Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
437: Ham on Phil - A Brief History of Young Earth Creationism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2024
- Recently, Young Earth Creation (YEC) champion Ken Ham took exception to Phil's statement that Ham "rejects mainstream science." In the flurry of social media activity that followed, a number of YEC experts took Phil to task, claiming he was wrong on several facts. Phil dug deeper and realized he WAS in fact wrong on a couple of things, but right on a bunch more. So this week Phil lays out what he got wrong and what he got right as we take a deep dive into the fascinating history of the movement called "Creation Science," or Ken Ham-style "Young Earth Creationism."
Buckle up! It's a fun one!
I did not grow up with a staunch young Earth creationism despite growing up in an Evangelical household. When I first encountered it, it almost tore my faith apart thinking I had to believe Ken Hamm and AiG in order to be a real Christian. I had to set that belief decide and just trust in Christ alone.
Who is "Christ"? How do you know who He is?
@@p-brane8358 Christ is both God (of Abraham, the Istaraelites), and God's son. He came to Earth as a baby, died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and rose again. We know this from scriptural accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and all through the New Testament of the Bible.
@@carawadley317 When you say you "trust in Christ alone", you would have to believe and trust the source, (The Bible), and its account of who Jesus is, right? After all, that's where we get our knowledge and understanding of who Christ, (Jesus), is. So, I believe you would agree that we are to believe God's word. May I test you?...
In Joshua 10, 12-13, the Bible tells us that it is the sun that is moving over the Earth and the Bible tells us, that God stopped the sun from moving for about a whole day - do you believe that? Do you believe that the sun is moving over the Earth as the Bible says or do you believe what the World has presented us, that the sun only APPEARS to be moving due to a rotating Earth?
I hope you don't mind me conversing with you a little and testing you - I enjoy some good honest debate and I'm just scratching the surface here.
Also, a quick side note. You said that you used to think that you would have had, "to believe Ken Hamm and AIG" in order to be a real Christian. I just want to assure you of this: We're not expected to believe Ken Hamm or anyone else. We are expected to believe what God says.
@@p-brane8358 I have looked at your account, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you subscribe to the belief the Earth is flat. Absolutely the Bible is true, and the words are true, but we must interpret passages as they were meant, regarding historical and literary context. The sun standing still is much more easily attributed to the fact that science had not progressed to the place of being able to determine the Earth revolves around the sun. It would have been ludicrous to claim any different during those ages. We read Psalms and Song of Solomon as metaphorical, and many might read the Genesis account of creation as allegorical. You should read the epic of Gilgamesh, which was a contemporary to the Genesis account of creation and the flood.
Ultimately, if you choose to read the Bible 100% literally, are you also claiming to have never lusted after a woman, stolen anything (even a piece of candy from a jar), or led a child astray? If so, you would have plucked out your eye, cut off your hand, or drowned yourself with a millstone around your neck. My question to you is: Why read one part so literally, but pick and choose the rest?
@@carawadley317 One thing I get from your comment above, you are waaaaayyyy indoctrinated by the World. You think God doesn't know whether or not it's the sun that's moving or it's the Earth that is rotating?! Oh my...
So you're telling me that when Joshua commanded the sun to stop, it was really the Earth he commanded to stop rotating??? Please, girl! God does not lie! Remember, "lean not unto your own understanding"
Just believe God's Word and you will know the truth!
In college one of my favorite professors always said:
In essentials, unity.
In nonessential, liberty.
In all things, charity (love)
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) has used that same quote for their position on church's beliefs within the denomination. They list the essentials that an EPC church must agree with and then allow the local churches to decide their positions on non-essentials
I agree with you, but I find that what counts as “essential”or “nonessential” leads to some fraught discussions as well!
This is so helpful. As a former homeschooled student, I have had a hard time putting my finger on what it was that annoyed me so much with the science curricula we used that were adamant about YEC, flood geology, and even downplaying climate change as a liberal media hoax (for crying out loud). And my younger siblings still being homeschooled are using this curriculum. It wasn't until taking a geology class at my liberal arts college and digging into my theology that I saw the factual error of these views I (and so many other evangelical homeschoolers) had been raised in, and the danger of thinking these YEC views are the only way of approaching science that honors God. Thank you for shedding some light on what exactly it is going on under the surface of all of this, and talking about it with such grace.
I had the exact same experience! Swear I thought I was alone in this.
I was homeschooled too and had a similar experience. It's weird how people acted like you couldn't be a real Christian and also believe the earth was over 6,000 years old. Such a weird Hill to die on.
@@65Drums what it’s 4’5bills year old?
@@65Drums "weird Hill to die on"? It's worse than that! It's a hill to lose Salvation on. John 3:12 "if you don't believe the Earthly things I've told you, (like the Genesis Creation account), how can you believe the Heavenly?" Jesus is asking a rhetorical question here - He's not looking for Nicodemus to answer because the answer is already in the question.
In other words Jesus is saying, if you don't believe the Earthly things I've told you, (or the physical things), YOU CAN'T BELIEVE THE HEAVENLY THINGS, (or the Spiritual things/Salvation).
Jesus is God The Truth and the omniscient Creator - how can a "believer", NOT believe EVERYTHING HE SAYS??? Maybe because you're not a true believer... Just sayin'
@@p-brane8358That was not a logical progression. All you did was add five words to the middle of a Bible verse "like the Genesis Creation account." That verse didn't have anything to do with the age of the earth. Also, I wouldn't recommend running around the internet telling everyone they aren't real Christians.
As you go about your simple little life, theological Twitter flame wars starring the guy who made Veggie Tales churn beneath the surface.
One of the best youtube comments I've seen in a while
🤭
I don't think this podcast is going to make Ken Hamm's list either lol
In my Bible college, we had to argue for our view of young-earth creationism, theistic evolution, or old earth creationism. I ended up arguing for all three and said the days are not the point, but the theology is important. God made everything, and that is the point. It is a polemic against the creation stories of the culture they came out of. If you read Egyptian or Babylonian creation stories, it seems that Moses is documenting where they are wrong, and how the Creator of all things wants a relationship with his creation, and not use them as slaves like other creation stories.
Also, the other creation myths made it so that one specific people group was picked by the god to rule over all others because they were the one true group (ethnocentric). The Bible flips that on its head and says God picks one people group because of sin, and they are a messed up people who keep ignoring him while he is chasing them! They are to be a blessing to the nations as they share God with them, and enact God's judgment on people in the middle east who would not turn back to God. They screw up and end up being worse sinners than the people they were supposed to displace, and thus, enter exile as a judgment for not following through on their covenant with God. All this leads up to the necessity of Jesus to fulfill the covenant with God so that God could finally accept people back to him and reclaim the nations.
Genesis is meant to be read as an introduction on why sin, why God, why the nation of Israel, and it points to Jesus as you move through the Old Testament. It points out we need a savior because we cannot follow God's commands perfectly.
I think a lot of disservices happen when people do not understand the need for the Old Testament to point out our need for Jesus. That is its purpose. To reveal God's plan for humanity, not scientific truths. The Bible's purpose is to reveal creation, fall, redemption, and then end with restoration. It is theology, not dogmatic scientific evidence and theory.
Spot on, Adam!
I agree! It is less about a scientific fact and more about understanding and appreciating who God is!
Watching this in 2023, about choked on my coffee when Phil was talking about how everything was going to be magically better after 2020 is over.
Same. 2024. I thought, little does he know Jan. 6 is coming.
Homeschool mom in 2020 here. After years of incredible frustration with home school science curriculum, I finally put my two middle schoolers into science class at the home/public school hybrid we attend. We are now having complex discussions about how teachings of evolution or even just old earth creation do not negate our faith or who God is. Thank you so much for addressing this. Please do make a concise video I can show my kids!
(I also grew up as a home schooled kid in the 80’s and 90’s sitting through weekends of boring flood geology seminars. The memories are traumatic. 😬)
Thank you for sharing your experience! I am also a homeschool mom trying to walk through matters of faith and science with my kids. Thankfully they're still early elementary and don't notice the tension yet. I feel like I'm the only one in my community who does not buy into yec. It's nice to hear I'm not the only one!
I just wanna say I'm proud of you ladies for thinking through how to teach science to your kids with these more complex discussions! I feel like that would be pretty tough in the Christian homeschool community. I pray God gives you wisdom and clarity!
Genesis 1:5-And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:8-And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:13-And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1:19-And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:23-And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1:31-And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Am I missing something about the evening and the morning?
@@mattyounts9400, I think you probably are."Boqer" and "ereb" aren't always literal. Consider Psalm 90:6:
"In the morning it springs up new,
but by evening it is dry and withered."
Either "morning" and "evening" are used figuratively in the Bible, or they had some mighty short-lived grass back then.
@@Phentari Yes, I could agree with them being used figuratively at times. I see that “kehasir” is used only one other time and that’s in Psalm 103:15, which verses 13-17 ring a familiar tune. They are both speaking of the frailty of life and how a man’s life is nothing in comparison to the everlasting, the Alpha and Omega. So yes, Moses seems to have used it figurative in Psalm 90:6.
Tradition credits Moses with Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and Psalm 90. Psalm 90 is the only Psalm credited to him. There does seem to be continuity with “Yom” Stongs #3117. Moses demonstrates an understanding of “day” in Psalm 90:4,10. In v.10, the days make up years and after 70-80 years it is “soon cut off”(or cut down v.6) in the “evening” and we fly away. So the days make up the years.
But, morning and evening can be used literally as well. The same word to describe the days of our years in v10 is used in Genesis 1:5,8 etc. In fact, anytime “yom” is used in relation to morning and evening, this includes the understanding that mornings and evenings (days) of the years of our lives, it is referencing literal 24 hour days.
One thing that has been difficult for me coming from a young earth background. Is seeing how many brilliant teachers do not explicitly hold a young earth view. Giesler, N.T. Wright, Billy Graham, Phil, Ravi Zacharias, Lewis, etc. Most teachers admit that knowing the exact method of creation is tricky. Ken Ham has always implied that anybody who didn't hold a young earth view, must be "deceived". I still genuinely value the young earth position, this is because of its theological clarity. I feel it provides a clear framework for a spiritual and physical restoration of creation. Thus avoiding Gnosticism, and avoiding the life-death/evolution theological blurriness. However, I'm inclined toward the more nuanced postures of organizations like Bioslogos and the Bible Project. Oftentimes people are so caught up with trying to read the Bible in literal English that they miss the beauty of how Hebrew literature works. Regardless of what someone's interpretation of creation is.
Yea for sure. That's an interesting thought.
Growing up in the SBC with a young earth creationist church position, I remember trying to go toe to toe with my history teacher etc.
Its clarity is really nice and simple. Everything is so straightforward. And that's soaking and beautiful.
And yet, I agree it glosses over some of the beauty of God's word at the same time. I'm not going to say that everyone who interprets that way is wrong. But I do think that reading Genesis and revelations (and certainly some of the wisdom texts and prophet texts - heck, even some of Paul's letters) purely literally actually loses some of the amazing metaphor and even messages that God communicates through the writing styles and hands of Moses and John.
I'm no longer a Christian in part because of the teaching of young earth creationism. It's just a untenable position from a scientific standpoint. The earth and universe look old. I don't think there's any good argument against that what so ever. Young Earth Creationists have to come up with reasons why God made the universe to look old. Some of the reasons can make sense- most of them don't. Why is God deceptive and make the universe to appear an age it is not? That's a pretty hard position to hold. You may see the position/interpretation as parsimonious or something, which maybe it is in your opinion, but what the interpretation isn't is true. It's just totally out of touch with the real world.
@@mymyscellany That's a real shame :(. (Honest question: how did you find your way here now?). Might I suggest that for many in your position, it was less the dogma of young earth creationism and more the dogmatic-ness of young earth CREATIONISTS that has turned many away from the faith.
Of course, there's a science and perception component too, but hey, I'm a firm believer that we all hold beliefs that are less substantiated for any number of reasons - it's part of being human. I don't think the idea that there are Christians who believe in YEC is disqualifying of Christianity in any real meaningful sense.
What's more salient IMO, is that people see people fighting everything in front of them in the pursuit of an arbitrary interpretation of the Bible that they've unilaterally decided is the only correct way. Treating fellow Christians as heathens and traitors simply because they read the Bible in a way that would have surprised the original audience is... crazy.
@@Cyrribrae I mean no, I would say the position itself turned me off pretty strongly since it isn't true. I would say that possibly this would not have been a faith ending thing if I was raised believing a less literal interpretation of the Bible.
I'm here because it's a good channel. I liked veggie tales as a kid
@@Cyrribrae There's a lot about mainstream American Christianity which I feel like is deeply toxic and bad for the world. Creationism is one part of that, along with racism, science denial, hatred/unacceptance of LGBT people, lack of regard for the earth because of end time beliefs, support of evil political figures, disregard for the poor, support of systemic suppression of marginalized people, a toxic obsession which wealth, missionary work which is little less than colonialism, it just goes on and on. Overwhelmingly in my friend group, there is either no clear moral difference between Christians and non Christians, or the non Christians are more compassionate/have views more conducive to producing compassionate and empathetic actions. I don't think American Christians are bad people. They have bad beliefs with poison their ability to view the world and be kind to others. Overwhelmingly, if I talk to Christians about any of these issues, the main impression I come away with is one of ignorance. They don't know why their beliefs are bad and have only heard strawman arguments against what they believe, in large part because of the very insolated cultural environment most Christians live in. It seems like most Christians I have interacted with don't understand why so many people around them have a highly negative view of Christianity. Most Christians just don't understand both sides.
I need a 20 minute video about the history of creationism... STAT!
and also a bibliography of sources.
I think the sources are more important than the 20 min video. Knowing it's history is more important.
@@Joshlama the 20 minute video is important for communication of those ideas with the majority of people. The sources are important to give authority, I have trouble sharing any video that doesn't have sources.
@@veggiet2009 the best sources avaliable are the works by the historian od science Dr. Ronald Numbers, specifically, his "magnum opus" The Creationists. However, its a very heavy read due to its detailed content, but well worth it.
The Bible. :)
I don't have an anthology, but the earliest reference to young-earth creationism I have found so far was written ca. 248 A.D. It occurs in Book 1 of Origen's work "Contra Celsum," around chapter 20 (don't worry--his chapters are each about 2-3 paragraphs long on average, so it's not that far into the book), and treats it as the mainstream, default Christian position in contrast to the opinion of some Greek philosophers (presumably including Celsus) that the universe had always existed.
This debate is nothing new, folks!
As an ex genetic-engineer (now just export bags) who contemplate stopping going to church, this channel is a comfort.
Those physiological chemistry, virology & genetics classes in college were so faith strengthening when I first convert to Christianity from atheism, I can’t deny those things don’t happen, despite coercion in church.
This discussion is sooooo interesting because I was a Mormon, for 40 years, believing in the Bible, in young earthism, and all about Jesus and about Genesis, but then along came the internet, meaning that if a person was not afraid to look behind the curtain which Mormons were forbidden to do because those young earth views were simple and answered questions of a chaotic world, he found his world falling apart. I studied, found Mormonism to be errant in many ways, stopped attending and believing in Mormon doctrine and history, lost nearly all my friends and my daughter. This probably happens in Christian fundamentalism. Correct? There is a fear pushed on Christians that if they deviate from the words of Christian scholars, who of course know more than just readers of the Bible, they will perish in the depths of hell. The words of this discussion push me even farther into atheism than I was before. And I study the Bible a lot through online college lecture classes taught by divinity-school professors. Thank you so much for this discussion because these discoveries are the same reason why Mormons, especially younger ones, are leaving their faith in droves.
One of my New Testament professors at my Bible College and Seminary in Ohio got into a debate with Ken Ham on some of these very issues. I will sum it up by saying Ken did not win the debate. In fact, Ken should have been embarrassed. I bought many books by Ham and Morris until I heard this debate back in the late 1990's. Phil is 100% correct and there are many theologians and biblical scholars who strongly disagree with Ken's position on creation.
This brought up a lot of emotion for me. I homeschooled my kids mostly up to high school. I love Jesus and I love science and math. I received a BS in engineering. My husband and I have taken the age of the earth to be an open handed issue because it doesn't affect the gospel story if the earth was young or old. However, in homeschooling groups and in the homeschooling conferences, there was a HUGE pressure to teach your kids YEC science. I liked the Apologia science books because they were well written, full of good information and activites and well organized. A science homeschool co-op I attended in the later years decided to use Ken Hamm's Answers In Genesis science curriculum. It was horrendously awful. It was poorly organized, confusing, and light on information. I had another problem with the way Apologia and Ken Hamm handled questions from me when information they presented that conflicted with what my Satan-loving public school curriculum had taught me (Note: sarcasm set to stun). I asked them for their sources and the only reply I received was "this is common knowledge." In the case of Apologia, because I had more trust in them, I decided to present the questionable fact to my kids as disputable information. Ken Hamm was a speaker at a homeschooling conference and I had no experience with his curriculum, so I decided not to buy it. So if I were to write a book about my YEC experience, it would be "There and Back Again: My Journey of Almost Becoming a YEC Proselyte." I also do not evangelize the righteousness of homeschooling. All education options have benefits and flaws. Thank you for the history lesson. Can you share your sources, like you have done in the past when talking about "controversial" subjects?
Thank you for sharing your journey in this! It would be hard to be in the homeschool community and not completely affirm YEC. I was in a Christian Camp throughout college that equated faith with YEC and I saw many walk away from God altogether, and I quite nearly did.
I did not use the then - leading science texts for my children (now grown) nor the leading American history books. I did actually used to be a Republican, but more moderate and now, I'm independent. There were few of us out there with my point of view on these things in the 80s and 90s and just as few as I homeschooled my granddaughter for 3 years in the 2010s. I'm glad to say I'm finding more like me, both int he church and in those I know who homeschool.
We homeschool and we agree the age doesn’t matter, we want to keep learning and prefer to use LifePac which so far hasn’t pushed any amount of time that we’ve come across, just says God created everything.
I'm so excited for this podcast. I worked for AiG for three years. About a year after quitting (escaping), I had sufficiently challenged my beliefs that I left YECism and accepted science. I also became a statistic because that was the last shred of Christianity I had left, so shortly after I admitted I was an atheist. I'm happier now than I was as a Christian, but I want to see AiG burn (metaphorically, of course). They ruin people's faith or ruin their critical thinking ability. AiG is part of why so many young people are leaving the faith.
I've had this problem myself. I'm sorry you left the faith, but hope you have been will be a light (or warning, lol) for others, and the dangers of selling out to something so... flippant. I do however feel the push is to put people's faith in Young Earth Creation, and not in Jesus Christ alone. When science and rational thought comes knocking, suddenly your faith is gone! I used to work somewhere that subscribed to this line of thinking, and brought AiG teachers in a lot, and it was the time I was so close to losing my faith.
A good maxim is “All truth is God’s truth.” Jesus claimed to be the Way, Truth, and Life-we all must come to grips with His claims as well as make sense of the world we find ourselves in. But all humans have incomplete knowledge and are “trapped” in various worldviews.
I am a missionary that has worked overseas among several people groups each with differing worldviews. Whenever someone’s worldview encounters contradictions, they normally search for a more satisfying reconfiguration. I believe that this capacity for change is part of the “image of God” put in us by design, namely the ability to reason, but the point is that there are many different worldviews and all are comprehensive belief systems that seem true to the adherents-until they don’t.
My worldview has changed greatly over the years through constant learning, including the Bible and history of belief systems. There was a time when I could accept a 5000 year old earth, but evidence convinced me that belief system was false. It did not, though, cause me to jettison my belief in God, but rather I found a God of Truth greater than the One I imagined before. I wish you well and hope you will never stop being teachable, because that is how people get locked into intolerant worldviews. It can be just as true of atheists as fundamentalists.
@@carawadley317 don't be sorry. 🙂 I had unknowingly been in the deconstruction process for years. I grew up evangelical, but found a lot of the answers they had to be unsatisfying. I especially stumbled over the Trinity all throughout my life. I wanted a faith that made rational sense. If God created us in his image, we ought to be able to understand him-at least the parts of him he revealed in the Bible. My journey led me from evangelicalism to fundamentalism, and eventually to Unitarian Messianic Judaism. If it weren't for my experiences working at AiG, and my subsequent discovery that YECism was false, I'd probably still be a Unitarian Messianic Jew to this day. You'd likely consider me a heretic, but it makes the most sense to me as an interpretation of the Bible.
@@markdouglas8073 thank you. I hope to never stop learning. My skepticism has increased, but not to the point of denying things that are clearly evidenced. Maybe Christianity will someday fit that category again. However, I kind of doubt it. For example, you cite John 14:6. But it's almost certain that Jesus didn't actually say that. The author is anonymous and claims to have gotten the account from someone else (possibly Lazarus). But the book likely wasn't written until 70+ years after Jesus was crucified. It is a stretch to think that someone remembered Jesus' words for 70+ years to record them here.
I am sure that this podcast will inspire many to follow your steps.
Phil Vischer is one of the most wholesome and awesome people ever.
Indeed!!! Hahahaha
Khuyen!! Hello.
Lol little did you know
@@tannerwhetzel oh Hi!! Indeed, I’m Khuyen lol
Phil was more wholesome when he was focusing on positive things like Veggie tales and whats in the Bible instead of attacking other Christians. He should read 1 Corinthians 13 and remember that all the talent in the world without love is nothing.
I have long wondered why Christians have such animosity towards young earth Creationism. In reading through this comments section, it seems to come down to legalism, difficulty of maintaining faith in the face of arguments against it, and fear of outright mockery as “anti-science” (which comes in heavy doses in this very podcast).
Jesus was super-harsh on legalists, so this first accusation (Creationist = legalist) seems to me to be the strongest of the three. Ultimately this comes down to an Ad hominem argument. If we want to know the truth, we must not look to fallible people, but at the truth itself (or as close as we can get).
The fear of losing faith comes on strong here as well. Do I have to walk away from Jesus if I don’t believe in a young earth? Notice that this is a deeply emotional question, and one that also avoids the question of truth. There are many things in the Bible that are un-believable, not the least of which is a man rising from the dead. As far as the straw that broke the camel’s back, evolution has been a very big straw that has broken many backs. That said, we cannot blame people (be they Creationists or Evolutionists) for the strength or weakness of our faith. We must get past this Ad hominem as well to peer at the truth of the matter.
This brings us to the core argument, is YEC simply anti-science foolishness? Science itself is not a crystal ball (which is a hilarious metaphor, since crystal balls are even less reliable). As a science teacher, I teach my students two very important aspects of the scientific method: 1- gather evidence 2- draw conclusions. You will be hard-pressed to find a young earth proponent who denies any scientific evidence at all. Denying evidence is science-denial, end of story. Challenging a conclusion, however, is the bread and butter of what science is all about. Why Christians find the need to cheer on the secular PhD scientists’ explanations and join in the ridicule of the PhD Creation scientists’ explanations strikes me as a lot more about the personal aspect outlined above than science itself.
To conclude, I would call on all Christians, regardless of their conclusions on this matter, to treat one-another with the love that Christ called us to. We must stop the ridicule and we must stop our legalism if we are going to represent Christ to a broken world.
Sadly, this channel is more just personal frustration masquerading as objective reality. It saddens me. Like, this is how I felt when I first became a Christian, the frustration and bitterness I felt towards the flaws of more conservative Christians. I was 17 then, and these are grown adults :/
Thanks for speaking up, I noticed that too. I'm YEC camp, but I concluded everyone else who isn't must have gotten there through doing their own research as I have for my conclusion. The scary thing is they don't grant me the grace I grant them. This seems to be a trait that surfaces when one thinks* they know more about a subject than they actually do.
Thank you for this. My husband is a biologist and has long since left the 7 day creationist views we were raised with. You have helped me tremendously in confirming some things we already knew (Genesis was to be read as poetry) and taught me a great deal I didn't know (modern creationism is quite a new concept). Keep up the good work. When you reach the minds of parents you change the lives of children.
What about the virgin birth and Christ rising from the death; is that poetry too?
As a Seventh Day Adventist, this truly was an interesting episode. I had no idea about ellen whites influence on the young earth movement. (Personally I think a lot of Seventh Day Adventists hold her in too high of a regard. She's human too. She got some stuff right, and some stuff wrong. I.e recommendations around health vs young earth) I knew that The Seventh Day Adventist denomination went through a more "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) phase in the 60's/70's. (around that time) However, I did not know that it reached so far back.
Moreover, I knew of the break away movement of Seventh Day Adventists fundamentalists in the 20's, (Around the time of the events described in Phil's evangelical explanation video. E.g. Scopss monkey trial, etc) which may explain why mainstream Seventh Day Adventism (At least from what I've encountered in person and through various forms of media) seems to be more "neo-evangelical", or even "modernist". (Again, for lack of better terms) For instance, either the South Pacific Division or the Aussie peps (I'm Kiwi, xd) came out in favour of a euthanasia bill. (not too sure on the specifics. I.e If the bill was for legalisation or medical trials etc) Of course, encouraging peps to make up their own mind, yet laying out a rather open minded view of the issue. (I believe t'was in the Record magazine) This of course ruffled some oldy feathers, xd.
The aforementioned, "fundamentalist" phase, can definitely be seen in the difference in demographics. Those who have been apart of the Church for a long time, and are relatively advanced in years (lol) tend to support more "fundamentalist" views. (I would assume, tis due to their upbringing) Converly, the younger generation (Not just teens and the like. By young, I should just say not old, xd) and those who haven't been in the Church for ages, or generations. For instance, Ty Gibson, would be relatively good example.
Tis annoying that there is "fundamentalism" associated with the mainstream Church, as it discredits what are relatively strong/strong theological beliefs/arguments.
Brings back memories for me visiting the Creation Museum before attending Wheaton College for the first time and seeing the school BLACKLISTED by Ken Ham for suggesting Genesis 1 might be poetry. My main issue with creationism isn't even the anti-intellectual tendencies, it's the absolute disregard for genuine ecumenism with other believers.
If, and obviously I don’t know this, as I know very little about Wheaton College, that is accurate, then no, I would dissuade anyone from that school.
If the Bible narrative lies about God’s created order and how He accomplished it; we’ve lost everything.
Was the virgin birth poetry?
1. Patrick C is wrong, always is
2. I'd say that disregarding ecumenism with other believers is its own form of anti-intellectualism (Yes, I seem to have done that with point 1, but I'm an agnostic looking from my past, and seeing myself in Pat)
Phil Vischer, you are giving voice to every literal single thing that I have been saying bothered me about the church for years. I want every person I know to watch your videos. I came for your videos on race and stayed for your videos on science, pluralism, ethics in the church. Do you have one on the war on the environment by American Christians? It seems to all be about fear of Communism, as so many things are these days. I am a scientist and the denial of facts is mind blowing.
"I had to know" you have no idea how often I lose an evening or a weekend to that phrase.
Same.
I’m an INFJ, this is my life 😂 researcher of everything and anything
I remember reading a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo that even during his time, the average person kind of had a general knowledge of how the age of the world is likely much much older than 6000 years old (or at that time, much much older than ~4500 years old). He said that leading with the assertion of a young earth would more than likely turn people off from even listening to the notion of salvation.
You need to read Genesis and the Big Bang by the late Gerald L. Schroeder, PhD, an MIT particle physicist and orthodox Jew. According to his view, Einstein proved that both Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists are correct. 6 Days and Billions of years are both possible, depending on the relative perspective. He walks through the 6 days from this perspective.
Made my way here after watching your collab with Paul over at Paulogia. Thank you for being willing to share this detailed history of YEC.
Same. Good to see Bob the Tomato is still relevant to grown up me.
John Lennox's book "Seven Days That Divide the World" is an excellent book on the subject. I highly recommend it to provide some food for thought on Genesis.
amen!!!!!
I attended a Bible college in the 70s that would have been on Ken's list. This is eye opening. What is interesting is that there are several issues in evangelicalism that changed in the 70s. I have come to learn that headship theology (roles of women) and even abortion had major shifts around the same time.
The fact that the Biblical Creation narrative should NOT be taken literally- and was never intended to be so- is easily seen in the fact that we have two separate Creation stories- the first in ch1 and the second beginning in ch2. The two narratives are hugely different in order and means. They cannot be unified. The major Truth of them is this: God created the heavens and the earth. The details were never intended to be taken factually.
Also...the base issue is Ken Hamm's understanding of "Inspiration" in regard to scripture. Inspiration is more complicated than Ken Hamm's approach because it IS a work that happens as a blend of Human and Holy Spirit effort.
Stop reading your Bible! It's making you an atheist!
My problem with Ken Hamm is that he isn't a scientist, yet claims to be one. I dont mean this as an insult, but claiming to be something does not make it so. Being a scientist requires acceptance and practice of the scientific method, which means using objective principles divorced from ideology or belief to interpret evidence and reach conclusions about the physical universe. Ken explicitly admitted during his debate with Bill Nye that his process does not use the scientific method. His method begins with his interpretation and application of the Bible, and he tosses out evidence and theories that dont align with his beliefs because it must be wrong. That's not science, and its illogical ad hoc reasoning.
2024 here.I grew up in Winona Lake. I went to school with John C. Whitcomb's children. He gave me a copy of The Genesis Flood. Weird.
At 31:05 Phil states that the Creation Research Society, that Henry Morris founded, became the Christian Research Institute. Not quite. The Creation Research Society is still around, though they are more of an academic-type think-tank for YEC. The Institute for Christian Research spun off from the Christian Research Society, as having a more public-relations component, that Christian Research Society did not have. But now, Answers in Genesis supersedes the others, in terms of size and influence.
I studied both astrophysics and engineering and have over the last 40 years listened to all the arguments on both sides. Recently I decided to stop straddling the fence and finding the position of Hugh Ross at RTB similar to my conclusion and hence I am in the old earth creation camp. I have been teaching various Bible lessons at church over that time and don't see a conflict with the positions, but that YEC is easy and quick but doesn't fit the data. I recently have been asked to get back on the elder board and when a few people found out that someone with an old earth view was being considered they left the church. I have since defended my position to others and it seems things will be ok. Your presentation here is very good and I will be recommending it to others
Phil Vischer of all people should know the power of an image. He had the Westboro cult on the same slide as Ken Ham. Also Phil is confusing observational science that can be replicated in a lab, and using the scientific method to try to determine what happened before recorded human history. Observational science is mainstream science, and what happened before recorded human history is highly dependent on a persons worldview or presuppositions. Is it surprising that many individuals follow the money when an atheist/agnostic government is handing out hundreds of millions in grant money every year? Please Phil, speak the truth IN LOVE. Phil may be talented, but if he does not do everything in love, it is nothing.
I am one of those weird homeschoolers who isnt evangelical. This is so helpful to understand science curriculum and why its so-- sigh.
Being christian but not evangelical is complicated.
I have been a “the bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” galileo. - person.
Now i better understand why evangelical christians didnt like me
Princeton theologian B Warfield (who wrote the fundamentalist treatise on inerrancy) "believed that synthesizing his commitment to the scientific validity of evolution and to the inerrancy of the Bible was an attainable theological task. By drawing reasonable distinctions among Darwinism, Charles Darwin, and evolution, he was able to accept the probability of evolution while denying the implications of full-blown Darwinism. In the realm of inerrancy and evolution, Warfield's writings exemplify civil Christian scholarship and shrewd scientific discernment. His articles speak for themselves and inform the contemporary dialogue between science and theology."
-- B B Warfield: Evolution, Science, and Scriptures, selected writings, editors Mark A Noll and David N Livingstone
I am so happy I found this video when I did. Thank you, Phil, for all the work you put into educating all of us.
As an agnostic atheist, I really liked this video. It gave me more insight how YEC came to be.
I will not try to sway you from atheism, but warn you that the “insights” on YEC are deeply flawed
@@efrainvelazquez8469 I was talking about the history not the validity.
Are you agnostic or atheist?
@@miroslavbalint-feudvarski9516 Both. I'm an agnostic atheist: I don't know if a god or gods exist, but at the moment I have no grounds to accept one does exist.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Yes, that is exactly what an agnostic means.
46:47-47:10 I do agree that there is a ton of problems with theistic evolution. There is a ton of great stuff they say in the podcast on other topics, but creationism doesn't seem to be one.
They have a scholar named John Walton on, and again, he is brilliant on other topics, but his "theology" on Genesis appalls me.
In one episode he is on, he tries to get around the fact that evolution teaches that death came before man and Romans teaches the reverse. How?
"If Adam and Eve were created immortal, then why did God create a tree of life? Immortal people do not need a tree of life."
Umm...that tree was to eat from. That wasn't for immortality. And the even bigger problem:
"Immortal people do not need a tree of life."
Genesis 2:16-17: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
If you are already mortal, then why is the punishment for eating the bad tree DEATH? That's not much of a punishment if that is the case!
Whenever Skye talks about the old earth/young earth debate, he always says when people are reading into the text that rock layers are evidence of the Flood and dinosaurs were on the ark and the age of the earth, you're "forcing answers on the text that it never intended to answer" and he says that with a little bit of annoyance in his tone.
And yet here they are trying to compromise Evolution and Genesis with contradictory theology. I love the podcast, but when they try to fit in Darwin with the Creator, it gets really bothersome. Interesting, but bothersome. (Interesting because creation vs. evolution fascinates me.)
EDIT: Sorry that rant was long.
(Copied from a comment I made 7 months ago.)
My wife and I just found this. She's more of a visual learner, and got a little lost just listening to the history. So I suggested she needs a timeline.
A timeline of the timelines. :-)
I have been on a journey regarding this issue-- from a classical biblical creationist( what most label young earth creationist)as a teenager to a old-earth day-age creationist(think Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe) in my twenties back to the classical biblical creationist perspective more recently. Phil: I appreciate how carefully you addressed this issue in "What's In The Bible?" We love the series and go back to them often for homeschooling, and family devotions.
2024 here. That "messy feeling" you get psychologically is called cognitive dissonance (but you probably knew that).
Thank you so much, all of you, for doing this good work. Especially for pointing out the need to love each other in the body of Christ, despite differing viewpoints.
I've had several interactions in my life with those who are of the YEC and/or private/homeschool persuasion, in all chapters of my life. With infrequent exception, nearly all of those interactions have had an air of "D, if you don't believe in this, if your family can't afford this kind of schooling at every age level, you just aren't that good of a Christian. Sure, keep on serving your little heart out, keep on giving financially, but you aren't really our sister." Makes it tough to be welcomed, let alone to welcome others in too.
So thank you to you all for fostering this welcoming Christian community. Keep on loving, as you are doing so well.
I would love to hear more details on what you (each) specifically believe about creation/evolution and why.
You what it looks like you and I are thinking alike, neither of them told us what they believe
@@debtfreehouse6216 It wasn't a criticism, I know that wasn't the specific purpose of this episode. But I am interested to hear from them on it.
@Amanda Kay They avoided it because they believe in evolution, the most unbiblical and anti-Christian option of all. They would rather cherry pick Augustine and pretend they are the real traditionalists while denying what every Christian believed prior to Darwin: that God directly formed the world ex nihilo, created animals according to their kind, and humanity from the dust of the earth. Because real Christians have childlike faith in God’s word unlike Phil and these clowns who idolize human, fallible “science.”
@@IAmisMaster God created Ex Nihilo, the issues discussed are about how God created Ex Nihilo.
I recognize that evolution doesn't really have any solid evidence in the geologic record, so I believe that God didn't use that method. The geologic record has distinct periods where particular creatures existed, and it lines up incredibly well with creation accounts in the bible.
Could God have created the earth in 7 days to look like it took billions of years to do??? Yes, God could have created me a moment ago with the memories of my whole life, but I don't believe God did that because He is a God of truth, there is no lie in him.
Does God use poetry and symbolism in writing? I think the Psalms is clear evidence that there are multiple types of literature in the Bible.
For these reasons I believe that God created miraculously, but it was possibly over a longer period than what ken ham believes.
I say possibly because I'm open to the idea that it could be a young earth, but it's really not as important of an issue, what is important is believing that God did the creating.
@@veggiet2009
I do not have a problem with Old Earth Creation, but these people in the podcast do not believe Old Earth Creation. They would not have gleefully smear Ham as being anti science if they too must also face that they reject the popular theory of evolution. The truth is they do not believe in any form of orthodox creation.
I have always been taught growing up that if you don't take Genesis 1&2 literally you might as well throw out the whole Bible. This podcast has been very enlightening.
That is correct; the first part of what you stated. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that ALL scripture is breathed out by God, useful for reproof, correcting, training, so that the man of God may be fully equipped.
@@patrickc3419 thanks Patrick! I have learned a lot about this and grown a lot more conservative over the past year.
@@alexhuffvn 👍
Thank you for doing all that research about the background of Flood Geology, Creationism, Fundamentalism et-al... I grew up in the midst of that kind of fundamentalist / Creationist world as a "Baptist church" member. I think they actually would embrace the label "fundamentalist" even in the 80s... although there was also the label of Evangelical was accepted I think. Your research and history of this is very enlightening.
Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe has been immediately influential in my life these past couple years since I was introduced to OEC. His books are very very well written and outline exactly the point you’ve made here. How or how long God created is ok to disagree on, if we all believe He began and created it all. Thank you!
Hugh Ross is probably still a great person and great theological and scientific thinker whom I respect. Unfortunately, Fuz Rana, Ken Samples, and the others who have taken most of the reins as Hugh Ross fades into semi-retirement, have taken RTB into more of an anti-science, culture-war direction. It's unfortunate and sad to me, as a person who has followed them for many years.
Maybe invite Ham onto the podcast?
Hockey stick, where was this back in 2012 when I faced my fears and asked my questions about YEC? I spent a wasted two years+ feeling like a very Christ-centred agnostic. I leaned heavily on one sermon given me at age 16 called "How to Recognise a Cult" in which my church's head elder said, "a cult is any church that declares you need a Jesus+ faith--that is that Jesus PLUS some other doctrine EQUALS a Christian. That without doctrine B, you are not saved."
I nearly lost it all but for that saving thought.
Thank you. I'm sorry for the backlash you're facing. I would have been against you once.
Also, Skye's thing about fearing the more complex world has been huge. Its a lot scarier facing a world where suffering is not just something evil, it is something essential, possibly good, and not just in the cross, but in our everyday lives.
So-called young earth creationism is evolving, guys. I am not sure that Ham has the influence on the movement that he once did, and the younger generation of YEC seem to be more humble, respectful, and gentle in their interactions with those with whom they disagree. I do read many articles on the AIG website, but my favorite creationist website is Creation Ministries International, which really has a different feel to it, and a different approach from its sister organization. Just read Dr. Robert Carter's heartfelt letter to Rhett( Rhett and Link) after those guys discussed their deconstruction.
This was a great show, and a model of how UA-cam should be used.
***Hey Phil, before you make your old earth creation video for The Holy Post***
Please consider the logic of Paleontologist PhD from Harvard University...
Hi, Phil , Skye, & Christian!
First of all, I just want to say how THRILLED I am to have discovered your podcasts this week! Where have I been?? You guys are such a blessing.💛
Especially in the wake of everything political, you have been like a drink of cool water! Your thoughtful, critical approach to subjects is refreshing and desperately needed in our time. I wish I could force all Christians (my friends included) to listen to some of these discussions, so as to not be only “educated” by one skewed source of information😣.
I have been soaking up many of your podcasts, and today I listened to the one re: Ken Ham. I wanted to ask you about it.
Obviously, I appreciate the challenge to a “held belief” and to being asked to think critically about why I believe it.
I was not aware of the church history, regarding views on creation, so that was educational. But what I was perplexed about as the conversation went on, was that you seemed to be refuting the young earth theory, based upon how previous Christian leaders did/didn’t see it (i.e., if we truly understood church history’s evolution on the subject, we would have a more accurate understanding [or acceptance of theory] of the origin of the universe).
Why not involve science in the discussion? In the early 90’s, I attended Bryan College in Dayton, TN (yes, named in honor of William Jennings Bryan), and had a brilliant college professor who shaped my views:
You may already be familiar with his name, but Dr. Kurt Wise is a geology graduate of Chicago University and earned a PhD in Invertebrate Paleontology at Harvard University, under the supervision of the late Stephen Jay Gould. He later served as a teaching fellow in Gould's introductory geology and biology courses. He is a very respected scientist.
He insists that, as a paleontologist, he can NOT believe that the earth is old.
He lays out his argument logically in the 1-hour video below, if you are interested. I think it is fascinating. Even if there are some things in it you disagree with, I think you will appreciate his thought process.
ua-cam.com/video/lhjfajPdotA/v-deo.html
“The Age of Things: Does it Matter?”
Dr. Kurt Wise
But either way, I appreciate your challenges to mainstream thought & your initiation of honest dialogue. Keep up the good work!!
That is not why Weaton is considered Liberal because of them not being YEC. Kim Ham is not that powerful. They are considered liberal because of their theology. I never heard a single argument when I was looking to go to college 20 years ago that made the argument Weaton was liberal because they did not believe in YEC.
I would challenge and encourage Phil Vischer and his friends to visit the creation museum/Ark encounter and have a tour of both places. Ken Ham would welcome anyone to have a conversation about this topic. He has had Bill Nye twice. Go check out the ministry 👍🏻
STOP! said the Young Earth Creationist
Don't listen to scholars or scientists
The Plain Meaning of Scripture
is your only true teacher -
once I've told you what its explanation is.
Thanks for the history. So that's why seventh day Adventists are YECers. Makes sense why the one person who complained about me teaching evolution to their child in science classes was an SDA minister!
Phil, Great video. Do you have a list of the recourses you had for your studies? I’d love to read them as well!
I grew up in the church and went to Catholic and public school. I've never heard this perspective before. I love the history breakdown too.
Majority of Catholics believe in evolution because the Catholic Church says that is possible to believe in evolution and that God created the Universe. I am Catholic.
I think it's dangerous for Christians to hold absolute certainty over secondary issues of their faith. Even the early church fathers held some theological ideas to be possible, without claiming absolute certainty. Much of the Bible while inspired by God, is written from a human perspective. And so some things such as when Jacob "won" in his strife with God, God "repenting" of a punishment he was going to do to man, God did neither truly lost, nor did change his mind, but that is how it was understood from our human understanding. Like Calvinism and Armenianism, there are ways that both views could be true, depending on whether you are in the perspective of God looking at man, or man looking at.
Ham may mean well, with telling us to trust God and lean not on our own understanding, but they get it wrong because they are telling us that if we don't lean on their understanding of God, we aren't actually trusting God. YECs need to have some intellectual humility and stop trying to put their interpretation of Genesis on the same level as the Gospel. There are a boatload of different non-gospel issues that have caused countless schisms in the church. If Catholics are beginning to acknowledge Protestant denominations as brothers in christ, in spite of longstanding divisions over even more important issues to contemporary Christian life, such as the eucharist and purgatory, YECs should be able to show the same grace and brotherhood to those who don't consider a literal understanding of Genesis to be a core pillar of their faith.
This is not a secondary issue. Per 2 Timothy 3:16-17, ALL scripture is God breathed, useful for teaching, correction, reproof and training, so the man of God may be thoroughly equipped.
Eschatology is something that is secondary.
Nice job y'all! Re: at the 45-minute (ish) chat on simplicity ... the solution to our messy human problems can't possibly be a matter of science or history, certainly not the alleged science and history of Genesis. Love your neighbor ... do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God. THESE are the solutions to the mess of humanity.
Question comes to my mind is how can you make conclusion base on of doing 1 week of research? Would you want going further?
45:40 "that education stuff can really mess people up." You nailed it. Search "Pew belief in God by education group". The more educated one is, the less likely they are to believe in a god.
This is exactly what I was told by a research scientist at AiG about 15 years ago. I was concerned at the time that a friend was losing his faith in part because of YEC, and the response was "well, the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to continue believing YEC/Bible." Which...if that's not a self-condemning statement, I don't know what is. Kinda made me doubt my own faith! Lol. Add it to the list, right? I'm thankful for believers both now and throughout history who wrestle well with doubts and questions (side note, I highly recommend Ten Minute Bible Hour, he does a bit of work with Smarter Every Day as too!).
Are you saying anti-intellectualism is a good thing? I'd think less education would make it easier to fool people. Maybe that's why some religions don't like education, or created their own school systems.
@@timmatter1058 If your reply is directed at my comment, apologies; I didn't intend to imply that I thought anti-intellectualism was good...though that could (at least in the case of that one research scientist at AiG) seem to be the logical conclusion. Which I think is kinda awful! Thus the phrase "self-condemning." If a belief system relies on not being educated, uh, is it really a belief system that should be trusted? (of course some will bring up claims of educational system bias and so many cans of worms that I just don't have the emotional energy to address beyond acknowledging that sure, indoctrination exists in all spheres, so...uh...pick your indoctrination wisely?)
There seem to be enough educated Christian thinkers throughout history to disprove the notion that only the uneducated believe. So I take solace in that. Haha. But because faith does require...faith...it's an incredibly complex discussion, and I'm not convinced I can entirely elucidate my thoughts internally, much less externally.
acknowledgeacknowledge their own fallibility, along withsincerity
@@iaian7 It was directed at Brian's comment. I was a YEC for 45 years and when I was finally able to research the claims over several years (blame the internet) I realized it's definitely not true, and from them bashing Old Earth Creationists I'm convinced OEC doesn't really fit with the Bible either, but I wish they would win out over the YEC's because they are less wrong. I don't see that happening. I read stories of Christian biologists and geologists who hear falsehoods being taught in church, but can't say anything or they would receive the wrath of the congregation.
I talked to the assistant pastor of the last church I attended about YEC being wrong, and he agreed it was, but he still let his youth pastors teach it to the kids. I realized later that he probably would have lost his job for opposing it.
@@timmatter1058 No. The opposite. I think that anti-intellectualism is a bad thing. That's EXACTLY why many evangelicals started home schooling. So they could maintain the disinformation with their kids on things like evolution.
Odd thing is, I've seen Ken Ham take a similar view that I've seen some Catholics take. That: "Normal people shouldn't be allowed to interpret their scripture, they'll come to the wrong conclusions". And to me? Personally? It's hard to hear that kind of line and not feel the authoritarian desire to hold onto power in it. That there is something that is of chief importance in terms of spirituality, the meaning of life, etc... and instead of being asked to take that journey, you're being asked to just uncritically swallow what you're told.
I think that's often the source of conflict in that 'Science vs Theology" sort of sense and why people have to question it and really fight against it. Because in the end the entire framework of science is on independent discovery and confirmation. Like we're not just told: "The acceleration that gravity puts on an object on earth is 9.8 m/s squared" in class. We're told to do experiments, observe it, crunch numbers, and see the truth of it ourselves. I wasn't necessarily "told' about how air pressure effects the boiling point of water. I got to see water inside a vacuum jar in Chemistry class and watch it boil as the air pressure dropped, and eventually freeze mid boiling.
Thus the contrast and why people like Ken Ham I think spend so much time not only saying Science is wrong, but also dogmatically handed down from on high, and many other things. Because... one is asking you to believe, and another is allowing you to discover. And being able to have those first hand experiences, to study and test and run, is generally more valuable to people than being told something. So it has to bury that. Thus a lot of comments from Ken Ham and others suggesting that "science" is some shadowy conspiracy handed down from on high as doctrine.
Now... being generous I can accept that a Ken Ham style: "No one but I should interpret scripture" can be taken out of genuine concern. Not wanting people to be mislead or take the wrong path. But when he puts the contrast between him saying "I have all the answers and am the font of all knowledge" (or rather his particular interpretations that others would disagree with), and a way of looking at the world that says: "We have useful knowledge and we can even help you discover said knowledge, not just have to trust in it"...
... well it casts doubts naturally. It's not a good look to the outsider. It makes people naturally question motives (not helped by pretty much everything he does saying "We have a book for sale" and such).
Now to be clear, that isn't necessarily a religious thing in general. It's very particular to very narrow sects as well. Like... take Heathen Norse as a faith. They don't have issues generally with squaring the secular with the spiritual. To them that's not in conflict. Same with say, Shinto.
I too wish Ken Ham would step back from a hard line. Should he care about the spiritual well being of others (and again, I'm willing to put that forward, I'm not a mind reader). Accepting one might be wrong, accepting that there might be mistakes in one's reasoning... it's an important check. Because how do you know that the interpretations are correct? How do you know you have not been mislead in your understanding yourself? That your hard line might be damaging other people? How is your interpretation infallible?
Thus goes the old line: "True wisdom is knowing that you know nothing" or something close to that. Should there be doubts, reflection, and questioning instead of hard line certainty... I'd be more inclined towards him.
Is there a transcript of this episode available? There is so much history I would like to be able to look back at it all.
I think what was missed in this podcast was that Ken Hamm explains that if you cannot accept the first 11 chapters of Genesis without inerrancy, you learn to misunderstand much of the Bible incorrectly. Therefore, Ken Hamm appears to be theologically correct compared to the arguments and opinions said here.
All scripture is God breathed. Jesus told parables. I suppose it's possible that the creation story is a bit metaphorical.
My feeling has for a long time been that if God made Adam and Eve mature, not new borns, he would also have made a mature earth but very quickly. Also maybe he sped up time so the day by day story was accurate. In what way was God interacting with and remaking the earth during the flood that science can't acknowledge? The science may well be flawed.
In any case the part where the story of creation needs to be taken seriously is that of the sinning and fall of mankind.
I've often wondered why God would leave such room for doubt about his involvement in creation. My conclusion is it is the first hurdle of our faith. If faith were made easy it would be worthless. God does not tempt us to sin but he may let our faith be tested that it may be refined like gold in the fire so that it may be pure.
Whatever you believe about how God made the world as long as you trust him and follow his teaching regarding repentance, forgiveness and resurrection everything else is just extra.
“I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.”
Isaiah
About women talking in church. Paul was addressing a problem where the wives were interrupting their husband's attention to the sermon by asking their husband questions about what the preacher was talking about.
You will notice further on, he says to ask their husband when you get home.
I don't think there was a general law against woman speaking.
I really don't understand why this is even an argument anymore? It's obvious that Scripture is not inerrant and that the story of Genesis is not to be taken literally.
This was a condescending polemic . There wasn't even a look at geology or Younger Earth representation.
Or to put it into a more simple term a 'snow job.'
Loved hearing this in detail and loved your collab with Paulogia.
So… imma need a visual timeline, Phil. Is that available somewhere?? Also, thank You!!!!
That's what my wife just said! (three weeks later)
As someone raised on all of these views I still am surprised that their are churches who believe in an older earth since I never experienced them
So is 6 day creation poetry too?
Yep
It's debatable, but that's a possibility. There's a great book written on the subject called The Lost World of Genesis One by Dr. John Walton. It answered almost all of the questions I had about the type of literature present in Gen 1.
It depends on who you ask. Hebraist Steven Boyd would say, "no". Theologian Douglas Kelley from RTS would also say that it is narrative, and not poetry as you find in other parts of Scripture.
That discomfort Christian experienced & then described is known as cognitive dissonance.
Put very simply, it's a response to hearing/reading/seeing information that _contradicts_ our current (& oftentimes deeply held) beliefs or "knowledge."
The discomfort increases if/when said belief is sacrosanct or deeply intertwined with our identity.
Some may stubbornly reject the accurate information merely because they don't _want_ to believe the truth; they're too emotionally attached to their incorrect "knowledge."
Others may respond angrily &, in classic "shoot the messenger" fashion, verbally attack the person/institution sharing the accurate information.
We *all* experience it to some degree.
Kudos to Christian for recognizing it &, despite her discomfort, embracing the information with thoughtfulness & grace.
Thanks Phil and crew. Concise and clear. My father was a follower of Morris, so it's helpful to see his beliefs in context. I think it's tragic that we have so redefined this "faith" that people feel the need to choose between faith and science.
The young earth belief has always been one of the hardest for me to grasp, but it wasn’t until I watched this that I realized how much it affected my faith in the Bible as inerrant. Knowing that I can believe in an old earth and still believe that the Bible is infallible is freeing for me. I always thought I had to either lie about my beliefs or try to justify it somehow. Instead I took the easier approach of never bringing it up in any conversation and trying to ignore it.
ua-cam.com/video/OIChnAI67JQ/v-deo.html
This! This is exactly why these conversations are needed! This is why so many young Evangelicals are walking away from the faith, because they cannot rectify the science and scripture without making the Bible seem like a sham. I've been in a very similar boat, and so glad there are communities that are sharing differing views, even if they don't have all the answers
Thank you for this. It was a great history lesson. I had never heard about Walton’s interpretation of Genesis 1. I find the idea of it being read as a temple dedication beautiful. You guys are my favorite podcast and I thank God for you. Looking forward to hearing more from you next year. God bless!
I just finished John Walton’s book The World of Genesis One. Whether or not he’s correct in all the particulars of his interpretation (I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s right on the money), I think he has at least demonstrated the temple inauguration component definitively, e.g. that at the conclusion of ancient near eastern temple inauguration texts, the god was believed to come down and rest/reign in the temple (if I remember correctly, frequently the narratives involve seven days, the number seven being a symbol for completeness in ancient near eastern literature). It seems this was what was channeled in the creation narrative in Genesis, couched in terms of the ancient near east’s cosmology so that the original audience it was written to would understand it. John Walton is fond of pointing out that the books of the Bible were written for us, but not to us.
This creation-temple theme wasn’t missed by figures in the New Testament, either; Jesus seems to have deliberately set in motion the events of Holy Week such that He, the new man, dies on the cross, the new tree of life, on the sixth day and rests on the seventh, rising on the eighth, thus rebuilding God’s temple, His body. It’s pretty clear in the Greek that temple theology was at least one of the ways NT authors like John and Paul express the incarnation/hypostatic union. The tabernacle and 1st temple were the places God uniquely came to dwell with His people in the Old Testament. And thus in the New Testament, we find find the same theme, except incarnationally, as in John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Also Colossians 2:9, “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Walton calls this Immanuel theology.
You close out 2020 with a podcast that I think is the best of them all....and you have had some great ones. The summary that Skye gives towards the end, "... the details of the creation are not there." Great point made. And earlier when the essential is only the Gospel of Jesus Christ for us to be in agreement gives me peace with those that have differing opinions on the non-essentails. Thank you Phil, Skye, Christian, and all the other guest co-hosts. Looking forward to 2021.
Let me recommend books and commentaries by John Sailhammer for anyone wanting to learn from a top Evangelical Bible scholar who is not restricted to a young earth worldview.
Thank you for this teaching. I learned about the CRI on Christian radio in the 80s. I have believed young earth since then. I now know my and my neighbor's salvation is based on Jesus. Not on this debatable theology.
Thank you for this! Enjoyed the history lesson. The same argument could be made for everyone's view of the end times. Really it doesn't matter. God knows what happened in the past and what will happen in the future and those things should not be our focus and certainly should not be a reason to fight with each other over it. Those beliefs should also not be the deciding factor in whether you are a Jesus follower. Keep up the research!
YES! Would love one about the history (lol) of beliefs of the future (lol) end times!
Former YEC (avid editor/contributor to ICR) here:
My *biggest* (certainly not only) problem with the belief in a young Earth, is that if it's correct, it would be true regardless of one's beliefs about the Bible. We should have been seeing both Christian and non-Christian scientists coming up with results that clearly point towards a young Earth for decades now. There would be alternate explanations aside from Genesis to explain all the lines of evidence that point towards a young planet, including Hindu, Buddhist, and secular explanations with varying degrees of support. It's not like the Genesis account is the only way that we could be alive on a young planet, right? Our planet could have been created to look old and then seeded with life by some advanced alien civilisation, for example, or dreamed up by Krishna and then made real. The point is that the evidence would come first, followed by many explanations/hypotheses for the 'why' from various parties.
Instead, the entire young Earth community is organized around a literal reading of this one text from one religious tradition. It smacks of an elaborate denial of evidence in favor of preserving pre-existing beliefs, which is a method of seeking truth that has never in history lead to the actual truth. Contrast this to something like the idea that populations of living things change over time (evolution), or that the Earth is round; where people from all faiths, and no faiths, have all come up with their own explanations for the evidence in favor of those ideas.
I really appreciate this video. I grew up before the home schooling craze, and my preacher dad also taught science in a public school to make ends meet. He said we knew God created the earth, but we must study evolution because that's what the rest of the world believes. You will find truths in both, but none eliminate the other. I had Dr. John Walton at MBI for General Bible Intro. Now I will be reading his books in 2021.
I respect your opinions as well as Ken Hams opinions. Do you regret your Twitter comments or not ? Was it worth it ?
That is the question, the pickle of the issue
Not a single word about Ham’s science. Smh. You make it sound like Ken ham is emotionally involved and doesn’t have a scientific rationale
The use of politics to control what goes as truth, to control what I may learn, to control what I may say, has been painful and marginalizing to many including myself. I too am among those who almost lost their faith due to early exposure to YEC and then later learning a little more about it.
Great discussion. As Christians we need to not be dogmatic on the issue of evolution. I personally reject MACRO evolution and hold to a young earth view. We must not allow a topic like this to keep us from having unity and reaching the world for Christ. We must remember to let our "speech always be gracious" Colossians 4:6
28:25 James Orr contributed to the Fundamentals, not James Barr. James Barr was a later liberal scholar who wrote the book Fundamentalism in the 70s.
What calender are people using? Julian? Gregorian or Hebrew? Babylonian?
I've heard of the origins, but this is some great stuff that explains what went down.
I have no problems with the point Phil is making here. I just wish he came down a little harder on the blatant anti-science/backwards rationalization positions of young earth creationism.
It seems like he is just watering down his real opinion to appease his fanbase and friends.
What about the virgin birth and Jesus rising from the dead, folks? Is that just an allegory too?
I respect Dr. Walton. As a classical biblical creationist I obviously disagree with him on a lot. I suppose since you guys have him on so much, that you mostly agree with his interpretation of Genesis. I wonder if you would ever interview people who have a different perspective? Examples: Hugh Ross(old earth creationist), Douglas Kelly(theologian and young earth creationist), or Paul Garner.
I’m sorry, but as a Seventh-day Adventist I have to say: we DO NOT believe in young earth!
You can say anything you wanna say about us believing in a literal 6 days creation (7th is rest), in a literal cataclysmic-earth-changing flood, but you do not find any of our writings contradicting anything in the Bible, nor adding, nor interpreting (as you are suggesting we should - there are simply no theological or scriptural indication to suggest that the Creation should be read as anything but literal), and by believing all of that it doesn’t mean we believe in young earth!
Earth may have as well existed for billion of years prior to creation. The Bible doesn’t say God made the earth on that very first day: “...the earth was without form and void... and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Gen 1:2. He planet itself seems to have already existed prior to creation.
The Earth’s creation specifically described in Genesis was in a recent past, the universe was not. No one knows when that was, and God may even have used a Big Bang to begin with it! Who knows??
And to say we don’t believe in science is also very misleading. What is science? Who do I talk to to discuss science? Is there an entity? Of course not. There are only a body of people who study science and most of the time they don’t all agree with each other in basically any matter, besides the fundamentals.
So, yes, there are many renowned scientists who believe that the Flood did cause all sedimentation and fossilization we see today. To argue that having a biblically based scientific view of the world and its creation cannot enter the discussion is anti-scientific by definition!
Don’t make it sound like we have to be one or the other. To say Bible denies science or vice-versa is to fall in the pit of atheists.
The only reason mainstream Christianity drifted away from a literal seven-day creation is to justify not following the biblical Sabbath, which was created and sanctified at the seventh day, and remembered in Exodus 20, and kept by Jesus himself and all of the apostles and the early church.
Thanks for this clarification! Very insightful!
Personaly think most people feel that way regardless of denomination
Thanks for the clarification
From what I have seen, don’t expect an apology or clarification from them 🤷🏽😢
I learned so much from the historical progression of Christianity on this topic. I grew up SDA and have to thank God for putting people in my life that helped me never see God and Science in conflict.
Thanks for this discussion.
Please check out Astro-physicist and cosmologist, Dr. Hugh Ross' book called. "A Matter of Days" where he explains the old earth creation theory which still allows for God making the earth in 6 "days" because the Hebrew word for "day" is sometimes translated in the Bible as an epoch of time. Dr. Ross also shows how the Cambrian explosion is backed up by this view.
Sooooooo.... was there a literal Adam...or not? And why would God give Israel a 6-days and then the 7th Days is the Sabbath.....based on the idea of creation being completed in 6 days and rested on the 7th....if God took more than 6 days to complete it and didn't rest on the 7th day?
There is also a lot of speculation that the flood in Genesis was a local flood and not a universal flood because geology more and more does not support a universal flood. The Bible tends to use universal language when talking about the region of the Ancient Near East/Mesopotamia, because for the Biblical authors that WAS the center of the universe. Try and put yourself in their shoes, before maps and GPS and even basic knowledge of the existence of others regions and continents. If your place of habitation was flooded, it would appear that the entire world was flooded. For example, right now in Texas we are having a severe snow storm. If I didn't know about other regions of the U.S. or even the world, I would assume that the entire world was experiencing the same storm I'm experiencing. Genesis uses this universal language multiple times when speaking of a specific region or people group because Biblical theology builds the case for how God is the God of Israel and His Kingship is revealed through Jesus. Since the Hebrews originated in the Mesopotamian region, obviously that would be the focus of the Genesis narrative.
Also, the flood narrative is in itself a play off of Genesis 1. Its main purpose is to make a theological point, not a scientific one. In Genesis 1 we see how God overcomes the dark, chaotic void of waters simply by speaking (unlike other creation narratives of the day where a pagan god had to fight against the waters and struggled against other gods as well). When Yahweh speaks and creates, He brings order and structure to the universe. Wherever there was chaos, God brought order. He formed, filled, and reigned over creation. In the flood narrative we see a people who have continually rejected God's rule and reign, so His judgment is giving them what they want: handing them over to a life without Him - and as we know you cannot have life without God.
The flood waters pouring down from above and springing up from the ground to cover "the whole earth" is a direct reference to Genesis 1 where God orders the universe by separating the waters into upper and lower waters. The theological point that the Biblical authors are trying to make is that without God, the world cannot be in any type of order or sustained governance. It will collapse in on itself into darkness and chaos. It will become that void that it once was before God spoke and brought order to the universe. It is a profound theological implication that we often miss because we are so focused on the science of it. Yet it is a crucial concept to grasp because this narrative is played over and over again throughout Scripture. The Bible tells countless stories of how when we as humans try to live without God, we find that it is simply not possible. We always descend into darkness, chaos, and destruction. In order to understand the flood and other Biblical stories, we have to step out of our modern Greek-thinking world and step into the world of the Hebrew mindset that the Biblical authors were writing from.
Has anyone here seen Kent hovinds creation seminars?
They need Kent on the show. I sent him videos of Phil on this and he has yet to see them, I think.
You ignore, the fact that a LONG earth is a scientific development from 19th century by Charles Lyell. So, Church did NOT have a stand on this until in the 20th century. Saying that the church never defined 'young earth' before, is misleading. Because Western Science did not formulate the LONG age too.
He straight up dropped the bomb when he said it’s a false gospel! 👏🙌
Right?! I think that is a line people will have to be very discerning about, though. However, I have been apart of a ministry that used AiG and they were very much adding Creationism onto the Gospel, and I have seen so many turn away from the faith because of it. When they couldn't make sense of YEC, they walked away completely. :(
@@carawadley317 I also grew up and worked for a Bible camp that was heavily influenced by AiG. In hindsight it did add Creationism to the gospel. It grieves me how many friends I've seen walk away from the faith that cannot separate the two and for all the reasons Phil and Skye mentioned. How can you be a true believer if you don't take the Bible seriously?! Lately I've been working in how to tell friends and loved ones that we won't be sending our own kids so we don't expose them to this type of legalism. 😕
@@kristinapresson5975 _"How can you be a true believer if you don't take the Bible seriously?!"_ There is a difference between taking the bible serious and taking it literal.
@@carawadley317 _"When they couldn't make sense of YEC"_ Is there any sense in YEC?
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Amen! And a little louder for those in the back. 🙌