about how to INTERPRET Genesis 1-11. WLC believes Adam and Eve were real people who existed. It's IN HIS BOOK. Did they magically pop out of the dirt 6k years ago? Not necessarily, and that's what the entire book is about. Was that a literal description of an actual event, or was it fantastic story about the creation of mankind, written in a way that it would convey the story of creation to ancient people?
I think the historical Adam and Eve would also affect our view of humanity. God created man in his image, but if there was no Adam for the image of God to be created, what does that mean for us then?
I like Dr. Craig personally but his fact-free assertion that young earth position is “indefensible” is just wrong. Plenty of mainstream evolutionary and historical ideas that he is trying to harmonize the Bible with are looking increasingly “indefensible” as well, or at least highly suspect.
@@heremtica I think he was referring to the fact that science shows "devolution" more than "evolution" (the slow creation of more complex genetic material over time). It is also interesting that man existed for 100s of thousands of years but history only goes back about 6-10 thousand...
@@SeanMcDowell Sean, I usually like your style and approach. I respect you and Biola. You should have been able to "desconstruct" WLC's speculative arguments as nothing short of heresy. You have the knowledge and ability to sweep the floor of this sort of stuff, please do. I know you like to "explore" but there has to be a point past which you defend the Truth and hold it above the false. Listening and exploring is a natural curiosity, but at the end of the day discernment must clearly separate good from evil. In this case it's rather clear!
Sean, in all due respect, although William Lane Craig has done a lot for defending the faith, I take issue with his views on young earth creationism. We are discovering more and more evidence every day that the earth is indeed young, around 6,000 years old. Dr. Craig's worldview on the age of the Earth is nothing more than pandering to the atheistic naturalistic worldview, which has serious flaws.
The same understanding of physics and chemistry that allows us to accurately make predictions and search for oil and natural gas, and to communicate on a this platform in real time from any place on the planet, is the same understanding of physics and chemistry that demonstrates the earth is over 4 Billion years old, life started about 3 billion years ago, with homo sapiens appearing about 200,000 years ago. The same genetic testing we use to determine a person’s paternity is the same genetic tests we use to show relatedness among species. I don’t pre-suppose this as true, I don’t have a desire to want to believe these things, and I could not care less if the earth was actually young, but I do care about evidence and where the evidence leads.
@@DPM917 My friend, evidence doesn't lead anything by itself. Evidence must be correctly interpreted to be considered truth. The young Earth creationist and the old Earth creationist look at the same evidence, but with two different conclusions. And those examples you gave me are not the same. We know certain things to be true and we've tested many things, but making assumptions about the age of stuff and evolution is still just a guessing game. We have never witnessed these things happen over the course of human history. In fact, the only things we do have records of humans observing is seeing dinosaurs, or as many cultures call them, dragons. This is strong evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, which means the Earth is young.
@@DPM917 Do you know that crude oil has actually been found by using the bible? Do you have any idea how ridiculous 200,000 years of human history sound? Using a very conservative and generous math: Let's say you start with 2 people 200,000 years ago. Being ridiculous generous. Let's say they have 2 children 150 years later and in another 150 years there are 8 people. In another 150 years there are 16 and so on. Here is the math: 200,000 years ÷ 150 doubles = 1,333 doublings 2 people exponentially doubled 1,333 = 2^1334 people. These amount of people won't fit in 10 milky-way galaxies standing next to each other.
How the HECK can Craig ignore the verse Romans 5:12 HCSB Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin Pretty straightforward. His conclusions are all wrong. That's not a hateful sentiment. It's just fact.
Bless you, "Standing with Israel"! It is never hateful to stand for truth, even rigidly and uncompromisingly. What has the Body of Christ come to on this earth? Do we no longer believe the most basic and foundational structures of our faith? How is this Christian?
I love Dr. Craig. But I think his view is wrong. No original sin by Adam? That's no longer a foundational belief? I'm still listening, but I've yet to hear a definitive position on this. Is not Dr. Craig a believer in some form of evolution (theistic? I'm not sure). If so, then that will speak to his disagreement with Agustinian thinking. I will keep listening.
Rom 5:12 doesn't say that death spread to all men because Adam sinned. And for that matter it doesn't even say that sin spread to all men because Adam sinned. He isn't ignoring it, he's simply believing what the verse actually says. - Death spread to all men because all men sinned.
@@TheChristianAtheist 'How is this Christian?' I agree, it's not. I do not know why people are embracing WLC as a brother when he is not just confused but actively _teaching_ against God's word in Genesis. Jesus clearly said people would come *_in his name_* saying Jesus is the Christ and deceive many. Just because someone says Jesus is the Christ doesn't mean they aren't deceivers.
@@davidhawley1132 because the characters are a part of the story. There's no reason to believe that the characters are real if the rest of the story is a myth. The characters may be loosely related to real historical people. But any details about their lives as recounted in a hypothetical myth, should also be considered as part of the myth.
@@intrepidus3378 And those on the ark are the patriarchs of all the families on the earth in the record of nations. If they weren't real then neither is the record of their generations.
Craig doesn’t believe the flood is a myth. I’ve seen so many comments saying Craig believes the biblical narrative of Gen 1-11 is a myth. He doesn’t. He says they are mythoHISTORY. The difference is HUGE. When you understand the difference you will see how he can hold the two together.
I wonder how William Lane Craig would explain the canyons, layering and the progress of fossilization that we find in the remnants of the Mt St Helen's eruption where we find deposits that, although we know they happened less than 50 years ago, have been dated as much as 18 million years old. Maybe he should give his head a shake!
OMG that Mt St Helens “justification” for YEC has been *completely* and *repeatedly* debunked Stop watching Answers in Genesis. YEC “science” is an absolute joke in the broader scientific community.
Any creationists argument involving dating is just plain wrong. They don't understand the process and this allows them to get it wrong. Dating is a technique and one must use it correctly. For instance, suppose a rock was last heated to high temperature 18 million years ago. In other words, that's when the rock formed. It was then just sitting on the side of Mount Saint Helens. That rock will date to 18 million years. The rocks date based on when they formed, not whether they are part of a volcanic eruption.
It just so happens that Paulogia in his recent TH-cam video “Is the NEW Creation Night Movie the BEST of the Trilogy? Or the WORST?” addresses the dishonesty behind the Mount St. Helens creationism claim along with several others.
Like Dr William Lane Craig said, he never believed young earth views to be the best interpretation and he never felt Adam being put to sleep while God removed his rib was literal. It appears to me that he found a view that matched his presuppositions in what he felt the most logical way possible. However, we are finite beings with finite understanding and science is constantly having to change their views on various topics as they learn more and as more information is uncovered and/or discovered. To me, I believe the Word of God and that is my starting point for everything. I used to believe the world was billions of years old. I believed that a great percentage of Old Testament stories specifically were folk stories and that they had mythological elements. However, as I learned more about the Word and my relationship with God changed, I felt the need to change my views. I was not so tied to a specific view that I was tempted to overlook other perspectives in an attempt to fit my understanding into the framework I already had created. Doing a side-by-side comparison of a literal Biblical perspective vs. an Old Earth perspective similar to Dr. Craig’s, it became clear that the most accurate understanding was a literal Biblical interpretation. I feel that it holds up, first and foremost, Biblically. It holds up historically. And, it holds up historical. I cannot say the same about the Old Earth Biblical view. The latter interpretation allows for everything to unravel far too easily and, I believe, it leads one to easily deconstruct their faith until nothing is left. I am nowhere near as intelligent as Dr Craig. I love his work and have the utmost respect for him. However, this is something I have no other choice but to disagree with him.
@@laurentbillaud3316 I agree. Luke, in his Gospel mentioned Adam in the genealogy and he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write absolute truth. To accept other teaching is contradictory to the Scriptures and is false.
Amen ... when I stand before God and give an account of my life, I don't think God will say, "what? You believed what I actually said in my word? Are you crazy?"
In holding Dr. William Lane Craig in the highest regards as a defender of the faith, he couldn't be any more wrong in the "mytho history" of the geneologies, which the writer of the geneologies, Moses himself, places his own name in the geneologies, giving credibility to the literal reading of the geneologies. When the geneologies say "begat", this gives you an inescapable way to not be able to gap from descendancy
WLC should not be held in the highest regard as a defender of the faith. WLC is actively teaching against the record God gave in His word, effectively calling God a liar as the snake did. "Has God *_indeed_* said..?" Yes, God *indeed* said this and confirmed it when he stood on this earth in the New Testament. Jesus said many would come in his name saying he, Jesus, is the Christ and deceive many.
I respect Dr. Craig very much but respectfully, Dr. Craig, you are not the arbiter of what is scientifically possible or impossible. Thank you very much.
Adam and Eve are historical there's no way out of it because they produce a bloodline, a bloodline comes from two people coming together producing a child this cannot be disputed, otherwise you can dispute the rest of those who existed within that bloodline, it is the same with Abraham Isaac and Jacob, there is the bloodline from Abraham, how are you going to remove Abraham if you do you remove Isaac and Jacob, unless you think all these Bloodlines and names I simply talking of something else, it is either metaphoric or symbolic and if you think it is, then you're going to have to work very hard to make it work.
I studied Stephen Jay Gould in the 80s and used to believe in (theistic) macroevolution, but the science of the last 10 to 15 years has made that very difficult.
@@georgemonnatjr.172 I have watched many of those and I am firmly in the camp of ID. I am just wrestling how the design came about. Guided evolution or unique spontaneous creation as what seems described in Genesis. And is the earth as young as the genealogies seem to suggest from Adams line.
@@georgemonnatjr.172 I have looked into their work, albeit only on TH-cam but I haven't seen a deep dive into the specifics of what they believe. They seem to believe in a sort of macroevolution but argue against the evolutionists view on abiogenesis. I myself am wrestling with the mainstream view that humans derive from monkeys and monkeys from lower apes then somewhere down the line is a single cell organism. I tend to lean on an idea of micro-evolution but macro is super hard to subscribe to.
@@jeremiahgranatowski1400 There is no such thing as macroevolution. There is micro adaptation. If we can agree that male and female reproductive organs and their functions have to be perfectly formed to pass the genes to form a healthy, normally formed, long living child - i.e. to multiply and fill the earth, than macro evolution is null, cause if you go one step back in the macroevolutionary process, you are done with human population (reproductive organs and their processes are not fully formed). That's Behe's reduced complexity. We have not derived from monkeys. Here's another example. "The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene ... and has been documented ... on five continents ... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor." Hill, John E. and Smith, James D. (1984); Bats: A Natural History; London: British Museum of Natural History, p. 236
This interview left me feeling unsettled in my soul. It was interesting, so I listened to it’s entirety, but I prefer to err on the side of taking the Bible seriously, and in most cases, literally.
I had the same disturbing feeling! I do not draw conclusions solely based on my feelings, but when I get a screaming check in my spirit that is a major red flag for me!
Would you take the Bible literally when it says that the trees clap their hands? Would that even be appropriate? Of course not. Why? Because of genre. It's poetic language there, they have no hands. Nor can the rocks cry out. Nor do the heavens have literal windows. Nor is there a literal raqiiya stretching across the sky, nor are there four corners to the earth, and on and on and on. Just because you don't take those things literally doesn't mean you don't take them seriously. You would be taking it less serious to impose wooden literalism on the passages that speak that way. The contexts would be betrayed, the meaning confused and you would get a very wrong idea about what the Bible meant to teach. Why could there not be poetic or metaphorical language in Gen 1-11? Or perhaps, why do not think of Genesis as how Dr John Walton points out, a functional creation paradigm, wherein things only are said to exist not when the physical matter is there, but when they're given purpose by God?
@@robertlutz3841He basically mocked the creation of Adam and Eve saying that there’s no way God physically formed them out of clay and breathed life into them. I believe it happened exactly as Genesis says it did and I think it shows how much God loves each and every one of us personally. I don’t like to let feelings dictate my beliefs either, so I’m constantly asking the Holy Spirit to show me the truth and convict me in the areas that I might be believing a lie, and I believe He keeps me on the path of truth.
Dr Craig contradicts himself when in the beginning of the video he said his goal was to interpret Genesis in the way the original people it was written to would than later saying there is no way to know how the original audience for Genesis would have read it. Unfortunately, his belief in modern pseudoscience is greater than his belief in Genesis. This doesn’t mean he is not a brother in Christ, just misguided
So you are saying that there is no way to know how most of the Bible was understood back then? I have not looked into it myself. I would imagine that there is commentary. Since these are ancient teachings
If he's making God a liar and casting doubt on the record God gave, is he a brother? I don't know. I know a brother can be confused but this is different. This is *teaching* with authority against the record God gave. It's like the serpent who asked Eve: "Has God *indeed* said...?" Yes, God *indeed* said. Only a snake talks this way. Cunningly.
I found WLC interesting to listen to a decade or so ago, but his views here totally do not match my ideas and the way he speaks about YEC speaks for itself. If we are going to allow big freedom of interpretation then why not think that the babylonian myths are equally relevant as the stories in the OT
As it reads to the ancient Israelite writer and readers, or “as it reads” to *you*, thousands of years later, coming from a different context in a different language with what I assume to be no formal education in ancient creation texts?
People like geologist Steve Austin pointing out the giant swaths of sedementary rock laid down in discrete thick layers spanning across continents (listen to his nautiloid argument at least befote dismissing) I find makes me hesitant to side with people who call young earth & global flood untenable.
And being very "easy" on him. It's good to be kind to your guests, but not to the point of letting them get by unchallenged with what amounts to wild speculation at best.
I find this conversation very confusing. WLC’s views make me question which part of the Bible we can actually trust (literal as stated) and which is just myth, which erodes faith in the Bible as the innerant word of God at all. A confusing way to try to build faith with the Bible as our solid foundation of belief.
So apparently God expects us to have PhD's to actually understand His Word because it doesn't actually mean what it states? So much for Psalm 119:130: "The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple".
@@NancyDGregThis! This is exactly the dilemma I find myself in. I'm evidently too ignorant and uneducated to understand the only source of tangible communication between the Creator and the creation.
There are lots of good reasons to not just "follow the science" supposedly showing all the things Dr Craig just accepts. Why not bring on a credible representative to present the OTHER SIDE of the science question? I'm sure you (Sean) have contacts of a bona fide scientist who doesn't swallow the wholesale mainstream position. Maybe someone from ICR (Institute for Creation Research)?
Amen, my friend. It is time to turn our back on the compromising away of God's word by celebrated intellectuals, whether "Christian" or otherwise. "Let God be true, and every man a liar"!
Maybe this explains this nonsense... around 56min in... political views, good grief. And he bows out of the "origin of Adam and Eve"... maybe he should re-read Genesis. Does he believe God created anything in the beginning? Which bits did He create?
Please bring Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis for an interview! Kind of biased to keep showing only one interpretation of the scriptures! There are so many great scientists in his ministry that explain a YEC from a genetic point of view, geographical POV, biological, and lots more. Would love to hear from the other side on this platform 🙏🏼
WLC argues for the errancy of Gods Word. Young earth creation can be defended hermenuicaly but can not be defended scientifically. Even with all the good he has done run from this man!
WLC: "I believe in Jesus' virgin birth, divinity, miracles and resurrection even though secular science proves thise things are impossible." Also WLC: "Creationism is taught in the Bible but I can't believe it because of secular science."
with all due respect I think you’re missing a key point that ‘mythohistory’ is no less true than the poetry of the psalms or the apocalyptic writings of revelation or indeed the parables of Jesus… Craig is not arguing that Adam and Eve are mythical, (or that genesis is untrue) but indeed that they were real people and that the mytho-historical language of early genesis gives a cogent account of why the biblical narrative is not opposed to the findings of modern science… this is such important work - particularly if the gospel is to reach those in the scientific community whose telescopes and microscopes already reveal to them the wonders of God’s creation, but according to a timeline that does not marry with a literal reading of early genesis… I implore us not to put up unnecessary barriers to the faith due to our insistence that genesis be read through a particular lens 🙏❤
There’s nothing in secular science that proves the virgin birth, miracles, and divinity are impossible. That’s simply a misrepresentation of what he thinks. The gospels and Genesis are completely different genre. Why would you ever treat them like they are the same thing?
@@davidblack1353 "Mythohistory" is an incoherent idea that should persuade precisely nobody. If one wants to claim Adam was a real figure of history (necessary for "original sin" to make any sense), provide some evidence. If one instead claims actual history is recorded as myth, then there's no reason for anyone to suppose it isn't outright myth. It is one thing to have "faith" in things unseen -- it is another to have "faith" in what nobody can show is even possibly real. Like the outright flat earth cosmology of Genesis and the fact that there were once only two people, things we now know are impossible. Half of the point of the scientific method is "not fooling oneself" -- which is surprisingly easy to do when doing real science. Stars are, at the first viewing, just random points of light. It takes long and careful observation to realize what one is actually seeing. By contrast, a book which is _argued_ in the fashion you are is the essence of self-deception. Succinctly, it fails peer review and you are arguing that is somehow a good thing.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Um excuse me? It is scientifically impossible to have a virgin birth or to resurrect the dead. Or to turn water into wine. What kind of nonsense is this lol.
I would LOOOOVE to see why Craig thinks young earth creationist is indefensible to modern science. Every objection he can enlist to bolster his view I’m positive has a good answer from top scientists who have a young earth view. Jesus saw Adam and Eve as historical, and he saw Noah as historical. I’m not buying it Craig.
Academia: There's no way humans could have a common ancestor pair a few thousand years ago. Jonathan Swamidas: Here's how. Academia: Oh, makes sense actually. WLC: Wow, that was a heliocentric understanding that just changed! Jonathan Swamidas: But academia's probably right about everything else. WLC: Oh totes. And if we squint and turn our heads sideways we can make Scripture fit with all the things they're definitely right about...can, can, can, yay! Because I'm sure academia was only wrong about that one thing. 🤦🏻♀️😑🤦🏻♀️😑🤦🏻♀️😞 (27:48 - 29:30)
If you read Josephus, he claimed that there was an altar still standing at that time (first Century) in what they knew as Syria that Adam built…. I found that so fascinating!!
Could he be more insulting to young earthers? As Christians who are 'one in the Spirit' it would be nice to at least be polite to one another. It is difficult to listen to his thoughts while simultaneously dodging stones.
@@scottm4042 Everyone forgets that "millions of years, billions of years" is largely a way to justify a belief in the anti-god presupposition of evolutionary faith. It is ONE way to interpret the data. Christians ought to know better than to side with secular thinking over God's - this was the failure of both Israel and Judah. We (the church of Jesus Christ) DESERVE to face our own Babylonian captivity for capitulating to this wisdom of man over God.
You can't just wave the authority of the bible around to justify your interpretation of it. The bible's authority is to be taken as it intends, not as YEC or scientists or anyone else wants it to be.
@@davidhawley1132 💯 agree, Genesis is a historical account and that’s why it needs to be taken as literal history not a myth. Moses, Jesus to Paul, all saw Adam as a literal person, that’s how they interpreted it. You’re right, the Bible points to a literal Adam, one example is Romans 5:12-21.
@@ceedee873 You are mistaken. YEC are using their Brain AND Scripture. Our organ does not supercede the teachings of the Bible. I hope that this comment is even more enlightening for you.
Anyone reading this, if you’re into the theology of God in the Bible, or just want a better understanding of the Christian faith and beliefs in general, just read the early church fathers from the first few hundred years of Christianity. The guys were geniuses and better than most theologians today
Agree. I can't listen to this it was ruined as soon as he said YEC is "incompatible" with current science. That's current sciences problem, not the Bible.
Ummm...Adam is the one who sinned, which is why everyone is dying in the first place since we were all contained in him. It is LITERALLY a salvation issue. Why are men who don't even believe the truth in Genesis being held up as some sort of great apologist. What happens when they fall away? Ridiculous. Adam is called 'the first Adam' by Paul and Jesus is called 'the last Adam' and SALVATION is explained through both 'Adam's' by Paul in 1Corinthians 15 for anyone reading.
with all due respect I think you’re missing a key point that ‘mythohistory’ is no less true than the poetry of the psalms or the apocalyptic writings of revelation or indeed the parables of Jesus… Craig is not arguing that Adam and Eve are mythical, (or that genesis is untrue) but indeed that they were real people and that the mytho-historical language of early genesis gives a cogent account of why the biblical narrative is not opposed to the findings of modern science… this is such important work - particularly if the gospel is to reach those in the scientific community whose telescopes and microscopes already reveal to them the wonders of God’s creation, but according to a timeline that does not marry with a literal reading of early genesis… I implore us not to put up unnecessary barriers to the faith due to our insistence that genesis be read through a particular lens 🙏❤
William Lane Craig insists on sticking to 20th-century beliefs in science. But lots of science has progressed beyond the legendary millions of years that so-called science keeps pushing. Wise men recognize that the first 11 chapters of Genesis IS history. There is this place in Arizona that is called the Grand Canyon. It was laid down in a worldwide flood. In light of all this, we should pray that WLC discover the real science that has been discovered in the last 40 years or so. If Adam didn't really sin, then is it a myth that Christ actually died for the sins of humans?
We were forgiven before time began. God was not following a plan “B”. He was in Christ Co-suffering with Christ on the cross. No we are not guilty of Adam’s sin.
As far as the flood, it was supernatural flood. God isn't limited by laws of nature that He create the world to operate on. Also there is proof of a world wide flood, it's called billions of bones buried all over the world.
I normally enjoy watching Sean's interviews, but I think I will sit this one out after 10 minutes. Dr. Craig says that YEC view on Adam and Eve "flies in the face of what we 'know' about modern paleo-anthropology, and history, and archeology." I don't know that we 'know' any such thing. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that proves we finally know that Adam and Eve did not exist a mere 10,000 to 20,000 years ago (or even earlier) and were the progenitors of the human race. I don't see that view "collapsing," but rather growing stronger as scientists make new discoveries. From what I can find, Dr. Craig has an undergrad degree in communications, and two doctoral degrees, one in philosophy and one in theology. He speaks of Peter Ens who holds a doctorate degree in near eastern languages and civilizations. None of those convince me that they have the same grasp of science as those with doctorates in biology, microbiology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, etc. I just can't listen to him as he says that he sees the young earth position as "indefensible scientifically," when the sciences he seems to be referring to are not within his area of expertise or education. Maybe it gets better from there, but I am already thinking my time would be better spent listening to those with doctorates in science. Maybe Scott McKnight did not "capitulate" as Dr. Craig says, but was actually convinced by....didn't really catch the name, Venmos?....that a literal first Adam and Eve (not a progression of hominids) are not incompatible with science. I'll take a look at the book on Amazon, but unless I see something better than what I heard in these few minutes, I won't be buying it.
Genesis is a creation myth. Evolution is a fact. Learn where the Israelites borrowed some of their ideas and myths from. --------------------------------------------------------- *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@@epicofatrahasis3775 There is no such thing as evolution, there's adaptation. There are no frogs that turned into tigers. Stop already with that Darwinian bs. Even Dawkins has stopped babbling that nonsense.
@@epicofatrahasis3775 Hey thanks for the sources! I have been studying things like this, but am biased towards Heiser's table of nations. I don't have depth in this area of study so far though.
I think this video is worth listening to as there are many people that call themselves Christians that have the view of William. It is worth listening to their arguments so we that is we do come across them, we can discuss these with support of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Wow. Maybe you have forgotten you are dealing with the Word of God. You use the phrase wooden God calls his word an anvil that breaks every hammer. Your tools are flawed. And your eyes are blinded. Now I have more praise to the Holy Spirit who gave us so many witnesses to the Truth in this discussion through the genealogies. You denied the flood. 2 Peter 3:5-6 [5] For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, [6] and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. Denied the creation of Eve. 1 Corinthians 11:12 [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. As for the scholars,scientists, philosophers and academics are they not merely men whose fallibility is well established. Proverbs 30:5-6 [5] Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. [6] Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Ok. If Genesis is not true, apocalypse is not true… what part of the Bible is true? I’m done with this. Now I understand why people don’t hold to the faith.
This makes me SO SAD! You are right. Why should ANYONE believe in a God that is SO pathetic that He can't even write a good story that conveys truth to His people?
I haven't heard podcast just yet but I can understand to an extent the notion of being stressed. When I first got saved, as I delved into Christian apologetics, I would have to listen to things over again as it would bug me at times. Let me encourage you, while I love Christian apologetics and do believe it is helpful to know and understand arguments for the faith, as a Christian we need to have the word of God, the Bible as our source of truth. The validity of the Bible is very sound. Numerous copies of the Bible are in existence in Greek and many other languages and when compared there are not any variances which distort or change any main Christian doctrine. In other words we can trust the Bible to be historically accurate. And if this is the case we can trust what was written. Namely, if Jesus himself referenced and believed in Adam and Eve, as did Paul and Peter, we can trust they existed.
@@kjpesl7311 Don't be stressed. This man WLC is just like the snake in the garden. Satan asked Eve: "Has God *_indeed_* said...?" The answer is *yes,* God INDEED said. That's it. 'Science' changes over time. God's word doesn't. We were created in the image and likeness of God in the very beginning on day six. Adam was created on day six (which was an evening and a morning) and the next day God rested from His work (from everything He had created and made). He made that day special. He set it apart from the other days (set apart means Holy). Jesus says that seventh day (sabbath) was created for man (Adam). So Adam was created on day 6, and God made sabbath for Adam. Later the commandment was to remember the sabbath (seventh day) because on IT God rested from everything He created and made. We are supposed to remember the seventh day. Now, if the days of creation were longer than evening and morning, then Adam would have lived a very, very long time before the seventh day and we already know he didn't live longer than 1000 years. The seventh day sabbath was created FOR Adam. The days were literally evenings and mornings. God says the sabbath an ETERNAL SIGN between Him and His people (that's you and me) that He is the true God, the Creator who created everything in six days and rested on the sabbath. WLC is a snake. Don't listen to his evil talk. And it is evil.
I have often benefited from Dr. Lane's insights in the past... but several of his statements in this interview leave me cold. His comments in particular about original sin are incompatible with Biblical doctrine.
So (around 27min in) some guy writes about how all humans do descend from a common ancestral couple a few thousand years ago, but then goes on to speculate in ways which allow for evolution to seep into the explanation. Baffles me why this evolutionary track of thinking needs to be pandered to when there are plenty of well thought out arguments why it doesn't work as an origin explanation (it does explain differentiation within species though). I'll keep listening, but it seems rather counterintuitive to first suggest that young earth is indefensible yet the very next segment deals with the idea that humans descend from a common ancestor within the time frame of "young earth." There must be more to the story (???)
No matter what your view on genesis, the Bible makes it very clear that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. Saying Adam lived 200,000 years ago is non sensible when taking into account the genealogies. Btw, I’m an old earther
No it doesn't. Not even close. Dating Adam that way is a very bad misunderstanding of how the genealogy was written. The wording, originally, does not at all mean the direct next generation, but simply a descendant of.
@@megoblks It is not even close? when you study the given ages of Adam to Noah then to Abraham in the Bible, you believe these are many generations in between even with the ages listed. Then Matthew takes Abraham to Jesus. Please cite the verse where you believe the text does not mean the next generation but simply a descendant of?
Would it be impossible for God to create an old earth? He didn't create a baby Adam. He created a mature Adam, it seems reasonable to create a mature earth.
@@danielkim672 to add to your argument, Genesis 5 (ESV) states, ". . .and he died" after each person, which would seem to imply the end of one generation and the start of the next.
I don't understand why there's so much discussion on this. Is the Bible true or not? If you don't believe the account of Adam and Eve, can you believe anything else in the Bible?
Ive seen Craig defend this view before and it shrinks every time it's washed. I noted particularly that he tried an unorthodox, out-of-context recast of Romans 5:12 that has doctrinal implications way beyond just getting it out of the way if his point. Henry Morris, on the legal side with the YEC camp, was bad this way in handling passages like Romans 5, and Craig is the liberal version.
I think he's wrong on young earth. However, he's not wrong on Romans 5:12. He isn't ignoring it, he's simply believing what the verse actually says. - Death spread to all men because all men sinned.
@@noelenliva2670 the problem with Craig's view as I understood him to express it, is that Romans 5 in full context pairs off Adam and Christ as federal heads of their respective orders (old and new creation) and this is tied into many other Scriptures (c.f. 1 Cor.15:22, "as in Adam...as in Christ..."). "World" (gr. kosmos) in Rom.5:12 is typically used of mankind and his moral state in the NT, not the created world as a whole. So, the sin nature is transferred through the human line under Adam, just as righteousness is transferred to all children of God through Christ. The notion that Adam's sin spreads through the created order "like a disease" and THEN people sin is not what Rom.5 says and it doesn't square well with many other doctrines including the "why" of the virgin birth. That kind of view toward creation was found in gnostic heresy and Augustine, to whom Craig referred, was one of a few that helped elucidate "original sin" as a way of explaining what Romans 5, and other passages, were teaching.
@@aaronvienot Neither the term sin nature, nor the idea of sin nature have I found in any verse or passage of the Bible. If you do find it, please share the passage / verse. It would be helpful to discuss a verse / passage. The Eastern orthodox do not believe in the concept of original sin since it was a doctrinal development / innovation by the Western church.
Genesis is very concise, and written thousands of years ago. It would be naive to think that it's trivial to understand. Let this be an agree to disagree issue. The Gospel is what's important. There will be people in Heaven who were wrong about Adam, and that's fine.
I think it’s sad that Craig assumes we need to interpret the Bible differently rather than the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is perfect and without fault but somehow the plain reading of the Bible isn’t.
You think God could only have created *life* by creating Adam? You don’t think he could have created the first micro-organism and then guided evolution from that point?
@@TXLogic God could certainly have done that. But that means God's word in the New Testament is a lie. Why is God speaking through Paul that sin entered through one man? If there were humans before Adam, then sin was already in the world. If there was millions of years of evolution. Why does Genesis make a point to create a link in ages between Adam and Abraham and then the New Testament takes Abraham to Jesus. Is the New Testament just supporting a myth that is not true? Why would God use this macro evolution when there is literally no evidence of macro evolution today? Can you tell me why there have been zero evidence of primative humans for the last tens of thousands of years? For some reason the chimps are staying chimps and monkeys staying monkeys. Why are they not evolving at all when supposedly we have all these variations of evolution all over the place? Only one spiecies of humans?
@TXLogic he tells us that he specifically created us in his image for a purpose. We want to try to change that because we think "science" says differently. We did not come from some random soup that just produced everything by accident.
Having listened to a couple of podcasts by Dr. Wise on his youtube channel, AChristianAtheist, I would love to see a discussion here, moderated by Sean, between Dr. Craig and Dr. John Wise. Both are philosophers with distinctly different backgrounds, but speak "philosopher" speak and come to completely different conclusions. Or have Dr. Marcus Ross on to discuss the chapter he wrote for this book, "Perspectives" from a YEC point of view. He is an actual paleontologist and can add a scientific dimension to balance out Dr. Craig's philosophical viewpoint and let us weigh the evidence for ourselves.
Thank you for your kind words, Nightingale! I would actually prefer to hear from Dr. Ross, as Dr. Craig seems FAR MORE convinced by science than by God's word. It would be nice to have a truly scientific voice poke holes in what Dr. Craig denies is "evolutionary" about his own account. Jenny and I would undertake it, but I think philosopher vs. philosopher would less valuable in this case. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."
To be honest, I had a hard time listening to this interview, but interesting though. Personaly I think ppl seek for explanations fitting into modern information/science. 🙏 pray for heavenly guidance
Dr. Craig is a very effective debater with those in academia for a logical faith. Unfortunately, in order to maintain credibility in those circles he abandons fealty to Scripture in areas like Gen 1-11 and by embracing Molinism. Many academics struggle with tbis temptation, like Lennox and Gavin Ortlund.
Concerning WLC’s view that the flood is written in easy that “clearly assumes a global event” (paraphrasing), I am not sure why he seems to be unaware of many other texts that are described as involving “all flesh,” “the whole earth,” etc. and yet are revealed by their contexts and eventual outcomes as being regional events. E.g. “But you, are you seeking great things for yourself? Do not seek them; for behold, I am going to bring disaster on all flesh,’ declares the Lord… (Jer 45:5a - context is limited to judgement upon Judah); Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every language throughout the whole world: “May you have abundant prosperity!” (Dan 6:25 - context is obviously Babylon & her neighbors and/or regional conquests); “I will completely remove all things from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. “I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, and the ruins along with the wicked; and I will cut off man from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord (Zep 1:1-4a - context is again Judah and Jerusalem); …if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which [note past tense] was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister (Col 1:23 - context is the greater Roman / known world). I could go on. If historical to any degree, Noah’s flood impacted his known world. We need not, in light what the Bible means when it speaks in universal terms, assume the meaning is always literal.
I have watched several videos on those that wold take this as a regional flood. I then always have the same questions. Why build an ark? Just move. Why take animals? They could have escaped or should be spread out enough that is they passed away it would not have caused them to go extinct. When the Bible says the water was over all the high hills it seems to imply all of them. This could be a use hyperbole as you mentioned the other verses are doing, but it doesn't seem to come across that way. Then God promises to never flood the earth like this again, yet we see huge floods all the time. If this wasn't global it would have to have been the biggest flood ever recorded. And I guess one last interesting fact that always gets me is why do we see flood stories all over the earth from different people groups that seem to have a tradition of a global flood and a family t survived on some kind of boat. I watched the documentary, The Ark and the Darkness and it all just seemed to make sense. Like I said in other comments above. I am just wrestling with all of this.
@@stewartparker1872 if one takes the regional view, then the following have to be considered (among others): (a) Scripture doesn't tell us how far out man had progressed on the earth, i.e. how large the flood would have to be to completely remove his line. (b) Relatively easy and reliable travel over continent-spanning distances was an invention of the Roman Empire, centuries later, so "just move out" is not a light thing to say. (c) It appears that God's desire was for Noah's descendants to restart the human line in the general area of the future holy land, meaning both he and a complete animal population needed to be returned there promptly to restore the creation order and human descent.
@@stewartparker1872 People tend to assume that the land on the earth was split since the get go as it is today with continents formed. They tend to look at the flood from 21st century perspective. Second. The accounts of the flood in various cultures started with Babylon when YHWH conflated their languages. When they couldn't understand each other any more, they went their separate ways and shared the accounts of the same flood under the different names - names under new language that YHWH assigned each of them (70 languages). And that's why there are all the same pantheon of (pagan) gods through various cultures, just under the different names - the so called Greek - Rome - Egypt - Nordic - German, etc. mythologies.
@@aaronvienot, what makes you say that when, after the flood, at the tower of Babel, God told them to spread out. The languages became confused and man started settling over the rest of the earth.
@@stewartparker1872 Why an Ark? - Perhaps Noah’s known world was to experience a massive flood and simply moving away for a time wasn’t feasible? Or, and I think far more likely, saving God’s featured family in such a dramatic way is fantastic theology-and the OT favors theology over modern ways of recording history. It also continues God’s pattern of saving humans from the “chaos” of watery threats-e.g., “dividing the land from the sea” in Genesis so humans would be able to live; the later story of baby Moses is saved via a “mini-ark” that actually uses the same Babylonian loan word-“tevah”-which refers to Noah’s Ark (that’s no coincidence-that’s theology). As for God’s promise, while local floods occur all the time, if none have since occurred that flooded the known world (in Noah’s day his “whole world” was Mesopotamia), then the promise has been kept. If the flood story is not historical, then its scope and promises are not an issue. That the flood account is written in a “chiastic” and poetic genre reveals at the very least that we are not dealing with modern news reporter nor video recorded and modern ways of recording history. Flood stories from all over the world can simply be from the fact that people who live by water inevitably experience flooding. Interestingly, flood stories are largely absent in Africa. Also, if humanity began in Mesopotamia and early on a massive regional flood occurred (which does have evidential support, unlike a global flood), then humans took the story with them as they spread out over the globe. Similarities in the story (a hero, his family, animals, birds released, etc.) are explained by going back to the earliest accounts in Mesopotamia that were borrowed and built upon. While Genesis has many differences from much older Mesopotamian versions, it clearly made use of similar storylines, even if its primary intention, most agree, was to correct earlier versions as a polemic.
I am truly seeking answers. My biggest question to Mr. Craig is, does he really think secular science proves their case the earth is billions of years old, that we evolved from lower primates, that humans have been around a lot longer than the Biblical timeline, and can all we see in the fossil record not be the left over affects of a global flood like Creation ministries purport? For me, the more I look into this issue the more I just see a narrative from scientist from both sides. They are both looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions based on their bias of old or young earth. They use a ton of narrative language such as "it might have happened like this" or "perhaps this happened" or "chances are it went like this". I cannot seem to find a path that leads me to believe one side of scientist over the other for they rebuke each others interpretation of the data. Nobody was there so it seems we are all guessing. Yes, trying to make educated guesses. I'm just wanting to know what led him to believe the Creation scientist are wrong and the current science hypothesis are correct? No gotcha moment, I just want to know if I am wasting time on this because there is an obvious answer that I am missing. I look at the Creation scientist stuff and for me they seem to be on to something. I just watched The Ark and the Darkness and it all seemed to make since to me and seems to align with a clear reading of scripture. What am I missing that men as educated as WLC says that's not right, the common understanding in science is right? Any help would be appreciated. I guess what I am also curious about is why at the beginning he says the YEC view of Adam and Eve fly in the face of the current science, why he chose to hold to the current science view when it clearly is just a narrative no more than the YEC view. They see data, they believe evolution and billions of years are true, so that data must align with that paradigm. Is there any tangible proof current science is correct in their interpretation over the scientist that hold to YEC views which start that we haven't been evolving for millions of years. Thank you. At about 10 minutes in he says that he thinks the YEC position is indefensible. Why? How has modern science proven beyond any doubt they are right and the YEC scientist are wrong. Again, I just see the YEC crowd would say the same against modern science. They are assuming long ages so they interpret the data to fit long ages. Is there a silver bullet I am missing?
I too have been wrestling with this for several years, exposing myself to figures on both sides of the YEC/Mainstream scientific debate. I cannot claim to have a great understanding of the evidence and inter workings of the scientific method and data that point to either position. I can say, however, I've seen a lot of uncharitable and, in my view, vicious behavior from some of the popular figures in the YEC movement. This includes Kent Hovind's very questionable character, legal issues, multiple divorces, etc. Ken Ham constantly accuses Christians who disagree with his particular YEC model to be calling God a liar. This is extremely damaging and uncharitable to the body of Christ in my humble opinion. Even within the YEC scientific community there is much disagreement and disowning based on such disagreements. At the very least I have seen a great deal of unChristlike behaviors coming from the very movement that prides itself in being the "most Christian" or in some cases the "only" acceptable position to Christians. No, this does not disapprove YEC. I am not even arguing that, but it has caused me to not put any trust in the movement due to the leaders in it displaying unChristlike character. I know even just for typing my opinion, calling for Christians to not be so demonizing to our brothers and sisters who do not see things the same way, will bring on several Christians to tell me how wrong I am, and maybe even that I am not a Christian, or that I don't want to believe God. But I just pray for the body of Christ to be as United as we can, despite disagreements like this. Lord, help to clear our minds of our misconceptions, help us to seek Your Truth above all, and help us to love the Church, encouraging and educating one another. Thank You for Your Grace and Mercy on us. Amen.
I would like to know as well what makes Dr. Lane dismiss creation science. His undergraduate degree is in communications. He holds 2 doctorate degrees, one in philosophy and one in theology from what I read. How does his knowledge and understanding of science hold up against those that hold doctorates in biology, microbiology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc at the Institute of Creation Research and Answers in Genesis as well as others? If I am going to follow the science, I think it would better further my understanding to read what actual scientists have to say than philosophers and theologians.
@@albertkleppin2320Thank you. I was just watching another documentary yesterday from Answers in Genesis - Mountains After the Flood. It does have a silver bullet but it makes one wonder if the current ages are correct and current geologist hypothesis are correct. I don’t know anything about the men in the movies character. I would hope they are being honest. Same for Ken Ham, I don’t know his character but I would hope he is offering up true stuff (even if interpreted wrong) and not be a deceiver.
@@stewartparker1872Thank you Stewart. I'll have to review some of their recent material. I want to be clear it is not my intention to smear the character of Kent or Ken, and perhaps I was even too harsh in my previous comment. I've just been hurt by some of their comments and accusations made to other believing Christians with views similar to Dr. Craig's. Not hurt in a personal way, rather hurt at what I think is a destruction of our relationships with one another as believers. Again, I don't claim to know the right answer in the debate, but I commend your earnest and humble search for the Truth of it all. Bless you, brother!
I bought the book and started to read it but I find Craig obnoxious, his demeanor, his tone. I do wonder what it would be like to have a coffee with him.
I won't say much, as much of how I feel has already been mentioned in these comments. But I have a really hard time with William Lane Craig's take on genesis. He makes it sound impossible that God would put Adam to sleep and take his rib to create Eve. In my mind, that's just as preposterous as God creating Adam from The dust. As many have said, when you see the myriad of miracles done throughout the Bible how would this be outside of God's ability I have a very difficult time even entertaining William Lane Craig's view.
I appreciate this man asking the hard questions. I so often feel we are the blind leading the blind. These are the sorts of questions that are being asked by nonbelievers, and they need to be addressed to some satisfaction. I haven’t noticed anything particularly unreasonable about what this man has said. I want to add that Faith is not ignorant, naïve, or superficial blind faith. We do not need to lay our intellect at the door as we approach loving the Lord with all our heart, mind, and body.
I do not have a problem with people asking a hard question when it comes to Godly matters. What I have a problem with is someone basically trying to fit Scripture into their own box to fit their presuppositions. Are you not surprised that Willaim used only humans to provide support for his theories and did not include a single Bible Verse? All of his thoughts and ideas are from outside the Bible. He views his BRAIN bigger than the Bible, God's Word. That is how Scientists think. That is how the devil deceived Eve in the Garden.
Correction Dr Craig. While there ARE indeed curses pronounced against the serpent and upon the ground, there are definitely NOT any curses pronounced upon either the man or the woman. We have to read into the next segment of the narrative to find a curse pronounced upon a human, and that is upon the firstborn of the man and the women after he commits the first murder.
If you don't believe in a literal Noah's flood, you don't really fear the wrath of God, or trust in his offer of eternal redemption, the word of God revealed is essential, ignore God's limitless power at your peril. 🙏
Well, please study the flood narrative to find that there is NO mention of Yahwe being angry in yhat story. The Hebrew in Gen.6:6 clearly says that his heart was grieved to the point he regretted having created the humans, and decided to destroy it to start all over with just one chosen family, Noah's. So, there is no mention of "the wrath of God" there. The flood was not a judgment following any type of wrath, but was Yahwe's decision to accelerate the process the humans had started with being violent and full of hate : complete destruction. It is very important to understand this! So many preachers don't know this and are preaching lies about the flood and about "the wrath of God". The first time Yahwe is said to have been angry at someone in the First Testament is in Exodus 4:14, where is stated that "So was kindled the anger of Yahwe against Moses". This was when Moses dared to basically tell Yahwe that He did the wrong choice by calling him to lead His people out of slavery. Yahwe truly didn't like his servant Moses replying the way he did, doubting His plan and wisdom. But interestingly, Yahwe did not send a judgment of destruction against Moses (I mean, He could have, couldn't he?), but the same verse 14 tells us in his anger, Yahwe didn't speak and send a judgment of destruction, but He told Moses that his brother Aaron was about to meet him and that he would be his mouthpiece before Pharao. Let us be careful at not automatically linking the anger of Yahwe with a judgment of destruction. Sometimes, such a judgment is the consequence of His wrath, but not every time. For more about this, I recommend listening to Bible Project's podcast in the character of God, where several eye opening episodes are dealing with the important theme of Yahwe's anger. Shalom!
@@Ps111v10)and you alone on this blue green earth knowing? I beg my granddaughter understand. “JESUS@ said we must be babes to identify reasons for Salvation! 🕊️❤️
@@Ps111v10 So in your view of things the destruction of all mankind and the animals was God's....what. Not wrath? Even though we see at the end of the age spoken of in the NT clearly linking the wrath He will bring on the earth at that time with the same kind of destruction He wrought on the ancient earth of Noah's day. I'm just trying to understand. I know God was grieved, and you would only grieve over that which you love so the story of Noah shows God's love, but I would have to say it was truly a judgement of mankind. Am I wrong on this? If so, why?
So, here’s your problem, with respect; when you say ‘you don’t’ as a declarative statement towards deep, internal beliefs of those you don’t know, your judgment is based on what exactly? There is no evidence that someone has to assent to the Ark story to obtain salvation. Of course someone could not fully buy into a story and at the time hold pure dread of the wrath and judgement of G-d. It’s not as if when someone comes to faith, suddenly they fully believe everything in to OT all at once. C’mon. This is a full on distortion of Grace and Sanctification. Rubbish. ‘Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.’ This leaves a lot of wiggle room for us to do…what we are doing right here.
Jesus clearly said people would come in his name saying Jesus is the Christ and deceive many. Just because someone says Jesus is the Christ doesn't mean they aren't deceivers.
I believe what the Bible says. The end. The first miracle of Jesus is enough to believe God doesn’t need time to creat anything with the appearance of old.
@@daleproctor3723 Do you believe that God can use a donkey and speak through the donkey? Do you believe that a bush can technically speak? Do you believe a person can live again after days being dead?
One of the most overlooked passages in the Christian Bible which could help with our understanding of such topics is found in the Gospel of John 18:37-38 where Jesus is standing before Pilate and tells him why He came -- for the truth. Pilate famously asks him, "what is truth?" Why is this important? Truth is truth and there is no variation. Well, that completely depends upon your particular world view, as shown by this Roman elite. John, through Pontiuous Pilate, is showing us that what a society determines truth to be is very much associated with the views which they espouse. And as much as we migt like to believe that our modern western mindset is more akin to the beliefs and views of 1st century Christians in Jerusalem, we could not be further from the truth, in some regards.
Im not a young earth chrostian but i have a problem with Craig. Esoecially what he said about the trinity. If he gives different ideas on the trinity and that everyone will oick the one that sounds right to them then we might as well say goodbye to Christianity. People cant kist oick ehat dounds good to them. There is only one truth. If we get rid of the right explination for the trinity we wont have the truth.
It's not that Adam's *sin* is imputed to all men, it's that DEATH entered in by ADAM's sin and DEATH spread to all men because we were all INSIDE Adam and therefore we all die, including the Son of Adam, Jesus.
I definitely disagree with this idea of Adam. I have heard an idea that God created more than just Adam and Eve in the garden, and I wouldn’t mind believing that if there was more evidence. However I do agree the earth could definitely be older. Even if human life is only 8000 years or so, plant and animal life could be way older. I mean keep in mind after the garden, Adam and Eve walked out to an already created outside world. When was that created? That could be 100,000 years old who knows. Regardless it was interesting to hear peoples different views on the topic
With all due respect Sean, this teaching is so dangerous, it is literally causing people to walk away from the faith. When I was questioning if God was real I came across your father’s book, More than a Carpenter, and that did it for me. After reading it I gave my life to Christ, I needed evidence which I received from his testimony. This type of teaching is doing the opposite- no offence but what would your father think about this? I say this in love, please don’t think I’m attacking you, I’m just asking you to reconsider your stance and maybe do a little more research🙏
I personally know multiple people who have left the faith in part because they were dogmatically taught young earth creation growing up. People who are seeking to reconcile science and God's word like WLC and Josh Swamidass are doing a lot of good.
@@bjn3232 I don’t think YEC is explicitly in scripture, and I wouldn’t put it in the same category as doctrine of salvation, justification, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. I don’t have an issue with siblings in Christ believing in YEC or otherwise. The issue one of belief. Will new discoveries and the progress of science come closer to scripture? It has already on many occasions. The converse is not true, the Word doesn’t get closer to science through reinterpretation. Trying to reconcile these two at any given point in time is fraught with much effort to arrive at error. Eventually it will be clear and the current understanding will seem rather silly. Every once in a while God let’s us uncover another clue. I’m quite certain we are unable to fully understand His creation.
@@vesc1389 YEC is a 20th century phenomenon. Many people millenia ago also gave way to the idea of an old universe also. For YEC's to say that they have always had the dominant view in history is just false.
I have watched his stuff as well. Very intriguing. I think he holds to evolution which I just don't think mankind is an evolved animal species. I definitely hold to intelligent design, I don't think we are here by random chances. I am just wrestling how the design came about. Guided evolution or unique spontaneous creation as what seems described in Genesis.
I agree, Sean should interview Hugh Ross, who has written extensively on these topics and knows both science and the Bible well. Another good interviewee woud be Sean's colleague, Dr. John Bloom, who is also an old Earth creationist like Hugh Ross. Dr. Bloom has his first Ph.D. in biophysics and his second Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies, so he also knows both science and the Bible well. Topics liike 'Was Adam an historical figure?' require an interdisciplinary approach to handle both the scriptural information and the scientific information adequately and fairly.
I’m really kind of curious why you didn’t delve into some of the ideas that are proposed by Reasons To Believe. He mentioned Young earth and bio logos but such a large organization as RTB was nonexistent.
He knows sooo little about chemistry nor creationism. There’s a better scientific answer for every young earth issue. Zero real evidence for old world.
To be fair to Carl Trueman, it seems to me that calling the historical Adam into question (the way WLC admits modern science does) has significant ramifications for soteriology as well as the veracity of Scripture. It seems to me a foundation upon which quite a bit of theology is built.
I ask a simple question. Did Jesus evolve ? The point I make is that if we have evolved then Jesus must also evolve. Because Heb 2:17 says “…he (Jesus) had to be made like his brothers…” This would mean Jesus changed over time, and since we continue to evolve, Jesus must also change . Even in heaven. But this is obviously nonsense because Jesus is not changing , He is the same yesterday,today and forever. Heb 13:8 William Lane Craig is wrong because he allows for evolution of man and not a savior from Adam’s sin as the first man. Our salvation depends on an unchanging Savior.
@@daleflix Aside from misinforming you about evolutionary science there are rational grounds to be skeptical and doubt these kind of claims that Christians make about Jesus. To learn more about the grounds to be skeptical about the bible and Christianity a good first place to start are the articles that are available for FREE in the Modern Library of the Secular Web site. I'd post a link but I don't think TH-cam allows links to other websites so you will have to google it. A good TH-cam source is Paulogia's TH-cam channel "Where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians."
Although I appreciate Sean's interview of William Lane Craig, I not only differ from him on his views, and wish that Sean would have asked further questions when WLC pushed against YEC views and gotten further information why he holds so much against that view. I also felt like WLC was insulting those of us who hold YEC views more than once.
I’m not 100% certain but I believe Sean holds to an old earth view himself. As an old earth believer myself, we don’t often push each other on why we don’t hold a YE view. You probably do the same when among your fellow YE believers against an old earth or theistic evolutionary view.
I am having trouble following this conversation... I am at 16 mins, but since I do not have nor know after watching this what in the world is he struggling with? I spend a lot of time wrestling with how things work between scripture and the world, but for me it is hard to relate because more and more pieces are fitting together the more I study. I will continue to watch but I have no idea where the issues are that are causing these questions he is having? It is a hurt in my spirit and a concern to see Dr. Craig struggling with something.
23:46 I am fine with being wrong, but at this point in the video he says this is all indefensible... but why?? This video keeps covering the symptoms and not the causes.... like watching someone roll around the floor in some medical emergency and I have know idea why...
Ugh this keeps getting worse.... Ok we need a loving debate between Dr. Craig and some of these opposing views.... This is really concerning to me... The very fact that Jesus is raised from the dead and we live beyond death is stupid according to science... so is Dr. Craig wanting to try to make scripture fit to science and then ALL OF A SUDDEN at the end ok now we have this unscientific raising from the dead?? I love you Dr. Craig I just think making all of this small stuff fit together makes the whole fall apart... for me that is really happening in this video.
Dude. I was ready to quit at 20 minutes in, but decided to watch all of it so I can use it with my bible students later. To show them how Christian scholars can get it wrong
I have seen a few videos of William arguing this topic and others and it seems to me William's BRAIN is bigger than the Bible. That William's BRAIN is more logical than the Bible. It was not a surprise watching this for an hour and William provide defense, not through Scripture, but through only his own thoughts and those of other like minded humans. Similar to atheist scientists.
@velkyn1 Brilliant logical argument. Your powerful refutation of Craig's argument fully exposes his agenda. The "liar liar, pants on fire argument" you use is intellectually stimulating on the highest level. Really. Totally not being facetious...at all.
If myths are not to be taken literally, then they cannot be taken as evidence for the values they pronounce. That is, they stand on the authority of the communities that have generated them, not on the correspondence of the events described to objective history. Not that that is particularly a problem unless you are looking for hard facts that can be falsified.
Either God took dust from the ground and formed Adam or He made humanoids and Adam and Eve formed from them…first: the Bible says “let us make man in our image” so that’s where they came from…second: what did the Bible say? We gotta stop! If you re-event the foundation of our faith…you change the faith…”if anyone brings another doctrine other than what was given…deny it” like scholar or not…they also can go way off coarse with the text and end up away from the history of the text…maybe we should learn what we already know first and really stop trying to relearn what you already know…
This is exactly why I left Bible college without a degree. These people don't even believe in Jesus or the Scriptures. They think they are myths, metaphors and cherry pick the "real history" they believe in the Bible while talking around the literal parts they can't stomach.
![[PODCAST] Biblical Inerrancy & the Young vs. Old Earth Debate with Dr. Hugh Ross @RTB_official](/img/n.gif)
Adam is not a doctrine...he was a real man. He's listed in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke chapter 3. How do you get around that? There's nothing to be confused or anxious about.
Lots of mythical people get quoted in genealogies in the ancient world. Simply mentioning someone means nothing.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYouThe Bible is God's unique Word and is NOT mythical.
This is what happens when people are too smart for their own good. Intellectuals need something to debate.
Unless you’re woke…
Maybe Satan has deceived you. Maybe the real word of God is something different.
If Jesus believed in the historical Adam, im going to go with Him on it.
Completely
Amen ... our Lord knew better than WLC. He is God's word incarnate. Why not believe God's word?
This. I wonder what science says about Jesus resurrecting? This man is a "professing to be wise"...
You got that right!
Did Jesus clarify “historical?” Or did He just refer to Adam? If He didn’t give any concrete, definitive reference to a historical Adam, then that doesn’t solve any literary issues. This is another example of the problem that Craig laid out with people claiming “the Bible says what it says, I read it literally.” That’s not how we read any piece of literature.
Having studied the Bible, interpretation and theology in college and still not having landed on an answer with this topic, I do find Craig’s settlement of Adam being a bit of both historical and figurative to be quite comforting. Whatever anyone thinks about Adam does not change the truth of God or the plan He set forth and secured through Jesus however. That much we all can agree on as fallible humans
Adam is listed as a member of Jesus' genealogy along with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc. How is that possible if Adam was not a real individual? Where do we draw the line in those records between the real people and the "mythical"? And why would Jesus refer to the Flood of Noah's time as though it were real? Thank you, but I will just read my Bible and ask God all my questions about how it came together when I get to Heaven. I know that's not good enough for some people, but it is for me.
100%. People like Craig will argue that this is how literature was written in the ancient near east
So disheartening in so many ways. I'm not sure how if going with what it sounds like the speaker was saying we can't just throw out the Bible 😢 I'm of course not surprised that unbelievers would wholeheartedly applaud such thinking but yes, how can there be a non line, now saying that the scriptures are mythical. A point in which we say, oh yeah, its true here but just old folk tales there. In that line of argument, the Bible is of no value, only maybe one of children's fairy tales and a mockery of those who believe the words of Jesus. I'm sticking with Jesus and trusting him who changed my life. Nothing is to hard for him. Very discouraging to listen to in so many ways with all the respect that I've gained of Dr McDowell.
Ask your god why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke have contradictory genealogies for Jesus and which one, if either, is the correct one? If and when your god answers record it and upload it onto TH-cam so that we can all hear it. If you can’t record it then I will suspect that no god has answered your question and you are just conflating your own internal dialog into something it isn’t.
@@bentebbensNo one said the bible included folk tales. It was claimed that some parts are figurative, but have a connection with history. You don't have to be a scholar to recognize the shift between Genesis 11 and 12, or that Rev shifts into figurative language.
@@daleproctor3723one of the genealogies is for Mary and the other for Joseph. Just do a quick search online. An explanation is easy to find.
It really bothers me that we can 18:42 accept miracles in the Bible such as resurrection of our Lord or The parting of the Red Sea but we cannot accept that God would start the universe and places us right into our place in the universe.
Agreed
We can, but it doesn't jibe with our current understanding of genetics. Which I don't think is necessarily a problem.
Then you should also believe in a flat earth, because that’s what the Scriptures teach in literally hundreds of passages.
@@jeremyfrost3127 bro... you need to stop with this comment. It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about: (getting tired of refuting this)
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Seriously, just stop.
We need to call this man what he is, a heretic, and stop elevating this man who denies the history as God gave it to Moses and confirmed it through Jesus. He's making God a liar.
When we put the Bible (God’s word) and Science (Man’s word) on the same level, that’s when the whole foundation crumbles. How can we possibly compare our own wisdom to God’s?? That is completely nonsensical. Science keeps being disproven and updated. The Bible holds true and remains unchanged eternally.
I see 3 problems. 1) science is not disproven….however when technology increases in capability we do update our current understanding in light of those discoveries. 2) every book can be said to hold true….can you disprove Julius Cesar Gallic wars? Once something is penned it forever remains unchanged eternally. 3) for some individuals they do not start with the Bible is gods word rather they measure it contents….if scientific discoveries reveals certain passages as inaccurate or no other historical works can validate its contents then those individuals simply will not elevate it to gods word and give it more weight than the scientific knowledge humanity as attained to.
I figure if Jesus , Paul, Peter, and Jude believed in Adam and Eve and Noah literally, I'll stick with their "primitive" beliefs over this guy who follows "The Science" over the Word of God. Jesus refers to the creation account in Mt 19:4-6 and to the fact that with God all things are possible in Mt 19:26. Paul argued for sin coming into the world through one man, Adam, in Romans 5 12-21. Peter refers to earth's destruction by the literal flood in 2 Peter 3:5-7. And Jude, the brother of Christ, speaks of Enoch being the 7th from Adam in Jude 1:14, which seems a strong statement that Adam was an actual person. He also warned us to contend for the faith against people who creep in and deny God's grace and words. I don't say this unkindly about Mr Craig, but faith does require us to believe what God says rather than the words of men or talking serpents, especially in what we cannot easily believe, understand, defend, or explain.
Amen, Sister! WE - my wife Jenny and I - stand WITH YOU against this compromising spirit that is destroying the witness of Christ!
Not so fast. Real interpretation needs to include the book of nature and the historicity.
Amen! I couldn't have said it better! ❤
Just last week I was listening to a scholar do a word study and in passing he made the comment that william lane Craig is dangerous. NOW I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT. Bad MOJO Mr Craig
100%.
Dear Sean, can you please have a YEC on your show. I want to compare ideas in this kind of short form format. Thank you for all your content. May God bless you!!
Yes! Get Ken Ham on the show to contrast this!
@Mathelino Agreed. I have been paying attention to Ken Ham recently and he would be somebody good to at least give a strong YEC perspective.
He skips so quickly over his reasons for why literal views are "impossible," instead filibustering with the alternatives he thinks must be incorporated to allow him to cling to a bare bones but inescapably distorted view of scripture. There are many points with which I would argue, but the comments section is a poor place to conduct a conversation.
I need to understand what you mean by literal views? Do you mean, in a way that the earth was created in 7 days? That literal view? Or which?
He wrote a whole book about this. He can't recite the entire thing in an hour long interview.
Jup. I have never seen him "wrestle" with C14 like he deminishes the biblical testimony. He would go out of his way to defend science but pictures creationists like they are clowns.
2Peter3:
5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly….ESV
"this fact"
If we don't believe that God created Adam and Even as it's written then all other creation i not valid either and salvation isn't necessary.
I did not find this conversation to be very edifying. I love and have so much respect for Dr. Craig but i cant believe he misses the picture entirely. If Gen. 1-11 are myth than so is our need for redemption and a savior. Genesis is the foundation for everything that follows in the Bible. Dr. Craig values modern day scholarship over scripture, and this distorts his hermeneutic.
I believe you’ve totally misunderstood Dr. Craig’s view.
@Starrboy94 I hope so! If I didn't it's very discouraging.
with all due respect I think you’re missing a key point that ‘mythohistory’ is no less true than the poetry of the psalms or the apocalyptic writings of revelation or indeed the parables of Jesus… Craig is not arguing that Adam and Eve are mythical, (or that genesis is untrue) but indeed that they were real people and that the mytho-historical language of early genesis gives a cogent account of why the biblical narrative is not opposed to the findings of modern science… this is such important work - particularly if the gospel is to reach those in the scientific community whose telescopes and microscopes already reveal to them the wonders of God’s creation, but according to a timeline that does not marry with a literal reading of early genesis… I implore us not to put up unnecessary barriers to the faith due to our insistence that genesis be read through a particular lens 🙏❤
That simply doesn’t follow. The Bible clearly says that we are sinners. Genesis somehow being a myth doesn’t magically get rid of all the other references. We know Jesus is our redemption and savior because that’s what the text says. We don’t need to know the origin of something to know it’s true. That’s like saying we need to know the origin of a disease to know one exists.
I find Dr. Craig‘s interpretation of Genesis 1-11 entirely confusing and it doesn’t ring true.
But I think I am even more concerned with his denial of original sin. Pelagius was declared a heretic for this at the council of Carthage way back in 418 A.D.
This is why I was troubled with Sean saying it’s great that we have these alternative views on Genesis to consider, when it was rejected so long ago by the church.
Can you bring on someone from the young earth side that has studied this in depth and concludes a literal Adam and Eve are possible? Nathaniel Jeanson from answers in Genesis has done a lot of study on this.
There's a couple YT channels dedicated to this. I've watched a few videos and found some interesting stuff, but also some "explanations" that are rather far fetched. Adam & Eve serve as a foundation for doctrinal truth, so regardless of the timeline (not sure we'll solve that one!), God's involvement in creation and what transpired in the garden is central to Christian doctrine. The discussion in this video is anathema (and also makes no sense, it's a jumbled attempt to explain the bible in a manner requiring current modern discoveries, which will be passe soon enough).
I think Jason Lisle would also be a good option.
@@byronrhodes1659Yes he absolutely would! One of the most brilliant Believer minds on the planet. Sean can you invite him on for a interview?
Yes! Ken Ham would be great!
@@lorelaiwolverton4450 I like Len Ham, he’s a great speaker.
Does this position that believes Genesis 1-11 myth-history not effectively discredit the inspiration of scriptures and the necessity of Christ's incarnation, virgin birth, death and resurrection? When Peter speaks of the creation of the world, it's flooding and it's future destruction by fire (2 Peter 3:5-7) does he speak of an ancient myth (the flood) and a future myth (destruction by fire)? Does this not fly right in the face of the gravity of man's need for salvation and the necessity of God having to come down to Earth to bring this salvation?
Yes, WLC is discrediting scripture. He is _actively teaching_ against the record God gave in His word. Jesus said many will coming in his name, saying he, Jesus, is the Christ _and will deceive many._ Just because someone says Jesus is Christ does not mean they are not a deceiver. Even demons believe and shudder. Demon's know who Yeshua is, not just think it, but know it. The difference is a child of God believes their Father and obeys their Father. WLC is casting doubt on what our Father said.
Thank you for your comments - I only got 21 minutes in to this video and couldn’t continue watching as I felt the Holy Spirit was saying this is false teaching. I’m glad I’m not the only one ❤
Absolutely!
This is nonsense. WLC absolutely believes in the inspiration of scripture. This entire conversation is about how to INTERPRET Genesis 1-11. WLC believes Adam and Eve were real people who existed. It's IN HIS BOOK.
Did they magically pop out of the dirt 6k years ago? Not necessarily, and that's what the entire book is about. Was that a literal description of an actual event, or was it fantastic story about the creation of mankind, written in a way that it would convey the story of creation to ancient people?
@@boltingpuppies No.
I think the historical Adam and Eve would also affect our view of humanity. God created man in his image, but if there was no Adam for the image of God to be created, what does that mean for us then?
Interesting question.
I like Dr. Craig personally but his fact-free assertion that young earth position is “indefensible” is just wrong. Plenty of mainstream evolutionary and historical ideas that he is trying to harmonize the Bible with are looking increasingly “indefensible” as well, or at least highly suspect.
@@heremticawhat truths about human nature do you think can be extracted from genesis? What does original sin mean to you?
@@heremtica
I think he was referring to the fact that science shows "devolution" more than "evolution" (the slow creation of more complex genetic material over time).
It is also interesting that man existed for 100s of thousands of years but history only goes back about 6-10 thousand...
@@SeanMcDowell Sean, I usually like your style and approach. I respect you and Biola. You should have been able to "desconstruct" WLC's speculative arguments as nothing short of heresy. You have the knowledge and ability to sweep the floor of this sort of stuff, please do. I know you like to "explore" but there has to be a point past which you defend the Truth and hold it above the false. Listening and exploring is a natural curiosity, but at the end of the day discernment must clearly separate good from evil. In this case it's rather clear!
Sean, in all due respect, although William Lane Craig has done a lot for defending the faith, I take issue with his views on young earth creationism. We are discovering more and more evidence every day that the earth is indeed young, around 6,000 years old. Dr. Craig's worldview on the age of the Earth is nothing more than pandering to the atheistic naturalistic worldview, which has serious flaws.
@@DiscipleofJesusChrist-t2p I can't seem to find it, what did you say?
@@SebastianOsborn It is in the general comments
The same understanding of physics and chemistry that allows us to accurately make predictions and search for oil and natural gas, and to communicate on a this platform in real time from any place on the planet, is the same understanding of physics and chemistry that demonstrates the earth is over 4 Billion years old, life started about 3 billion years ago, with homo sapiens appearing about 200,000 years ago. The same genetic testing we use to determine a person’s paternity is the same genetic tests we use to show relatedness among species. I don’t pre-suppose this as true, I don’t have a desire to want to believe these things, and I could not care less if the earth was actually young, but I do care about evidence and where the evidence leads.
@@DPM917 My friend, evidence doesn't lead anything by itself. Evidence must be correctly interpreted to be considered truth. The young Earth creationist and the old Earth creationist look at the same evidence, but with two different conclusions. And those examples you gave me are not the same. We know certain things to be true and we've tested many things, but making assumptions about the age of stuff and evolution is still just a guessing game. We have never witnessed these things happen over the course of human history. In fact, the only things we do have records of humans observing is seeing dinosaurs, or as many cultures call them, dragons. This is strong evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, which means the Earth is young.
@@DPM917
Do you know that crude oil has actually been found by using the bible?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous 200,000 years of human history sound?
Using a very conservative and generous math: Let's say you start with 2 people 200,000 years ago. Being ridiculous generous. Let's say they have 2 children 150 years later and in another 150 years there are 8 people. In another 150 years there are 16 and so on.
Here is the math: 200,000 years ÷ 150 doubles = 1,333 doublings
2 people exponentially doubled 1,333 = 2^1334 people. These amount of people won't fit in 10 milky-way galaxies standing next to each other.
How the HECK can Craig ignore the verse
Romans 5:12 HCSB
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin
Pretty straightforward.
His conclusions are all wrong. That's not a hateful sentiment. It's just fact.
Bless you, "Standing with Israel"! It is never hateful to stand for truth, even rigidly and uncompromisingly. What has the Body of Christ come to on this earth? Do we no longer believe the most basic and foundational structures of our faith? How is this Christian?
I love Dr. Craig. But I think his view is wrong. No original sin by Adam? That's no longer a foundational belief? I'm still listening, but I've yet to hear a definitive position on this. Is not Dr. Craig a believer in some form of evolution (theistic? I'm not sure). If so, then that will speak to his disagreement with Agustinian thinking. I will keep listening.
Rom 5:12 doesn't say that death spread to all men because Adam sinned. And for that matter it doesn't even say that sin spread to all men because Adam sinned.
He isn't ignoring it, he's simply believing what the verse actually says. - Death spread to all men because all men sinned.
This should be pinned comment honestly
@@TheChristianAtheist 'How is this Christian?' I agree, it's not. I do not know why people are embracing WLC as a brother when he is not just confused but actively _teaching_ against God's word in Genesis. Jesus clearly said people would come *_in his name_* saying Jesus is the Christ and deceive many. Just because someone says Jesus is the Christ doesn't mean they aren't deceivers.
I don't think Dr Craig can consistently hold that the flood story is a myth but the characters are real.
Why?
@@davidhawley1132 because the characters are a part of the story. There's no reason to believe that the characters are real if the rest of the story is a myth. The characters may be loosely related to real historical people. But any details about their lives as recounted in a hypothetical myth, should also be considered as part of the myth.
@@intrepidus3378 And those on the ark are the patriarchs of all the families on the earth in the record of nations. If they weren't real then neither is the record of their generations.
Craig doesn’t believe the flood is a myth. I’ve seen so many comments saying Craig believes the biblical narrative of Gen 1-11 is a myth. He doesn’t. He says they are mythoHISTORY. The difference is HUGE. When you understand the difference you will see how he can hold the two together.
@@Starrboy94exactly, a great example is George Washington. Did he chop down the cherry tree? No? But is he a historical person, duh.
I wonder how William Lane Craig would explain the canyons, layering and the progress of fossilization that we find in the remnants of the Mt St Helen's eruption where we find deposits that, although we know they happened less than 50 years ago, have been dated as much as 18 million years old. Maybe he should give his head a shake!
OMG that Mt St Helens “justification” for YEC has been *completely* and *repeatedly* debunked Stop watching Answers in Genesis. YEC “science” is an absolute joke in the broader scientific community.
I agree!
Any creationists argument involving dating is just plain wrong. They don't understand the process and this allows them to get it wrong.
Dating is a technique and one must use it correctly.
For instance, suppose a rock was last heated to high temperature 18 million years ago. In other words, that's when the rock formed. It was then just sitting on the side of Mount Saint Helens. That rock will date to 18 million years. The rocks date based on when they formed, not whether they are part of a volcanic eruption.
It just so happens that Paulogia in his recent TH-cam video “Is the NEW Creation Night Movie the BEST of the Trilogy? Or the WORST?” addresses the dishonesty behind the Mount St. Helens creationism claim along with several others.
I believe Adam and Eve and Noah and the flood lived physically in this world as humans, they are not a fiction
Christ is traced from Adam, genealogy,
Like Dr William Lane Craig said, he never believed young earth views to be the best interpretation and he never felt Adam being put to sleep while God removed his rib was literal. It appears to me that he found a view that matched his presuppositions in what he felt the most logical way possible. However, we are finite beings with finite understanding and science is constantly having to change their views on various topics as they learn more and as more information is uncovered and/or discovered.
To me, I believe the Word of God and that is my starting point for everything. I used to believe the world was billions of years old. I believed that a great percentage of Old Testament stories specifically were folk stories and that they had mythological elements. However, as I learned more about the Word and my relationship with God changed, I felt the need to change my views. I was not so tied to a specific view that I was tempted to overlook other perspectives in an attempt to fit my understanding into the framework I already had created.
Doing a side-by-side comparison of a literal Biblical perspective vs. an Old Earth perspective similar to Dr. Craig’s, it became clear that the most accurate understanding was a literal Biblical interpretation. I feel that it holds up, first and foremost, Biblically. It holds up historically. And, it holds up historical. I cannot say the same about the Old Earth Biblical view.
The latter interpretation allows for everything to unravel far too easily and, I believe, it leads one to easily deconstruct their faith until nothing is left. I am nowhere near as intelligent as Dr Craig. I love his work and have the utmost respect for him. However, this is something I have no other choice but to disagree with him.
Hello, after having studied the subject as an MSC graduate, I now hold the YEC viewpoint, and it is clearly the teaching of the bible
What does YEC stand for?
@@freddyheynssens1950Young Earth Creation
@@laurentbillaud3316 I agree. Luke, in his Gospel mentioned Adam in the genealogy and he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write absolute truth. To accept other teaching is contradictory to the Scriptures and is false.
Amen ... when I stand before God and give an account of my life, I don't think God will say, "what? You believed what I actually said in my word? Are you crazy?"
100%. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew have the Genealogy from Adam to Jesus there for a reason. The Gospels are not perpetuating a MYTH.
In holding Dr. William Lane Craig in the highest regards as a defender of the faith, he couldn't be any more wrong in the "mytho history" of the geneologies, which the writer of the geneologies, Moses himself, places his own name in the geneologies, giving credibility to the literal reading of the geneologies. When the geneologies say "begat", this gives you an inescapable way to not be able to gap from descendancy
WLC should not be held in the highest regard as a defender of the faith. WLC is actively teaching against the record God gave in His word, effectively calling God a liar as the snake did. "Has God *_indeed_* said..?" Yes, God *indeed* said this and confirmed it when he stood on this earth in the New Testament. Jesus said many would come in his name saying he, Jesus, is the Christ and deceive many.
I respect Dr. Craig very much but respectfully, Dr. Craig, you are not the arbiter of what is scientifically possible or impossible. Thank you very much.
Adam and Eve are historical there's no way out of it because they produce a bloodline, a bloodline comes from two people coming together producing a child this cannot be disputed, otherwise you can dispute the rest of those who existed within that bloodline, it is the same with Abraham Isaac and Jacob, there is the bloodline from Abraham, how are you going to remove Abraham if you do you remove Isaac and Jacob, unless you think all these Bloodlines and names I simply talking of something else, it is either metaphoric or symbolic and if you think it is, then you're going to have to work very hard to make it work.
Maybe they're just stories.
@@mattr.1887They are TRUE stories!
I studied Stephen Jay Gould in the 80s and used to believe in (theistic) macroevolution, but the science of the last 10 to 15 years has made that very difficult.
What proposals are currently peaking your interest?
@@jeremiahgranatowski1400 the work of Behe, Myers, et al are intriguing, so I'm watching the ID videos.
@@georgemonnatjr.172 I have watched many of those and I am firmly in the camp of ID. I am just wrestling how the design came about. Guided evolution or unique spontaneous creation as what seems described in Genesis. And is the earth as young as the genealogies seem to suggest from Adams line.
@@georgemonnatjr.172 I have looked into their work, albeit only on TH-cam but I haven't seen a deep dive into the specifics of what they believe. They seem to believe in a sort of macroevolution but argue against the evolutionists view on abiogenesis.
I myself am wrestling with the mainstream view that humans derive from monkeys and monkeys from lower apes then somewhere down the line is a single cell organism. I tend to lean on an idea of micro-evolution but macro is super hard to subscribe to.
@@jeremiahgranatowski1400 There is no such thing as macroevolution. There is micro adaptation.
If we can agree that male and female reproductive organs and their functions have to be perfectly formed to pass the genes to form a healthy, normally formed, long living child - i.e. to multiply and fill the earth, than macro evolution is null, cause if you go one step back in the macroevolutionary process, you are done with human population (reproductive organs and their processes are not fully formed). That's Behe's reduced complexity.
We have not derived from monkeys.
Here's another example.
"The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene ... and has been documented ... on five continents ... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor."
Hill, John E. and Smith, James D. (1984); Bats: A Natural History; London: British Museum of Natural History, p. 236
This interview left me feeling unsettled in my soul. It was interesting, so I listened to it’s entirety, but I prefer to err on the side of taking the Bible seriously, and in most cases, literally.
I had the same disturbing feeling! I do not draw conclusions solely based on my feelings, but when I get a screaming check in my spirit that is a major red flag for me!
Would you take the Bible literally when it says that the trees clap their hands? Would that even be appropriate? Of course not. Why? Because of genre. It's poetic language there, they have no hands. Nor can the rocks cry out. Nor do the heavens have literal windows. Nor is there a literal raqiiya stretching across the sky, nor are there four corners to the earth, and on and on and on.
Just because you don't take those things literally doesn't mean you don't take them seriously. You would be taking it less serious to impose wooden literalism on the passages that speak that way. The contexts would be betrayed, the meaning confused and you would get a very wrong idea about what the Bible meant to teach.
Why could there not be poetic or metaphorical language in Gen 1-11?
Or perhaps, why do not think of Genesis as how Dr John Walton points out, a functional creation paradigm, wherein things only are said to exist not when the physical matter is there, but when they're given purpose by God?
@@robertlutz3841He basically mocked the creation of Adam and Eve saying that there’s no way God physically formed them out of clay and breathed life into them. I believe it happened exactly as Genesis says it did and I think it shows how much God loves each and every one of us personally. I don’t like to let feelings dictate my beliefs either, so I’m constantly asking the Holy Spirit to show me the truth and convict me in the areas that I might be believing a lie, and I believe He keeps me on the path of truth.
Dr Craig contradicts himself when in the beginning of the video he said his goal was to interpret Genesis in the way the original people it was written to would than later saying there is no way to know how the original audience for Genesis would have read it. Unfortunately, his belief in modern pseudoscience is greater than his belief in Genesis. This doesn’t mean he is not a brother in Christ, just misguided
So you are saying that there is no way to know how most of the Bible was understood back then? I have not looked into it myself. I would imagine that there is commentary. Since these are ancient teachings
Agreed.
If he's making God a liar and casting doubt on the record God gave, is he a brother? I don't know. I know a brother can be confused but this is different. This is *teaching* with authority against the record God gave. It's like the serpent who asked Eve: "Has God *indeed* said...?" Yes, God *indeed* said. Only a snake talks this way. Cunningly.
Thank you for NOT dividing with your brother over this.v Very classy.
We know in other parts of the Bible how the culture viewed the first 11 chapters.
I found WLC interesting to listen to a decade or so ago, but his views here totally do not match my ideas and the way he speaks about YEC speaks for itself.
If we are going to allow big freedom of interpretation then why not think that the babylonian myths are equally relevant as the stories in the OT
Sorry. Disagree with him. I believe the Bible as it reads.
No need to be sorry. It’s too bad Dr. McDowell is giving him a platform for this non-Biblical viewpoint.
@@danamarie7906why don’t you engage with the arguments presented
Why should you?
@@bruhmingo In my experience, people who aren't willing to engage with ideas that challenge their own are not truth seekers.
As it reads to the ancient Israelite writer and readers, or “as it reads” to *you*, thousands of years later, coming from a different context in a different language with what I assume to be no formal education in ancient creation texts?
People like geologist Steve Austin pointing out the giant swaths of sedementary rock laid down in discrete thick layers spanning across continents (listen to his nautiloid argument at least befote dismissing) I find makes me hesitant to side with people who call young earth & global flood untenable.
Like you a lot Sean, but you could have done better by not having WLC on.
Sean and WLG
Both are profe$$ional christian$ $elling the word of God...
I think they both written 40 or more books..
And being very "easy" on him. It's good to be kind to your guests, but not to the point of letting them get by unchallenged with what amounts to wild speculation at best.
Sad 😔
Sorry, Sean. He was a waste of our time and yours. You can do better.
I find this conversation very confusing. WLC’s views make me question which part of the Bible we can actually trust (literal as stated) and which is just myth, which erodes faith in the Bible as the innerant word of God at all. A confusing way to try to build faith with the Bible as our solid foundation of belief.
Feel the same way.he throws big claims about science but I bet he has yet to discuss it with an actual yec scientist
This is what the snake did too: "Has God *indeed* said...?" Yes, God has INDEED said. That's it.
'He doesn't believe the Gospels are entirely accurate either.
So apparently God expects us to have PhD's to actually understand His Word because it doesn't actually mean what it states? So much for Psalm 119:130: "The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple".
@@NancyDGregThis! This is exactly the dilemma I find myself in. I'm evidently too ignorant and uneducated to understand the only source of tangible communication between the Creator and the creation.
There are lots of good reasons to not just "follow the science" supposedly showing all the things Dr Craig just accepts. Why not bring on a credible representative to present the OTHER SIDE of the science question? I'm sure you (Sean) have contacts of a bona fide scientist who doesn't swallow the wholesale mainstream position. Maybe someone from ICR (Institute for Creation Research)?
I greatly respect Dr. Graig, bug he's more committed to secular science than he is to the Bible.
Amen, my friend. It is time to turn our back on the compromising away of God's word by celebrated intellectuals, whether "Christian" or otherwise. "Let God be true, and every man a liar"!
False science
@@TheChristianAtheist Amen, absolutely
Secular science vs what? Theistic science?
@@tommysvensson7372 Correct. Neutrality is a myth. You either have a secular bias or a theistic bias.
Maybe this explains this nonsense... around 56min in... political views, good grief. And he bows out of the "origin of Adam and Eve"... maybe he should re-read Genesis. Does he believe God created anything in the beginning? Which bits did He create?
Please bring Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis for an interview! Kind of biased to keep showing only one interpretation of the scriptures!
There are so many great scientists in his ministry that explain a YEC from a genetic point of view, geographical POV, biological, and lots more. Would love to hear from the other side on this platform 🙏🏼
WLC argues for the errancy of Gods Word. Young earth creation can be defended hermenuicaly but can not be defended scientifically. Even with all the good he has done run from this man!
WLC: "I believe in Jesus' virgin birth, divinity, miracles and resurrection even though secular science proves thise things are impossible."
Also WLC: "Creationism is taught in the Bible but I can't believe it because of secular science."
with all due respect I think you’re missing a key point that ‘mythohistory’ is no less true than the poetry of the psalms or the apocalyptic writings of revelation or indeed the parables of Jesus… Craig is not arguing that Adam and Eve are mythical, (or that genesis is untrue) but indeed that they were real people and that the mytho-historical language of early genesis gives a cogent account of why the biblical narrative is not opposed to the findings of modern science… this is such important work - particularly if the gospel is to reach those in the scientific community whose telescopes and microscopes already reveal to them the wonders of God’s creation, but according to a timeline that does not marry with a literal reading of early genesis… I implore us not to put up unnecessary barriers to the faith due to our insistence that genesis be read through a particular lens 🙏❤
There’s nothing in secular science that proves the virgin birth, miracles, and divinity are impossible. That’s simply a misrepresentation of what he thinks. The gospels and Genesis are completely different genre. Why would you ever treat them like they are the same thing?
@@davidblack1353 "Mythohistory" is an incoherent idea that should persuade precisely nobody.
If one wants to claim Adam was a real figure of history (necessary for "original sin" to make any sense), provide some evidence.
If one instead claims actual history is recorded as myth, then there's no reason for anyone to suppose it isn't outright myth. It is one thing to have "faith" in things unseen -- it is another to have "faith" in what nobody can show is even possibly real. Like the outright flat earth cosmology of Genesis and the fact that there were once only two people, things we now know are impossible.
Half of the point of the scientific method is "not fooling oneself" -- which is surprisingly easy to do when doing real science. Stars are, at the first viewing, just random points of light. It takes long and careful observation to realize what one is actually seeing. By contrast, a book which is _argued_ in the fashion you are is the essence of self-deception.
Succinctly, it fails peer review and you are arguing that is somehow a good thing.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Um excuse me? It is scientifically impossible to have a virgin birth or to resurrect the dead. Or to turn water into wine. What kind of nonsense is this lol.
I would LOOOOVE to see why Craig thinks young earth creationist is indefensible to modern science. Every objection he can enlist to bolster his view I’m positive has a good answer from top scientists who have a young earth view. Jesus saw Adam and Eve as historical, and he saw Noah as historical. I’m not buying it Craig.
Academia: There's no way humans could have a common ancestor pair a few thousand years ago.
Jonathan Swamidas: Here's how.
Academia: Oh, makes sense actually.
WLC: Wow, that was a heliocentric understanding that just changed!
Jonathan Swamidas: But academia's probably right about everything else.
WLC: Oh totes. And if we squint and turn our heads sideways we can make Scripture fit with all the things they're definitely right about...can, can, can, yay! Because I'm sure academia was only wrong about that one thing.
🤦🏻♀️😑🤦🏻♀️😑🤦🏻♀️😞
(27:48 - 29:30)
If you read Josephus, he claimed that there was an altar still standing at that time (first Century) in what they knew as Syria that Adam built…. I found that so fascinating!!
Could he be more insulting to young earthers? As Christians who are 'one in the Spirit' it would be nice to at least be polite to one another. It is difficult to listen to his thoughts while simultaneously dodging stones.
Well... Young Earth Creationism is really hard to respect so... Knowing Dr. Craig, he is being really polite here.
@@rauljaramillo3264 So, can you scientifically state that the earth is millions of years as fact? Can you prove it can't be another way?
@@scottm4042 Everyone forgets that "millions of years, billions of years" is largely a way to justify a belief in the anti-god presupposition of evolutionary faith. It is ONE way to interpret the data. Christians ought to know better than to side with secular thinking over God's - this was the failure of both Israel and Judah. We (the church of Jesus Christ) DESERVE to face our own Babylonian captivity for capitulating to this wisdom of man over God.
@@TheChristianAtheist Well said!
@@scottm4042 why would I need to prove that it can't be any other way?
Point blank. WLC has science as his authority and not the Scripture. He is more enamored with man’s discovery over Bible.
He is actually more enamored with is own 'brain' than the truth of the Bible.
@@danielkim672 Wow, he uses the same organ that young earth creationists use to come to their conclusion, how enlightening.
You can't just wave the authority of the bible around to justify your interpretation of it. The bible's authority is to be taken as it intends, not as YEC or scientists or anyone else wants it to be.
@@davidhawley1132 💯 agree, Genesis is a historical account and that’s why it needs to be taken as literal history not a myth. Moses, Jesus to Paul, all saw Adam as a literal person, that’s how they interpreted it. You’re right, the Bible points to a literal Adam, one example is Romans 5:12-21.
@@ceedee873 You are mistaken. YEC are using their Brain AND Scripture. Our organ does not supercede the teachings of the Bible. I hope that this comment is even more enlightening for you.
Anyone reading this, if you’re into the theology of God in the Bible, or just want a better understanding of the Christian faith and beliefs in general, just read the early church fathers from the first few hundred years of Christianity. The guys were geniuses and better than most theologians today
Amen!
Didn't several of them also believe women had no souls and were spiritually inferior to men?
Dr. Craig’s argument against the young earth view is an appeal to authority outside of his area of expertise.
Agree. I can't listen to this it was ruined as soon as he said YEC is "incompatible" with current science. That's current sciences problem, not the Bible.
Ummm...Adam is the one who sinned, which is why everyone is dying in the first place since we were all contained in him. It is LITERALLY a salvation issue. Why are men who don't even believe the truth in Genesis being held up as some sort of great apologist. What happens when they fall away? Ridiculous. Adam is called 'the first Adam' by Paul and Jesus is called 'the last Adam' and SALVATION is explained through both 'Adam's' by Paul in 1Corinthians 15 for anyone reading.
with all due respect I think you’re missing a key point that ‘mythohistory’ is no less true than the poetry of the psalms or the apocalyptic writings of revelation or indeed the parables of Jesus… Craig is not arguing that Adam and Eve are mythical, (or that genesis is untrue) but indeed that they were real people and that the mytho-historical language of early genesis gives a cogent account of why the biblical narrative is not opposed to the findings of modern science… this is such important work - particularly if the gospel is to reach those in the scientific community whose telescopes and microscopes already reveal to them the wonders of God’s creation, but according to a timeline that does not marry with a literal reading of early genesis… I implore us not to put up unnecessary barriers to the faith due to our insistence that genesis be read through a particular lens 🙏❤
This conversation was difficult to follow.
William Lane Craig insists on sticking to 20th-century beliefs in science. But lots of science has progressed beyond the legendary millions of years that so-called science keeps pushing.
Wise men recognize that the first 11 chapters of Genesis IS history.
There is this place in Arizona that is called the Grand Canyon. It was laid down in a worldwide flood.
In light of all this, we should pray that WLC discover the real science that has been discovered in the last 40 years or so.
If Adam didn't really sin, then is it a myth that Christ actually died for the sins of humans?
We were forgiven before time began. God was not following a plan “B”.
He was in Christ Co-suffering with Christ on the cross.
No we are not guilty of Adam’s sin.
@@marthadavis5068Is this based on anything substantial or just YOUR rewriting of accepted Christian tradition.
As far as the flood, it was supernatural flood. God isn't limited by laws of nature that He create the world to operate on. Also there is proof of a world wide flood, it's called billions of bones buried all over the world.
I normally enjoy watching Sean's interviews, but I think I will sit this one out after 10 minutes. Dr. Craig says that YEC view on Adam and Eve "flies in the face of what we 'know' about modern paleo-anthropology, and history, and archeology." I don't know that we 'know' any such thing. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that proves we finally know that Adam and Eve did not exist a mere 10,000 to 20,000 years ago (or even earlier) and were the progenitors of the human race. I don't see that view "collapsing," but rather growing stronger as scientists make new discoveries.
From what I can find, Dr. Craig has an undergrad degree in communications, and two doctoral degrees, one in philosophy and one in theology. He speaks of Peter Ens who holds a doctorate degree in near eastern languages and civilizations. None of those convince me that they have the same grasp of science as those with doctorates in biology, microbiology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, etc. I just can't listen to him as he says that he sees the young earth position as "indefensible scientifically," when the sciences he seems to be referring to are not within his area of expertise or education.
Maybe it gets better from there, but I am already thinking my time would be better spent listening to those with doctorates in science. Maybe Scott McKnight did not "capitulate" as Dr. Craig says, but was actually convinced by....didn't really catch the name, Venmos?....that a literal first Adam and Eve (not a progression of hominids) are not incompatible with science. I'll take a look at the book on Amazon, but unless I see something better than what I heard in these few minutes, I won't be buying it.
Genesis is a creation myth. Evolution is a fact. Learn where the Israelites borrowed some of their ideas and myths from.
---------------------------------------------------------
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"*
(Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@@epicofatrahasis3775 There is no such thing as evolution, there's adaptation.
There are no frogs that turned into tigers. Stop already with that Darwinian bs. Even Dawkins has stopped babbling that nonsense.
@@epicofatrahasis3775 Hey thanks for the sources! I have been studying things like this, but am biased towards Heiser's table of nations. I don't have depth in this area of study so far though.
@@MultiSky7You think Dawkins has abandoned evolution?? You couldn’t be more wrong. He is as committed to evolution as ever.
I think this video is worth listening to as there are many people that call themselves Christians that have the view of William. It is worth listening to their arguments so we that is we do come across them, we can discuss these with support of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Wow.
Maybe you have forgotten you are dealing with the Word of God.
You use the phrase wooden God calls his word an anvil that breaks every hammer. Your tools are flawed. And your eyes are blinded.
Now I have more praise to the Holy Spirit who gave us so many witnesses to the Truth in this discussion through the genealogies.
You denied the flood.
2 Peter 3:5-6
[5] For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, [6] and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
Denied the creation of Eve.
1 Corinthians 11:12
[12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
As for the scholars,scientists, philosophers and academics are they not merely men whose fallibility is well established.
Proverbs 30:5-6
[5] Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
[6] Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Excellent comment of witnesses! Praise YHVH our God and Savior!
Well said
One of the best comments in this whole collection of comments!
Ok. If Genesis is not true, apocalypse is not true… what part of the Bible is true? I’m done with this. Now I understand why people don’t hold to the faith.
I know this podcast is stressing me out 😢
This makes me SO SAD! You are right. Why should ANYONE believe in a God that is SO pathetic that He can't even write a good story that conveys truth to His people?
I haven't heard podcast just yet but I can understand to an extent the notion of being stressed. When I first got saved, as I delved into Christian apologetics, I would have to listen to things over again as it would bug me at times. Let me encourage you, while I love Christian apologetics and do believe it is helpful to know and understand arguments for the faith, as a Christian we need to have the word of God, the Bible as our source of truth. The validity of the Bible is very sound. Numerous copies of the Bible are in existence in Greek and many other languages and when compared there are not any variances which distort or change any main Christian doctrine. In other words we can trust the Bible to be historically accurate. And if this is the case we can trust what was written. Namely, if Jesus himself referenced and believed in Adam and Eve, as did Paul and Peter, we can trust they existed.
@@TheChristianAtheistGod didn't write the Bible. No Christian thinks that.
@@kjpesl7311 Don't be stressed. This man WLC is just like the snake in the garden. Satan asked Eve: "Has God *_indeed_* said...?" The answer is *yes,* God INDEED said. That's it. 'Science' changes over time. God's word doesn't. We were created in the image and likeness of God in the very beginning on day six. Adam was created on day six (which was an evening and a morning) and the next day God rested from His work (from everything He had created and made). He made that day special. He set it apart from the other days (set apart means Holy). Jesus says that seventh day (sabbath) was created for man (Adam). So Adam was created on day 6, and God made sabbath for Adam. Later the commandment was to remember the sabbath (seventh day) because on IT God rested from everything He created and made. We are supposed to remember the seventh day. Now, if the days of creation were longer than evening and morning, then Adam would have lived a very, very long time before the seventh day and we already know he didn't live longer than 1000 years. The seventh day sabbath was created FOR Adam. The days were literally evenings and mornings. God says the sabbath an ETERNAL SIGN between Him and His people (that's you and me) that He is the true God, the Creator who created everything in six days and rested on the sabbath. WLC is a snake. Don't listen to his evil talk. And it is evil.
I have often benefited from Dr. Lane's insights in the past... but several of his statements in this interview leave me cold. His comments in particular about original sin are incompatible with Biblical doctrine.
So (around 27min in) some guy writes about how all humans do descend from a common ancestral couple a few thousand years ago, but then goes on to speculate in ways which allow for evolution to seep into the explanation. Baffles me why this evolutionary track of thinking needs to be pandered to when there are plenty of well thought out arguments why it doesn't work as an origin explanation (it does explain differentiation within species though). I'll keep listening, but it seems rather counterintuitive to first suggest that young earth is indefensible yet the very next segment deals with the idea that humans descend from a common ancestor within the time frame of "young earth." There must be more to the story (???)
The resurrection is also "scientifically impossible "
No matter what your view on genesis, the Bible makes it very clear that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. Saying Adam lived 200,000 years ago is non sensible when taking into account the genealogies. Btw, I’m an old earther
No it doesn't. Not even close. Dating Adam that way is a very bad misunderstanding of how the genealogy was written. The wording, originally, does not at all mean the direct next generation, but simply a descendant of.
@@megoblks It is not even close? when you study the given ages of Adam to Noah then to Abraham in the Bible, you believe these are many generations in between even with the ages listed. Then Matthew takes Abraham to Jesus. Please cite the verse where you believe the text does not mean the next generation but simply a descendant of?
Would it be impossible for God to create an old earth? He didn't create a baby Adam. He created a mature Adam, it seems reasonable to create a mature earth.
@@janicephillips6813 Amen once again!
@@danielkim672 to add to your argument, Genesis 5 (ESV) states, ". . .and he died" after each person, which would seem to imply the end of one generation and the start of the next.
I don't understand why there's so much discussion on this. Is the Bible true or not? If you don't believe the account of Adam and Eve, can you believe anything else in the Bible?
Sean! What are you doing???!
Ive seen Craig defend this view before and it shrinks every time it's washed. I noted particularly that he tried an unorthodox, out-of-context recast of Romans 5:12 that has doctrinal implications way beyond just getting it out of the way if his point. Henry Morris, on the legal side with the YEC camp, was bad this way in handling passages like Romans 5, and Craig is the liberal version.
I think he's wrong on young earth. However, he's not wrong on Romans 5:12. He isn't ignoring it, he's simply believing what the verse actually says. - Death spread to all men because all men sinned.
Thank you, well said!
@@noelenliva2670 the problem with Craig's view as I understood him to express it, is that Romans 5 in full context pairs off Adam and Christ as federal heads of their respective orders (old and new creation) and this is tied into many other Scriptures (c.f. 1 Cor.15:22, "as in Adam...as in Christ..."). "World" (gr. kosmos) in Rom.5:12 is typically used of mankind and his moral state in the NT, not the created world as a whole. So, the sin nature is transferred through the human line under Adam, just as righteousness is transferred to all children of God through Christ. The notion that Adam's sin spreads through the created order "like a disease" and THEN people sin is not what Rom.5 says and it doesn't square well with many other doctrines including the "why" of the virgin birth. That kind of view toward creation was found in gnostic heresy and Augustine, to whom Craig referred, was one of a few that helped elucidate "original sin" as a way of explaining what Romans 5, and other passages, were teaching.
@@aaronvienot Neither the term sin nature, nor the idea of sin nature have I found in any verse or passage of the Bible. If you do find it, please share the passage / verse. It would be helpful to discuss a verse / passage.
The Eastern orthodox do not believe in the concept of original sin since it was a doctrinal development / innovation by the Western church.
Genesis is very concise, and written thousands of years ago. It would be naive to think that it's trivial to understand. Let this be an agree to disagree issue. The Gospel is what's important. There will be people in Heaven who were wrong about Adam, and that's fine.
Dr. Craig is terribly embarrassed by the Word of God. If you've listened to him, this is even true of the Gospels.
I'm embarrassed by him.
WLC critiques YEC without understanding it
I think it’s sad that Craig assumes we need to interpret the Bible differently rather than the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is perfect and without fault but somehow the plain reading of the Bible isn’t.
Very simply, if God did not create a real Adam, where did life come from? Science sure sounds like another gospel.
You think God could only have created *life* by creating Adam? You don’t think he could have created the first micro-organism and then guided evolution from that point?
@@TXLogic God could certainly have done that. But that means God's word in the New Testament is a lie. Why is God speaking through Paul that sin entered through one man? If there were humans before Adam, then sin was already in the world.
If there was millions of years of evolution. Why does Genesis make a point to create a link in ages between Adam and Abraham and then the New Testament takes Abraham to Jesus. Is the New Testament just supporting a myth that is not true?
Why would God use this macro evolution when there is literally no evidence of macro evolution today? Can you tell me why there have been zero evidence of primative humans for the last tens of thousands of years? For some reason the chimps are staying chimps and monkeys staying monkeys. Why are they not evolving at all when supposedly we have all these variations of evolution all over the place? Only one spiecies of humans?
@TXLogic he tells us that he specifically created us in his image for a purpose. We want to try to change that because we think "science" says differently. We did not come from some random soup that just produced everything by accident.
Having listened to a couple of podcasts by Dr. Wise on his youtube channel, AChristianAtheist, I would love to see a discussion here, moderated by Sean, between Dr. Craig and Dr. John Wise. Both are philosophers with distinctly different backgrounds, but speak "philosopher" speak and come to completely different conclusions. Or have Dr. Marcus Ross on to discuss the chapter he wrote for this book, "Perspectives" from a YEC point of view. He is an actual paleontologist and can add a scientific dimension to balance out Dr. Craig's philosophical viewpoint and let us weigh the evidence for ourselves.
Thank you for your kind words, Nightingale! I would actually prefer to hear from Dr. Ross, as Dr. Craig seems FAR MORE convinced by science than by God's word. It would be nice to have a truly scientific voice poke holes in what Dr. Craig denies is "evolutionary" about his own account. Jenny and I would undertake it, but I think philosopher vs. philosopher would less valuable in this case. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."
To be honest, I had a hard time listening to this interview, but interesting though. Personaly I think ppl seek for explanations fitting into modern information/science.
🙏 pray for heavenly guidance
Great conversation! Thanks for discussing this topic.
Dr. Craig is a very effective debater with those in academia for a logical faith. Unfortunately, in order to maintain credibility in those circles he abandons fealty to Scripture in areas like Gen 1-11 and by embracing Molinism. Many academics struggle with tbis temptation, like Lennox and Gavin Ortlund.
Eve is the mother of ALL living (all humans).
Concerning WLC’s view that the flood is written in easy that “clearly assumes a global event” (paraphrasing), I am not sure why he seems to be unaware of many other texts that are described as involving “all flesh,” “the whole earth,” etc. and yet are revealed by their contexts and eventual outcomes as being regional events. E.g. “But you, are you seeking great things for yourself? Do not seek them; for behold, I am going to bring disaster on all flesh,’ declares the Lord… (Jer 45:5a - context is limited to judgement upon Judah); Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every language throughout the whole world: “May you have abundant prosperity!” (Dan 6:25 - context is obviously Babylon & her neighbors and/or regional conquests); “I will completely remove all things from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. “I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, and the ruins along with the wicked; and I will cut off man from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord (Zep 1:1-4a - context is again Judah and Jerusalem); …if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which [note past tense] was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister (Col 1:23 - context is the greater Roman / known world). I could go on. If historical to any degree, Noah’s flood impacted his known world. We need not, in light what the Bible means when it speaks in universal terms, assume the meaning is always literal.
I have watched several videos on those that wold take this as a regional flood. I then always have the same questions. Why build an ark? Just move. Why take animals? They could have escaped or should be spread out enough that is they passed away it would not have caused them to go extinct. When the Bible says the water was over all the high hills it seems to imply all of them. This could be a use hyperbole as you mentioned the other verses are doing, but it doesn't seem to come across that way. Then God promises to never flood the earth like this again, yet we see huge floods all the time. If this wasn't global it would have to have been the biggest flood ever recorded. And I guess one last interesting fact that always gets me is why do we see flood stories all over the earth from different people groups that seem to have a tradition of a global flood and a family t survived on some kind of boat. I watched the documentary, The Ark and the Darkness and it all just seemed to make sense. Like I said in other comments above. I am just wrestling with all of this.
@@stewartparker1872 if one takes the regional view, then the following have to be considered (among others): (a) Scripture doesn't tell us how far out man had progressed on the earth, i.e. how large the flood would have to be to completely remove his line. (b) Relatively easy and reliable travel over continent-spanning distances was an invention of the Roman Empire, centuries later, so "just move out" is not a light thing to say. (c) It appears that God's desire was for Noah's descendants to restart the human line in the general area of the future holy land, meaning both he and a complete animal population needed to be returned there promptly to restore the creation order and human descent.
@@stewartparker1872 People tend to assume that the land on the earth was split since the get go as it is today with continents formed. They tend to look at the flood from 21st century perspective.
Second. The accounts of the flood in various cultures started with Babylon when YHWH conflated their languages. When they couldn't understand each other any more, they went their separate ways and shared the accounts of the same flood under the different names - names under new language that YHWH assigned each of them (70 languages).
And that's why there are all the same pantheon of (pagan) gods through various cultures, just under the different names - the so called Greek - Rome - Egypt - Nordic - German, etc. mythologies.
@@aaronvienot, what makes you say that when, after the flood, at the tower of Babel, God told them to spread out. The languages became confused and man started settling over the rest of the earth.
@@stewartparker1872 Why an Ark? - Perhaps Noah’s known world was to experience a massive flood and simply moving away for a time wasn’t feasible? Or, and I think far more likely, saving God’s featured family in such a dramatic way is fantastic theology-and the OT favors theology over modern ways of recording history. It also continues God’s pattern of saving humans from the “chaos” of watery threats-e.g., “dividing the land from the sea” in Genesis so humans would be able to live; the later story of baby Moses is saved via a “mini-ark” that actually uses the same Babylonian loan word-“tevah”-which refers to Noah’s Ark (that’s no coincidence-that’s theology).
As for God’s promise, while local floods occur all the time, if none have since occurred that flooded the known world (in Noah’s day his “whole world” was Mesopotamia), then the promise has been kept.
If the flood story is not historical, then its scope and promises are not an issue. That the flood account is written in a “chiastic” and poetic genre reveals at the very least that we are not dealing with modern news reporter nor video recorded and modern ways of recording history.
Flood stories from all over the world can simply be from the fact that people who live by water inevitably experience flooding. Interestingly, flood stories are largely absent in Africa. Also, if humanity began in Mesopotamia and early on a massive regional flood occurred (which does have evidential support, unlike a global flood), then humans took the story with them as they spread out over the globe.
Similarities in the story (a hero, his family, animals, birds released, etc.) are explained by going back to the earliest accounts in Mesopotamia that were borrowed and built upon. While Genesis has many differences from much older Mesopotamian versions, it clearly made use of similar storylines, even if its primary intention, most agree, was to correct earlier versions as a polemic.
at 45min in... so, non-Christian cultures have a myth based understanding of the world, that means we can, and should, apply this to the Bible (???).
I am truly seeking answers. My biggest question to Mr. Craig is, does he really think secular science proves their case the earth is billions of years old, that we evolved from lower primates, that humans have been around a lot longer than the Biblical timeline, and can all we see in the fossil record not be the left over affects of a global flood like Creation ministries purport?
For me, the more I look into this issue the more I just see a narrative from scientist from both sides. They are both looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions based on their bias of old or young earth. They use a ton of narrative language such as "it might have happened like this" or "perhaps this happened" or "chances are it went like this". I cannot seem to find a path that leads me to believe one side of scientist over the other for they rebuke each others interpretation of the data. Nobody was there so it seems we are all guessing. Yes, trying to make educated guesses.
I'm just wanting to know what led him to believe the Creation scientist are wrong and the current science hypothesis are correct? No gotcha moment, I just want to know if I am wasting time on this because there is an obvious answer that I am missing. I look at the Creation scientist stuff and for me they seem to be on to something. I just watched The Ark and the Darkness and it all seemed to make since to me and seems to align with a clear reading of scripture. What am I missing that men as educated as WLC says that's not right, the common understanding in science is right?
Any help would be appreciated.
I guess what I am also curious about is why at the beginning he says the YEC view of Adam and Eve fly in the face of the current science, why he chose to hold to the current science view when it clearly is just a narrative no more than the YEC view. They see data, they believe evolution and billions of years are true, so that data must align with that paradigm. Is there any tangible proof current science is correct in their interpretation over the scientist that hold to YEC views which start that we haven't been evolving for millions of years. Thank you.
At about 10 minutes in he says that he thinks the YEC position is indefensible. Why? How has modern science proven beyond any doubt they are right and the YEC scientist are wrong. Again, I just see the YEC crowd would say the same against modern science. They are assuming long ages so they interpret the data to fit long ages. Is there a silver bullet I am missing?
I too have been wrestling with this for several years, exposing myself to figures on both sides of the YEC/Mainstream scientific debate. I cannot claim to have a great understanding of the evidence and inter workings of the scientific method and data that point to either position. I can say, however, I've seen a lot of uncharitable and, in my view, vicious behavior from some of the popular figures in the YEC movement. This includes Kent Hovind's very questionable character, legal issues, multiple divorces, etc. Ken Ham constantly accuses Christians who disagree with his particular YEC model to be calling God a liar. This is extremely damaging and uncharitable to the body of Christ in my humble opinion. Even within the YEC scientific community there is much disagreement and disowning based on such disagreements. At the very least I have seen a great deal of unChristlike behaviors coming from the very movement that prides itself in being the "most Christian" or in some cases the "only" acceptable position to Christians. No, this does not disapprove YEC. I am not even arguing that, but it has caused me to not put any trust in the movement due to the leaders in it displaying unChristlike character.
I know even just for typing my opinion, calling for Christians to not be so demonizing to our brothers and sisters who do not see things the same way, will bring on several Christians to tell me how wrong I am, and maybe even that I am not a Christian, or that I don't want to believe God. But I just pray for the body of Christ to be as United as we can, despite disagreements like this. Lord, help to clear our minds of our misconceptions, help us to seek Your Truth above all, and help us to love the Church, encouraging and educating one another. Thank You for Your Grace and Mercy on us. Amen.
I would like to know as well what makes Dr. Lane dismiss creation science. His undergraduate degree is in communications. He holds 2 doctorate degrees, one in philosophy and one in theology from what I read. How does his knowledge and understanding of science hold up against those that hold doctorates in biology, microbiology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc at the Institute of Creation Research and Answers in Genesis as well as others?
If I am going to follow the science, I think it would better further my understanding to read what actual scientists have to say than philosophers and theologians.
Hello, after having studied the subject as an MS graduate, I now hold the YEC viewpoint, and it is clearly the teaching of the bible.
@@albertkleppin2320Thank you. I was just watching another documentary yesterday from Answers in Genesis - Mountains After the Flood.
It does have a silver bullet but it makes one wonder if the current ages are correct and current geologist hypothesis are correct.
I don’t know anything about the men in the movies character. I would hope they are being honest.
Same for Ken Ham, I don’t know his character but I would hope he is offering up true stuff (even if interpreted wrong) and not be a deceiver.
@@stewartparker1872Thank you Stewart. I'll have to review some of their recent material. I want to be clear it is not my intention to smear the character of Kent or Ken, and perhaps I was even too harsh in my previous comment. I've just been hurt by some of their comments and accusations made to other believing Christians with views similar to Dr. Craig's. Not hurt in a personal way, rather hurt at what I think is a destruction of our relationships with one another as believers. Again, I don't claim to know the right answer in the debate, but I commend your earnest and humble search for the Truth of it all. Bless you, brother!
Hi Sean, I think you need to have Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson on your show. Where did the monkeys come from?
I bought the book and started to read it but I find Craig obnoxious, his demeanor, his tone. I do wonder what it would be like to have a coffee with him.
I dont see how it will be different. His views his BRAIN is bigger than the Bible. His BRAIN is bigger than all of us regular Chrisitans.
I won't say much, as much of how I feel has already been mentioned in these comments. But I have a really hard time with William Lane Craig's take on genesis. He makes it sound impossible that God would put Adam to sleep and take his rib to create Eve. In my mind, that's just as preposterous as God creating Adam from The dust. As many have said, when you see the myriad of miracles done throughout the Bible how would this be outside of God's ability I have a very difficult time even entertaining William Lane Craig's view.
I appreciate this man asking the hard questions.
I so often feel we are the blind leading the blind. These are the sorts of questions that are being asked by nonbelievers, and they need to be addressed to some satisfaction. I haven’t noticed anything particularly unreasonable about what this man has said.
I want to add that Faith is not ignorant, naïve, or superficial blind faith. We do not need to lay our intellect at the door as we approach loving the Lord with all our heart, mind, and body.
I do not have a problem with people asking a hard question when it comes to Godly matters. What I have a problem with is someone basically trying to fit Scripture into their own box to fit their presuppositions. Are you not surprised that Willaim used only humans to provide support for his theories and did not include a single Bible Verse? All of his thoughts and ideas are from outside the Bible. He views his BRAIN bigger than the Bible, God's Word. That is how Scientists think. That is how the devil deceived Eve in the Garden.
Correction Dr Craig. While there ARE indeed curses pronounced against the serpent and upon the ground, there are definitely NOT any curses pronounced upon either the man or the woman. We have to read into the next segment of the narrative to find a curse pronounced upon a human, and that is upon the firstborn of the man and the women after he commits the first murder.
If you don't believe in a literal Noah's flood, you don't really fear the wrath of God, or trust in his offer of eternal redemption, the word of God revealed is essential, ignore God's limitless power at your peril. 🙏
How do you know?
Well, please study the flood narrative to find that there is NO mention of Yahwe being angry in yhat story. The Hebrew in Gen.6:6 clearly says that his heart was grieved to the point he regretted having created the humans, and decided to destroy it to start all over with just one chosen family, Noah's. So, there is no mention of "the wrath of God" there. The flood was not a judgment following any type of wrath, but was Yahwe's decision to accelerate the process the humans had started with being violent and full of hate : complete destruction.
It is very important to understand this! So many preachers don't know this and are preaching lies about the flood and about "the wrath of God".
The first time Yahwe is said to have been angry at someone in the First Testament is in Exodus 4:14, where is stated that "So was kindled the anger of Yahwe against Moses". This was when Moses dared to basically tell Yahwe that He did the wrong choice by calling him to lead His people out of slavery.
Yahwe truly didn't like his servant Moses replying the way he did, doubting His plan and wisdom. But interestingly, Yahwe did not send a judgment of destruction against Moses (I mean, He could have, couldn't he?), but the same verse 14 tells us in his anger, Yahwe didn't speak and send a judgment of destruction, but He told Moses that his brother Aaron was about to meet him and that he would be his mouthpiece before Pharao.
Let us be careful at not automatically linking the anger of Yahwe with a judgment of destruction. Sometimes, such a judgment is the consequence of His wrath, but not every time.
For more about this, I recommend listening to Bible Project's podcast in the character of God, where several eye opening episodes are dealing with the important theme of Yahwe's anger.
Shalom!
@@Ps111v10)and you alone on this blue green earth knowing? I beg my granddaughter understand. “JESUS@ said we must be babes to identify reasons for Salvation! 🕊️❤️
@@Ps111v10 So in your view of things the destruction of all mankind and the animals was God's....what. Not wrath? Even though we see at the end of the age spoken of in the NT clearly linking the wrath He will bring on the earth at that time with the same kind of destruction He wrought on the ancient earth of Noah's day. I'm just trying to understand.
I know God was grieved, and you would only grieve over that which you love so the story of Noah shows God's love, but I would have to say it was truly a judgement of mankind. Am I wrong on this? If so, why?
So, here’s your problem, with respect; when you say ‘you don’t’ as a declarative statement towards deep, internal beliefs of those you don’t know, your judgment is based on what exactly? There is no evidence that someone has to assent to the Ark story to obtain salvation.
Of course someone could not fully buy into a story and at the time hold pure dread of the wrath and judgement of G-d.
It’s not as if when someone comes to faith, suddenly they fully believe everything in to OT all at once. C’mon.
This is a full on distortion of Grace and Sanctification. Rubbish.
‘Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.’ This leaves a lot of wiggle room for us to do…what we are doing right here.
Jesus clearly said people would come in his name saying Jesus is the Christ and deceive many. Just because someone says Jesus is the Christ doesn't mean they aren't deceivers.
I believe what the Bible says. The end.
The first miracle of Jesus is enough to believe God doesn’t need time to creat anything with the appearance of old.
Including talking donkeys?
@@daleproctor3723 Yes, including you.
@@MultiSky7 I don't believe there has even been or ever will be talking donkeys so long as I have a firm grip on reality.
@@daleproctor3723 Just visit a random village in Africa, I think you get a glimpse of how real and powerful the spiritual world is.
@@daleproctor3723 Do you believe that God can use a donkey and speak through the donkey? Do you believe that a bush can technically speak? Do you believe a person can live again after days being dead?
One of the most overlooked passages in the Christian Bible which could help with our understanding of such topics is found in the Gospel of John 18:37-38 where Jesus is standing before Pilate and tells him why He came -- for the truth. Pilate famously asks him, "what is truth?" Why is this important? Truth is truth and there is no variation. Well, that completely depends upon your particular world view, as shown by this Roman elite. John, through Pontiuous Pilate, is showing us that what a society determines truth to be is very much associated with the views which they espouse. And as much as we migt like to believe that our modern western mindset is more akin to the beliefs and views of 1st century Christians in Jerusalem, we could not be further from the truth, in some regards.
Im not a young earth chrostian but i have a problem with Craig. Esoecially what he said about the trinity. If he gives different ideas on the trinity and that everyone will oick the one that sounds right to them then we might as well say goodbye to Christianity. People cant kist oick ehat dounds good to them. There is only one truth. If we get rid of the right explination for the trinity we wont have the truth.
Sorry. I wrote to fast do i could get my point across and made a lot if errors
@@andrettanylund830 you can edit your messages
33:11 Jesus regarded Psalm 69 as a literal prophecy about himself 😂😂😂
It's not that Adam's *sin* is imputed to all men, it's that DEATH entered in by ADAM's sin and DEATH spread to all men because we were all INSIDE Adam and therefore we all die, including the Son of Adam, Jesus.
I definitely disagree with this idea of Adam. I have heard an idea that God created more than just Adam and Eve in the garden, and I wouldn’t mind believing that if there was more evidence. However I do agree the earth could definitely be older. Even if human life is only 8000 years or so, plant and animal life could be way older. I mean keep in mind after the garden, Adam and Eve walked out to an already created outside world. When was that created? That could be 100,000 years old who knows. Regardless it was interesting to hear peoples different views on the topic
There seems to be a lot of heresy popping up on this channel lately 🤷♂️
Dear Sean, how is your father? I miss seeing him more active on social media. Send him hugs From a great admirer of your work.
With all due respect Sean, this teaching is so dangerous, it is literally causing people to walk away from the faith. When I was questioning if God was real I came across your father’s book, More than a Carpenter, and that did it for me. After reading it I gave my life to Christ, I needed evidence which I received from his testimony. This type of teaching is doing the opposite- no offence but what would your father think about this? I say this in love, please don’t think I’m attacking you, I’m just asking you to reconsider your stance and maybe do a little more research🙏
Thank you
I personally know multiple people who have left the faith in part because they were dogmatically taught young earth creation growing up. People who are seeking to reconcile science and God's word like WLC and Josh Swamidass are doing a lot of good.
@@bjn3232 I don’t think YEC is explicitly in scripture, and I wouldn’t put it in the same category as doctrine of salvation, justification, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. I don’t have an issue with siblings in Christ believing in YEC or otherwise. The issue one of belief. Will new discoveries and the progress of science come closer to scripture? It has already on many occasions. The converse is not true, the Word doesn’t get closer to science through reinterpretation. Trying to reconcile these two at any given point in time is fraught with much effort to arrive at error. Eventually it will be clear and the current understanding will seem rather silly. Every once in a while God let’s us uncover another clue. I’m quite certain we are unable to fully understand His creation.
@@vesc1389 YEC is a 20th century phenomenon. Many people millenia ago also gave way to the idea of an old universe also. For YEC's to say that they have always had the dominant view in history is just false.
never forget that the scientific assumptions of age are based on constants that might not be constant.
Sean. You should interview Dr. Hugh Ross. I find his application on science to the scripture is very good. Especially Genesis 1
I have watched his stuff as well. Very intriguing. I think he holds to evolution which I just don't think mankind is an evolved animal species. I definitely hold to intelligent design, I don't think we are here by random chances. I am just wrestling how the design came about. Guided evolution or unique spontaneous creation as what seems described in Genesis.
@stewartparker1872 Hugh Ross definitely does not believe in Theistic evolution. I've been listening to him for 25-30 years.
I agree, Sean should interview Hugh Ross, who has written extensively on these topics and knows both science and the Bible well. Another good interviewee woud be Sean's colleague, Dr. John Bloom, who is also an old Earth creationist like Hugh Ross. Dr. Bloom has his first Ph.D. in biophysics and his second Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies, so he also knows both science and the Bible well. Topics liike 'Was Adam an historical figure?' require an interdisciplinary approach to handle both the scriptural information and the scientific information adequately and fairly.
@@ChipsAplentyBand I'll have to check him out also.
@@stewartparker1872 no he doesn't follow evolution. Also check out Stephen Meyer about how dna makes evolution nearly impossible.
I’m really kind of curious why you didn’t delve into some of the ideas that are proposed by Reasons To Believe. He mentioned Young earth and bio logos but such a large organization as RTB was nonexistent.
He knows sooo little about chemistry nor creationism. There’s a better scientific answer for every young earth issue. Zero real evidence for old world.
To be fair to Carl Trueman, it seems to me that calling the historical Adam into question (the way WLC admits modern science does) has significant ramifications for soteriology as well as the veracity of Scripture. It seems to me a foundation upon which quite a bit of theology is built.
I ask a simple question.
Did Jesus evolve ? The point I make is that if we have evolved then Jesus must also evolve.
Because Heb 2:17 says “…he (Jesus) had to be made like his brothers…”
This would mean Jesus changed over time, and since we continue to evolve, Jesus must also change . Even in heaven.
But this is obviously nonsense because Jesus is not changing , He is the same yesterday,today and forever. Heb 13:8
William Lane Craig is wrong because he allows for evolution of man and not a savior from Adam’s sin as the first man. Our salvation depends on an unchanging Savior.
Ummm...the evolution of species occurs over longer periods than one lifetime.
@@daleproctor3723 Jesus is eternal. That means he needs to be our representative in all times.
@@daleflix Aside from misinforming you about evolutionary science there are rational grounds to be skeptical and doubt these kind of claims that Christians make about Jesus. To learn more about the grounds to be skeptical about the bible and Christianity a good first place to start are the articles that are available for FREE in the Modern Library of the Secular Web site. I'd post a link but I don't think TH-cam allows links to other websites so you will have to google it. A good TH-cam source is Paulogia's TH-cam channel "Where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians."
So, which is myth and which is “quasi” historical? Which is literal, and which is figurative? Myth is truth, so why is it not history?
Although I appreciate Sean's interview of William Lane Craig, I not only differ from him on his views, and wish that Sean would have asked further questions when WLC pushed against YEC views and gotten further information why he holds so much against that view. I also felt like WLC was insulting those of us who hold YEC views more than once.
Researching Genesis, geology and other information, i have become undoubtedly convinced in an old earth interpretation.
I’m not 100% certain but I believe Sean holds to an old earth view himself. As an old earth believer myself, we don’t often push each other on why we don’t hold a YE view. You probably do the same when among your fellow YE believers against an old earth or theistic evolutionary view.
I am having trouble following this conversation... I am at 16 mins, but since I do not have nor know after watching this what in the world is he struggling with? I spend a lot of time wrestling with how things work between scripture and the world, but for me it is hard to relate because more and more pieces are fitting together the more I study. I will continue to watch but I have no idea where the issues are that are causing these questions he is having? It is a hurt in my spirit and a concern to see Dr. Craig struggling with something.
23:46 I am fine with being wrong, but at this point in the video he says this is all indefensible... but why?? This video keeps covering the symptoms and not the causes.... like watching someone roll around the floor in some medical emergency and I have know idea why...
Ugh this keeps getting worse.... Ok we need a loving debate between Dr. Craig and some of these opposing views.... This is really concerning to me... The very fact that Jesus is raised from the dead and we live beyond death is stupid according to science... so is Dr. Craig wanting to try to make scripture fit to science and then ALL OF A SUDDEN at the end ok now we have this unscientific raising from the dead?? I love you Dr. Craig I just think making all of this small stuff fit together makes the whole fall apart... for me that is really happening in this video.
Dude. I was ready to quit at 20 minutes in, but decided to watch all of it so I can use it with my bible students later. To show them how Christian scholars can get it wrong
I have seen a few videos of William arguing this topic and others and it seems to me William's BRAIN is bigger than the Bible. That William's BRAIN is more logical than the Bible. It was not a surprise watching this for an hour and William provide defense, not through Scripture, but through only his own thoughts and those of other like minded humans. Similar to atheist scientists.
Dr Craig's intentions are only genuine and he's trying his best. All the people who always shower hate on him should just stop.
Agreed. He offers some great perspective here, even for people who hold a dif view on the historical Adam.
he's a liar who craves external validation. He is trying to lie to people to get them to join the cult.
@@velkyn1please provide evidence for your ad hominem claims.
@georgemonnatjr.172 Don't take velkyn1 seriously! She is a regular troll on Christian channels!
@velkyn1 Brilliant logical argument. Your powerful refutation of Craig's argument fully exposes his agenda. The "liar liar, pants on fire argument" you use is intellectually stimulating on the highest level. Really. Totally not being facetious...at all.
If myths are not to be taken literally, then they cannot be taken as evidence for the values they pronounce. That is, they stand on the authority of the communities that have generated them, not on the correspondence of the events described to objective history.
Not that that is particularly a problem unless you are looking for hard facts that can be falsified.
Either God took dust from the ground and formed Adam or He made humanoids and Adam and Eve formed from them…first: the Bible says “let us make man in our image” so that’s where they came from…second: what did the Bible say? We gotta stop! If you re-event the foundation of our faith…you change the faith…”if anyone brings another doctrine other than what was given…deny it” like scholar or not…they also can go way off coarse with the text and end up away from the history of the text…maybe we should learn what we already know first and really stop trying to relearn what you already know…
This is exactly why I left Bible college without a degree. These people don't even believe in Jesus or the Scriptures. They think they are myths, metaphors and cherry pick the "real history" they believe in the Bible while talking around the literal parts they can't stomach.