Greg Koukl - Understanding the Creation Account in Genesis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, "What is the best way to understand the Creation account in Genesis? How would you interpret the acts of creation?"
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CONNECT -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time - (855) 243-9975. If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: www.str.org/br....
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: str.org/donate
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
He ascribes to the framework hypothesis - a relatively new idea. The reason people keep spitting up all these ideas for how to make secular scientific interpretations fit with the Bible is that none of the ideas have worked. It has been one bad idea after another. He overlooks: does the order of events matter in Genesis? Does it matter that Jesus (Mark 10:6) and the Apostles (2 Cor. 15:45-49) both accepted Genesis as straightforward, real history? He says all the views are within belief of the inerrancy of Scripture. This is begging the question. If we're going to continue to move what it means to be inerrant (that is, if God could have meant basically anything by what was written in Gen. 1-2), inerrancy doesn't mean anything.
Evening and morning were the 1st day. What does that sound like it was trying to convey? Why do we humans have such a difficult time believing what God said? Doug Stoliker.
I think the original listeners would understand that this is different from the egyptian gods and that it took six literal days. Greg argues that it doesnt have to be solar days since the sun is not created yet. But the sun and the stars are created to keep track of time (gen 1:14), which indicates that there was both days and light before the creation of the sun. Neither depends on the sun.
In Exodus 20:11, God himself, who cannot lie, writes in stone, with his own finger, that he created the universe and everything in it in 6 days, and rested the 7th. This was written to a people who understood the 6 days to have been 6 normal days. And, until recent times, nearly everyone understood them to have been 6 normal days. But, in relatively recent times, some have begun to suppose that God, in Exodus 20:11, must have been mistaken. Why? Simply because they have bought into the lie that our planet is far far older than the Bible text allows it to be.
Genesis & all those other ancient creation myths are the lie
HOW DOES HE BELIEVE WHAT HE IS SAYING????!!!!!?????
+Axee La I don't believe under the surface he really does believe his arguments. He came to Christianity as a young man. He has built his life, career, family, and friends on this religion. To now accept reality would make his world crumble.
How similar is this view to Meredeth Kline's "Framework Hypothesis" view. You specifically mentioned that phrase. Wondering if the book you mentioned is expounding that idea. If so that would be very interesting since there is so little published about the Framework Hypothesis, especially in comparison to the current dominating views.
Greg, I love your ministry and all you do. As a youth pastor STR has been an amazing resource for me in my ministry. I've been really challenged lately because it's been folks like yourself, Dr. Craig, and Frank Turek that have been really lighting me up lately, but none of you guy are YEC. You have opened my eyes to some of the tactical or logical mistakes YEC proponents make, and I have a better understanding of why OEC folks believe what they do. However, even from Dr Craig, I have not heard a shred of compelling evidence to convince me that YEC is not the most likely scenario. Even if Gen 1 is a framework for refuting Egyptian cosmology and theology, it doesn't mean that it's not also a literal historical account.
"I think the original listeners would understand that... it took six literal days..."
Would you take the time to explain why? Thanks in advance.
How did Jesus look at these six days....six days you shall work.....
I don't believe in a young earth.
I believe in a six thousand year old earth, like the Bible says.
That's what Young Earth creationists believe too
The bible doesn't say that. Go ahead. Show where the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?
Why people keep saying "it appears to be millions of years old"? very simple, we have been brainwashed by secular media and evolutionnists to believe them on how things are supposed to appear, like rocks in the universe, in fact, the Bible describes the matter (like rocks) as without form in the beginning. That matter was not old at all, just like a piece of clay, before becoming potteryware.
So, how do you explain light reaching us from objects more than 6,000 light years away. If the earth is only ~6,000 years old, how could that light have reached us yet?
Seems very far fetched imo
I feel sorry for Greg Koukl. He's spouting gibberish and trying to make it sound reasonable.
If I take any external references to reinterprete the account of seven litteral days of creation, in that precise moment I undermine the authority of the Bible. We teach children about this creation week, but we never say to them that we might be wrong, because they will see the inconsistency of our claims. But God revealed those passages simply enough to show the people of that time the clear message in contrast to those egyptian deities. So, if we give up our ultimate authority, we are God!
I think you missed the point of Genesis Greg. I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this. I hope you've changed your views in the last 10 years.
Greg, you are correct. " What did not happen" is clear reason for taking the Gen 1 and 2 as just 6 literal days. How The Creator did it is NOT for us to spend any more energy arguing. I will leave open any further details that The Creator wishes to expose. However, the arguments regarding the old/young earth issue is not God Honoring, rather, they are based in disproving God. Therefore, God created the Heaven's and Earth in 6 literal days, and science NEVER trumps The Creator. What a literal day is, is up to The Creator, not the creation and its religion of science.
Dustin knocked it out of the park again!
Love you bro hope you and your family are well.
Are you exited for super bowl outreach?
Wish I could go
2nd comment
Please forgive my skepticism in advance about your comment. I just have a hard time thinking that someone just happened to be reading about something as obscure as "simulation space", then upon musing about it you suddenly came up with this idea.
Starlight in transit is a major YEC argument (has been for years,) to try to show that the universe is young. You see it everywhere, notably in Russell Humphrey's "Starlight and Time." You're saying you came up with this all on your own?
Really? You "just started musiing this after scientists have been theorizing over the 'simulation space' of our universe"? So first (1) you somehow were reading or listening to scientists theorizing over the "simulation space" of our universe, and then (2) the thought came to you about the cake analogy?
Sin & death entered the world w/ Adam's fall. If there's no death before Adam, there can't be evolution before him.
A fake story to counter the false teachings of other worldviews? ... What?
Nice try, but I don't think that helps the controversy at all. It basically says you don't accept the young earth scenario.
I wonder your thoughts about Jason Lisle's book Understanding Genesis.
Lol. Greg seems to be unaware the the book of records is a late invention, as the oldest version of genesis that we have, doesn’t include the book of records. It is amazing what people will say under the influence of circular logic though, so thanks for the proud demonstration of that.
> the book of records is a late invention,
Where is the "book of records" in the current set of books?
@@leef_me8112 genesis 5
@@samuelchen3922 >the book of records is a late invention, as the oldest version of genesis that we have, doesn’t include the book of records.
What proof of this can you provide?
@@leef_me8112 dead sea scroll copy of genesis doesn't have it...or chapter 11. the numbers most likely come from the maccabean period. at the time the second temple is consecrated, the numbers add up to 4000. here is a succinct explanation:
th-cam.com/video/erdhEOOo5Ak/w-d-xo.html
@@samuelchen3922 Samuel
>"leef_me its not in the dead sea scrolls copy of genesis. look it up yourself."
The DSS of Genesis 5 is missing "the geneology" because the scroll is Fragmented.
I agree about the emotion...it is really a pity that so much heat is generated.
Just as long as we're interpreting the word without worldly influence
seems to be a cohesive theory. but a lot of speculation too
"A big bang needed a big banger"
I did a deep study into what Genesis 1 actually says. And I stripped away all ideas that come from anywhere outside that chapter. If you allow only the context of Genesis 1 itself, and pay close attention to the details, including sequence, it reveals a wealth of information that cannot be seen by a simple casual reading. After a thorough examination of the details, with only the immediate context, many false teachings are thwarted outright, such as the gap theory, and that the earth supposedly "became" unformed and empty, among many others. Then I allowed other ideas to be considered, except for those that contradict what I had learned from the passage itself. Even though parts of the universe really are billions of years old, all of it was created only about 6000 years ago. Time is not constant everywhere. But God does not use any old clock, as scientists do. God chose to use time on Earth as his clock, even before the planet was formed (which was on day 2).
I meant that upon reading the text or hearing it, you do not just perceive that "God created everything" but also that this describes how.
2 ways that you understand/hear that it is literal days are "morning and evening"-expressions and the connection to our normal week. This is further strengthened by the statement in the ten commandments: Ex 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."
Very interesting insight into genesis thank you ! Jesus mentions he is the tree of life, the tree of good and evil i do not take literally anymore. The snake loosing legs is a metaphor for the 2nd law of thermodynamics in my opinion. Because of the sin things will degrade over time and loose their functions. I do not believe in macro evolution, the cell did not just make itself.
Perfectly stated Dustin! It's amazing how emotionally charged this topic is, especially with the YE'ers. I reject metaphysical naturalism and trust that our sovereign Lord created it all for His glory, in His perfect timing. I don't understand why many YE'ers try to suggest that I trust in God less than they do. Some even think my position is heretical, and I can only think to myself, "based on what." Kent Hovind is/was and example of one who though all OE'ers were lost.
Kent Hovind is super cool and wise! ❤️ But nobody's perfect.
Kent Hovind is my boy though.
@Patriot36
I appreacite your willingness to step forward with this theory. I share a similar view with my students. Chances are you will receive criticism, but I am committed to helping my students develop an apologetic for the faith that can draw evidence from more than "well the Bible says". Science and the Bible are not at war with each other unless we create a war.
I guess I've just heard so many hours of discussion/debate and read so many books on this subject that I couldn't respond to you without completely taking over this TH-cam post! In one sense that is unfortunate but in another, it makes the Bible a very rewarding read - the deeper I study the more surprises, treasures and help I find.
Great topic Greg. Glad you touched on it!
5:08
Excellent, where can I find more on that?
Thanks for posting; I'll definitely check out the book.
I completely agree :) Love the Bible.
so good, Greg. yay Jesus!
Greg is a smart man
I am so glad that I found out about Greg's videos. His interpretation of the book of Genesis, regarding the "creation", kind of clears up some things for me. I"ve watched the series "Is Genesis History" and it is a very good program about The "Creation" story. I think his explanation of who wrote the book and time frame in which it was written, was, to me, very plausible. Anyway, thanks Greg, for your video.
Why's creation in quotes?
@@andrewglessner9355 No particular reason. I guess, now looking back, it wasn't really necessary to use the quote marks. I was thinking, at that time, it was more of a title for a particular time frame of Bible history. Sure don't want to offend anyone by it.
@@mikeguthrie5432
Bible "history" or Bible "story"? ... Well, what's the difference? 🤔
@@jessebryant9233 Well Sir, I m thinkin' you can call it a "Bible Story" AND "Bible History" It is a "Story" of the "History" of the Bible. Are you a reader of the Bible Jesse? It certainly is a good read, and you can know that it is God's Word! I wish the best for ya Jesse!
@@mikeguthrie5432
Well, the world tends to think of "story" as, well, stories-and they look for any excuse they can! But, IF Genesis is a historical narrative... I do hate how so many intellectual defenders of the faith fudge on Genesis-and if we can't take that literally, the foundations of the Christian faith are pretty much gone. Too me, guys like Hugh Ross are just Coo-Coo for Coco Puffs.
The ideas in "In the Beginning we Misuderstood" has been Hank Hanegraaff's basic viewpoint for several years now. The young earthers have by volume, nearly insurmountable evidence dodging to overcome while some old earthers, including RTB try to make the text fit their own framework. Example, Hugh Ross claims that when the Job writes, "God stretches out the Heavens" that's evidence of an expanding Universe, however, hermeneutics would indicate this is grand language, so both miss the point.
In Gen.1:3, light is a unit of time as defined in v.5. This completes the continuum of time-space-matter. Light in the beginnig is not a source of illumination, it is time.
We think of a day as separated into visible light and dark periods of time.
In Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
What light/dark transition marks the day? Answer: nothing.
In verses 3,4,5 the light/dark transition is when "God divided the light from the darkness"
This doesn't show a unit of time, just a CHANGE.
Greg...if we want to know what Genesis is all about we will ask the pope...after all didn't Jesus leave the church in his hands?
Your arrogance upsets God.
Of course not.... God doesn't exist! How old are you?
Silly person.
@@leef_me8112 my personal stupidity has zero relevance to the argument.
But, thanks for playing.
@@JCMcGee I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were silly. and it is relevant. you have done some type of info search, but you ignore the results.
you say something about God, but you ignore the Bible when it says believers have access to God through prayer and the Holy Spirit. You just make things up as you type.
@@leef_me8112 look kid, as English obviously isn't your 1st language, allow to use Latin: Ad Hominem
Here's a song, if it is simpler for you:
th-cam.com/video/xUgtPxA3xa8/w-d-xo.html