Like this before, I've even heard it. Dr Craig is a god-given gift. Thank you for all your contribution to serving the one true God. Amen and Godbless, my brothers and sisters in christ. 🙏
It ever frustrates me, that, if one spoke and declared, is it possible that God used EVIL-Lucian over a period of 382662 trillion years, many would say yes. And if they declared, is it possible that God created everything in a nano second, likewise many would say yes. But dare anyone say, could God create everything in six literal days... Point being, everything is agreed upon, save for what the scriptures actually say.
So then what do the 6 days of creation represent. In what way are these scriptures spiritually profitable, if not to reveal the awesome power of God to miraculously create all things in a short period of time and record what happened at the very beginning of time to set the groundwork for the scriptural narrative to follow? And how does faith play a role in how we approach these scriptures if not in trusting in the awesome power of God to do so, regardless of whether or not they are contrary to the narrative put forth by secular philosophers on origins?
Now this is interesting! Dr. Craig believes that the days in genesis are literal days, because of the use of morning and evening and the presence of a number! Good for him to honestly acknowledge that 👍
As someone who’s had a brother treated medically and successfully from a rare and aggressive cancer, I’m giving science a fair bit of credit for being able to explain and derive explanations. Don’t forget that the bible “literally” says that the earth is fixed in it’s foundation, yet no-one who’s a credible citizen or Christian today would say that the sun revolves around the sun on this basis. Be comfortable with science, it might save your live and at worst it explains a lot. Genesis is NOT a scientific doctrine, and was never intended to be.
@@TheSaintFrenzyBecause that's not what the video was for and that's not what he was asked. He was asked to simply state his views and beliefs, not to provide evidence for them. He has a lot of videos - both on this channel and on Reasonable Faith - on this topic in which he provides evidence for his views.
Ken Samples, the Bible never teaches that creation was “Ex ni Hilo”, where does anyone get that to be the case? Hebrews 11:3 says “ By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”, it does not say that the universe came from nothing.
@@fcastellanos57 I said nothing cannot be seen. His word says he created what can be seen from what cannot be seen. If it can’t be seen then it’s nothing. God created all from nothing. Matter itself is not co-eternal with God.
Genesis describes events happening on each day of creation that defies all current ideas held by science. Whichever view you hold, you must believe one is correct, and think the other is mistaken. Craig is taking a path that says the bible is wrong and science is right.
He literally explained in the video how both of them are correct without contractions, you are rejecting the argument and forcing a false dichotomy that only exists if you defeat his argument which you have not
@@manoverboard735 He gave no compelling reason to believe his take. It's his preference. Genesis describes what happened on each day, and the orders do NOT line up with what scientists say happened. I am not going to readily accept that God is happy to deceive people about what he did. He was there, he has no reason to lie about it. He has no reason to tell a fairytale about what happened when he could just as easily provide the accurate story and know that it would shut the mouths of scientists thousands of years later.
So it seems he wants it both ways. Genesis 1-11 is figurative, but the creation days mentioned are literal. How does that work. Seems to me the days are either referring to literal days or they are not.
I think he's saying the days being described are to be imagined as literal 24 hour periods, but they are symbolic. Like, when I say, "I'm fighting with one hand tied behind my back," I describe something that could exist, but it's for a metaphor.
The time reference changes in the Hebrew but that's irrelevant the first 5 books of the Bible are predominantly law The Genesis narrative is poetry is Theology is a polemic of the Pagan Gods in particular the Egyptian Gods The Exodus narrative is the destruction of those Gods
@@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics But when you say I’m fighting with one hand tied behind my back, you’re not being literal. He acknowledges that the days mentioned in Genesis one are literal.
The fact that billions of people around the world are still reading analyzing discussing debating a text written to Bronze age people some 3,500 to 4,000 years ago is a miracle God knows what hes doing
@@danielanthony8373 People are now aware of all the inconsistencies,contradictions,irreconcilable differences,forgeries and outright lies in the Christian Bible. With the internet everyone has this knowledge at their fingertips .
This is where Dr Craig fails. I don't think the bible gives way for theistic evolution. God bless Dr Craig for what he does. Salvation is secured for believing in Jesus; Not believing billions of years of evolution like man wants us to believe.
He didn't say that you have to believe in theistic evolution to be a Christian. He was just giving his own opinion. People can debate topics within Christianity while still being able to call each other brothers and sisters in Christ.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus seriously? I have studied the issue and there doesn't seem evidence that evolution ever take place at all especially the non-life to life almost infinite gap
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus What's wrong with theistic evolution? It is not true - it's based on philosophy...and Bill majors in that subject not in accurate exegesis of Scripture.
Keep up the good work. My school watched the debate between you and Hutchins and did a poll . At first it was 60-40 theist atheist than after it was 83-17 the funny thing is the teacher intended the opposite .
Mordern Gnosticism has come in this form with such diluted views. How do you expect layperson to understand such complicated interpretation while everyone understood it as six literal days just by reading as it is. This view allow death before Adams fall. Let us not try to integrate something isn't biblical. I know its not a matter of salvation and i have high respect for Dr. Craig in many areas but in this i strongly disagree. I hope this view won't change with the change of scientific research.
Very big problem with 750,000 years since Adam. What has mankind been doing in all that time, nothing? We have no history, no accomplishments only nothing and not even the bones. I don't know how old mankind is but it's very recent. History is on my side.
I prefer to believe the bible. Six literal days. 24 hours. Young earth. If you believe this you don’t have to juggle what is explicitly written in Genesis with regards to creation being very good. Which it couldn’t have been described as that if there was a huge period of time before Adam and Eve when animals died.
@@ricksonora6656 I suppose that's as good an answer as any. My point was rather that there is no historically or scientifically identifiable change in the biological record at that time, so there must be some reason that number was chosen.
@ Reliance on “identifiable change” assumes a population would be large enough for a record of that change to be found. Obviously, the initial population would be minuscule. Finds of hominids in that geological era are so rare that I don’t think such an assumption is warranted. Another possibility is a regression based on rates at which genetic factors spread. But this is outside my area of study, so I’m just making educated guesses.
Based on homo heidelbergensis who seemed to have all the physical necessities for “humanness” and far enough back to account for an historical Adam and Eve being parents of all humans.
Since Leviticus 23:32 clarifies what we call 24-hour days by measuring them "from evening to evening," the fact that Genesis 1 by stark contrast concludes every creation "day" with the refrain, "and there was evening and there was morning" which bears no connection with duration, is it not clear that Moses was distancing himself altogether from the creation days being 24-hours? No 24-hour-day metric appears anywhere at all in Genesis 1:1.
Dr Craig is also in error about “creation ex-ni Hilo” which comes from philosophers but not from the Bible. Hebrews 11:3 does not say that God created from nothing but by his word and that He did not create anything from what it is seen but from unseen elements, this is not “ nothing” as WLC, Ken Samples and many others believe.
@@ji8044 if we dig deeper, the idea of two powers in heaven exists in the Hebrew literature, not correct but it is there. It is a misunderstanding of the Logos idea also.
If evolution is true, then Genesis is wrong about death (and thorns) entering creation from Adam/Eve's sin. Death and thorns would have been around for hundreds of millions of years, thus falsifying Genesis.
Not at all. You're demanding a literal meaning to "death" where this passage of scripture is clearly using death in a metaphorical sense. Death in scripture somtimes means sin. Just as us being dead in sin and made alive in Christ doesn't mean that we are biologically dead until we believe the gospel, the death that entered the world through Adam is not literal, biological death. Sin entered the world through Adam, therefore dead in the figurative sense entered the world through Adam.
@EnyartTheology Indeed, I agree! But not just Genesis, but ALL of scripture! Just one example... _"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now."_ *ROMANS 8:19-22*
@@mbgrafix 1: That's untrue. There are two Greek words often used for death in scripture, "thanatos" and "necros". Although both words are used in scripture in literal and metaphorical ways, "necros" is the word more likely of the two to refer to literal, biological death while "thanatos" is the more likely of the two to refer to metaphorical, spiritual death. 2: Context always trumps Greek etymology. Always always always. Understanding what a verse means by the context of its surrounding passages, by the context of any diffrent passages of scripture it quotes, etc always gives you a better understanding of what the verse says than trying to whip out an ancient Greek lexicon. Always. 3: I don't think you know what a metaphor is. A metaphor is when a word or concept's intended meaning is different from its literal meaning. You're just poinitng out that the literal meaning of "thanatos" is biological death. That doesn't do anything to suggest that the word is or isn't be used metaphorically. The literal meaning of a word isn't going to tell you whether or not that word is being used literally. Only context can tell you that.
@LawlessNate I'm not a Greek scholar. I rely on Strongs...and I absolutely believe that it refers to physical death. Nevertheless...moving on... When Jesus rose from death... What was it that He rose from? What was it that He had defeated?
@@drcraigvideos You don't help your case as a 'defender of the faith' when you undermine the integrity of the very first chapter of the Bible. Dr. Craig's position on Genesis chapter 1, he actually said 1-11 is all the same genre, was never considered with any seriousness before the onset of evolutionary theories in the 1800's. So if he is consistent with believing what 'science' has 'proven' to be true then his position on the age of the earth has changed multiple times as has the theory of evolution. The Bible however has never changed and doesn't need to because what it plainly states (in historical narrative, NOT symbolism) has always been correct.
@ As Dr. Craig notes in his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, Genesis 1-11 has internal indications of mythology with some trace interest in history (eg the genealogies). So, wholly apart from scientific considerations, to say that the text should be taken literalistically is to deny what even Christian scholars admit, as well as tacitly deny that God can use the genre of myth in his inspired word. This seems patently absurd, since God has obviously used all sorts of non-literalistic genres throughout Scripture (eg Psalms, Revelation, etc.). - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I never said God doesn't use non-literal methods of communicating in the Bible such as metaphor or symbology, etc. - I don't accept the idea that God uses mythology to communicate - and yes there are other theologians who agree with Dr. Craig but they all fall in the same category of 'liberal theologians'. There are many conservative theologians who uphold the literal view of Gen. 1-11 and amazingly there are NO theologians espousing the long age/symbolic view prior to the 1800's and the rise of evolutionary thought. It comes down to a simple fact - you either have more faith in the plainly written Word of God or in the ever changing 'scientific findings/explanations' of man. I have more faith in God's Word.
The creation stories in Genesis presumably would have been understood as literal and accurate by those writing it, but I think God can still place higher symbolic meaning into the stories. There might be some literal meaning as well as symbolic meaning, such as the tree of knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve being given the ability to make choices and be held accountable as moral agents.
I can't that I'm surprised by how hardened these responses are, because I was once in that boat as well. Don't criticize his view if you're not willing to even consider it first. That's not a good faith practice and is in the pattern of biblical foolishness.
@ji8044 Oh yes it is a standard to go by because it is of theological importance. There was no death before the fall and Adam and Eve were the first actual humans without any evolution. If you contest this you go against Christian teachings. And Macro Evolution has no ground to stand on to begin with. Funny how people try to treat this as something proven.
You are wrong. Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Augustine (and probably more I don't know about) did not believe Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, as a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. This was in the first centuries, when they didn't have modern science to learn more about the world and the universe, like we do today, which shows that just by the way Genesis 1 was written in, one can realize it is meant to be understood figuratively and not literally.
Evolution proves creation in Genesis is myth and fable. The evidence for evolution by natural selection grows more massive every year. Even Craig acknowledges the fact of evolution if im not mistaken. I know the catholic church does. Religous people who fight evolution will dri e more young people who get educated away from religion...and i hope they do.
Interesting view, but science sometimes don't have an answer or even fail about some things, especially if we believe that something supernaturally happened in the past, in the time of Creation of life. Maybe we should be more cautious. We shouldn't read Genesis in a literalistic way. We should respect science. But we also should believe strongly in the Bible understood in ANE context.
Classic misconstruing of “figurative” literacy with claims of “truth”. Apologists use language figuratively while claiming the contents of the bible are empirically true. But from where does figurative descriptions come from ? The human mind. And is the human mind accurate of All Things that can be known ? Absolutely not !! Thus, why plant complete confidence in figurative language when it’s someone else’s interpretation of reality ?? And “figurative” means “not literal”. Even though clergy & apologists very often portray the bible to be literally true !! Craig, for all his notoriety should be more notable for his manipulation of language than revealing any biblical truths.
Dr Craig isn't correct when he says about Genesis 1 -11 chapters, although he is a devout believer but damaging more than defending the Biblical doctrine on creation. However, if he doesn't know then he must refrain from engaging in. There's physically demonstrable evidence that the passages of 1st chapters are literal, for example, Adam & Eve passedover from Eternal life unto death when the day they are the forbidden fruit 🍓, and the same is reversed in the New Testament, the LORD said in John 5:24, Passover from death unto life meaning Eternal life, so both of these accounts are same in nature as < & > respectively. Now what Dr says about John 5:24, is he says the first 4 books of NT are too like what he says about the first 11 chapters of Genesis?
@ji8044 The point isn't if it's literal or not, do you have a proof to say that it's not literal? What I say is that if it's not literal then what about the gospel of John, because what John 5:24 says is the same as what Genesis 2 says, already explained in my initial post, so what are you saying now?
@ji8044 Hey dude, I have proof that it's literal, not just a proof of explanation but a proof of physical demonstration, that too I can do it objectively. So, you're wrong & WLC is wrong as well.
@@ji8044 In my initial post I gave you explanation, why is it literal and both accounts in Genesis & John are same in nature, so what are you saying about it? The words of JESUS turned me from mortal unto an immortal, no power can destroy me even bullets, so I have become a temple of God that's physically demonstrable in view of the world. ua-cam.com/video/UwJ_0eGGkag/v-deo.htmlsi=czoFrLvqOWBBbjt7
It's a book of prophecy; it can't be literal. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick and Harry would be a "prophet" given to see the "secret" of god. Amos 3:7 (ASV) Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing, except he reveal his secret unto his servants the prophets. You have been warned of many false prophets.
@@TheLysineContingency What fundamental evidence is there to suggest Genesis 1-11 is a different type of genre than any of the other historical books and portions of the Bible. If Genesis 1-11 were a figurative narrative what's to stop anyone from suggesting that the gospels and acts that reveal the resurrection from being considered belonging to a mytho-historical genre as well? The resurrection could easily be considered an ackward detail since many don't believe that resurrection is possible. Maybe we should try to convert Richard Dawkins by suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus mentioned in the gospels is just a helpful parable and didn't actually happen.
@@andrhof01 You know that the Bible isn't a single writing, written by a single author, at a single time? It's a collection of writings of various genres of literature written over thousands of years. Craig is saying that the primeval narrative of Genesis 1-11, before the focus becomes Abraham and his descendants, is a different genre that could include non-literal elements. That has nothing to do with the historicity of the gospels.
@@TheLysineContingency You didn’t answer my question as to what fundamental reason to think this this is the case. That Genesis1-11 is somehow different. It seem it is expressed in the same way as the rest of the chapter. As something that happened historically. It comes across as being written after the same manner that Exodus through Job and the book of Daniel is written. As though the events actually happened as written, as it doesn’t state or infer otherwise, unless you can demonstrate that the scriptures teach to take another approach then a direct understanding of these passages.
@@drcraigvideos The basic idea is that the function of an entity or device is the reason for its existence, and since existence is guaranteed not at the individual level but rather at the level of the species or kind, it is to kinds that functions are here associated.
@@drcraigvideos Genesis 1 is not a material ontology, meaning that In other words, with functional creation, the act of bestowing a purpose on the materials is what actually determines the moment of creation. To many Christians, an explanation like this will almost immediately sound like an attempt to accommodate modern science, or to use science to interpret Scripture.
I have no respect for those who disrespect brothers who have an alternative interpretation of Genesis 1-3. News flash: No definition of the gospel hinges on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. At least, not a scripture definition.
@@ricksonora6656 I completely disagree. Modern day scientific thought, in regards to the age of the earth, are not compatible with the Bible. If you deny the Genesis account, you are deeming God a liar and are therefore unsaved.
@ Any literate reader of the Bible knows it is saturated with metaphors, poetic imagery, etc. One can take Genesis 1-3 as non-literal without “denying” it or “calling God a liar.” Rather, it is those who make major issues out of debatable details who add to the gospel and are, at best, “weaker brothers” and, at worst, unsaved.
Unfortunately (and ironically), a cause for many young people losing their faith. This causes people to question the accuracy of Genesis. It is very obvious what the text is actually saying, the entire universe created in 6 literal 24 hour days. Craig, who is a brilliant debater and has great arguments for the existence of God, undermines the credibility of Genesis whether he intends to or not. If Genesis isn't accurate, the entire bible falls apart and this is causing people to deconstruct. Very sad. Genesis is accurate, and can be trusted as it is plainly written.
If you agree with big bag theory, then you agree with their calculation on how they age of the universe using their formula. Which reasons to an accurate number, using man tools (science + math = answer). Yes the formula is correct agree with the big bang theory. But... God formula in creating the universe is one day: the Heavens declares His Glory. Imagine using a foot ball field, representing the Universe above us, every 10 meters is marked, by a cone representing a galaxy. Imagine Earth is at the start of one end of the field, then the other end of the opposite field is the further of the galaxy from Earth, marked by 100 meters cone. Let us use a toy remote car as symbol, representing the speed of light. The car travels to one cone, and travels back giving us our distance from Earth to first known galaxy. We repeat this process continuesly with the toy car, traveling back and forth, from one cone end to the next. Using this formula to support the man's big bang theory gives, us answers we can calculate. Giving us distance, and giving us time, to predict the age of the Universe using this method. However, the Bible says... Almighty God created the heavens one day. God formula created that football field in one day, not billions of years. Here is God formula 7 day cycle, supporting the 7 day of creation, which we know is built into our biology (body and soul). May it be the animals, moon sun, vegetation... stars... all mysteriously revolve around the 7 day cycle in creation (Holy Bible KJV).
@@MrMonikura no, it was not in one day, the Hebrew word for day is YOM but this word means several things, not just one 24 hour day, it means also a finite period of time, which could mean millions of years. The earth according to scientific measurements is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13.8 billion years Old, this does not contradict Genesis if we understand Genesis correctly.
Like this before, I've even heard it.
Dr Craig is a god-given gift. Thank you for all your contribution to serving the one true God.
Amen and Godbless, my brothers and sisters in christ. 🙏
I’d encourage you to read “Searching for Adam” by Dr. Terry Mortenson
@TheSaintFrenzy Thanks for this rec. Looks very interesting.
Please can you recommend any more books?
I'd be very grateful. Tx
God-given.
It ever frustrates me, that, if one spoke and declared, is it possible that God used EVIL-Lucian over a period of 382662 trillion years, many would say yes. And if they declared, is it possible that God created everything in a nano second, likewise many would say yes. But dare anyone say, could God create everything in six literal days... Point being, everything is agreed upon, save for what the scriptures actually say.
Scriptures teach old earth.
You're not winning anyone with the bad puns I'll tell you that..
So then what do the 6 days of creation represent. In what way are these scriptures spiritually profitable, if not to reveal the awesome power of God to miraculously create all things in a short period of time and record what happened at the very beginning of time to set the groundwork for the scriptural narrative to follow? And how does faith play a role in how we approach these scriptures if not in trusting in the awesome power of God to do so, regardless of whether or not they are contrary to the narrative put forth by secular philosophers on origins?
750,000 years ago? I don’t think so.
Completely off!
Now this is interesting! Dr. Craig believes that the days in genesis are literal days, because of the use of morning and evening and the presence of a number! Good for him to honestly acknowledge that 👍
How much faith are you still putting into mainstream science, Dr. Craig?
He's putting faith in the evidence he sees
@@leonardu6094 he didn’t express any evidence, only his impositions on to the text that the literal days are used figuratively. 🤦♂
@@leonardu6094 No. He's putting faith in what secular 'scientists' tell him.
As someone who’s had a brother treated medically and successfully from a rare and aggressive cancer, I’m giving science a fair bit of credit for being able to explain and derive explanations. Don’t forget that the bible “literally” says that the earth is fixed in it’s foundation, yet no-one who’s a credible citizen or Christian today would say that the sun revolves around the sun on this basis. Be comfortable with science, it might save your live and at worst it explains a lot. Genesis is NOT a scientific doctrine, and was never intended to be.
@@TheSaintFrenzyBecause that's not what the video was for and that's not what he was asked. He was asked to simply state his views and beliefs, not to provide evidence for them.
He has a lot of videos - both on this channel and on Reasonable Faith - on this topic in which he provides evidence for his views.
Respect to you Dr Craig ❤️
Ken Samples, the Bible never teaches that creation was “Ex ni Hilo”, where does anyone get that to be the case? Hebrews 11:3 says “ By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”, it does not say that the universe came from nothing.
“Not made from things that are visible” means ex nihilo
@ Go to the Latin and see if ex-ni Hilo is the same as things created from what cannot be seen.
@ "nothing" cannot be seen
@@MarkNOTW cannot be seen is not nothing, God cannot create from nothing, His word of power is transformed into whatever His mind purposes.
@@fcastellanos57 I said nothing cannot be seen. His word says he created what can be seen from what cannot be seen. If it can’t be seen then it’s nothing. God created all from nothing. Matter itself is not co-eternal with God.
Genesis describes events happening on each day of creation that defies all current ideas held by science.
Whichever view you hold, you must believe one is correct, and think the other is mistaken.
Craig is taking a path that says the bible is wrong and science is right.
He literally explained in the video how both of them are correct without contractions, you are rejecting the argument and forcing a false dichotomy that only exists if you defeat his argument which you have not
@@manoverboard735
He gave no compelling reason to believe his take. It's his preference.
Genesis describes what happened on each day, and the orders do NOT line up with what scientists say happened. I am not going to readily accept that God is happy to deceive people about what he did. He was there, he has no reason to lie about it. He has no reason to tell a fairytale about what happened when he could just as easily provide the accurate story and know that it would shut the mouths of scientists thousands of years later.
Exactly, "Craig is taking a path that says the bible is wrong and science is right." Craig has got his foot stuck in the door.
So it seems he wants it both ways. Genesis 1-11 is figurative, but the creation days mentioned are literal. How does that work. Seems to me the days are either referring to literal days or they are not.
I think he's saying the days being described are to be imagined as literal 24 hour periods, but they are symbolic. Like, when I say, "I'm fighting with one hand tied behind my back," I describe something that could exist, but it's for a metaphor.
The time reference changes in the Hebrew but that's irrelevant the first 5 books of the Bible are predominantly law
The Genesis narrative is poetry is Theology is a polemic of the Pagan Gods in particular the Egyptian Gods
The Exodus narrative is the destruction of those Gods
@@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics
But when you say I’m fighting with one hand tied behind my back, you’re not being literal. He acknowledges that the days mentioned in Genesis one are literal.
No matter someone's view of creation, it's unacceptable to gaslight our brothers & sisters in Christ. God bless everyone!
The fact that billions of people around the world are still reading analyzing discussing debating a text written to Bronze age people some 3,500 to 4,000 years ago is a miracle
God knows what hes doing
@@danielanthony8373 People are now aware of all the inconsistencies,contradictions,irreconcilable differences,forgeries and outright lies in the Christian Bible. With the internet everyone has this knowledge at their fingertips .
This is where Dr Craig fails. I don't think the bible gives way for theistic evolution. God bless Dr Craig for what he does. Salvation is secured for believing in Jesus; Not believing billions of years of evolution like man wants us to believe.
He didn't say that you have to believe in theistic evolution to be a Christian. He was just giving his own opinion. People can debate topics within Christianity while still being able to call each other brothers and sisters in Christ.
What's wrong with theistic evolution? Kind of seems that's how the universe works today.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus seriously? I have studied the issue and there doesn't seem evidence that evolution ever take place at all especially the non-life to life almost infinite gap
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus What's wrong with theistic evolution? It is not true - it's based on philosophy...and Bill majors in that subject not in accurate exegesis of Scripture.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesusumm evolution is false. Old earth is correct.
Keep up the good work. My school watched the debate between you and Hutchins and did a poll . At first it was 60-40 theist atheist than after it was 83-17 the funny thing is the teacher intended the opposite .
Awesome!
Once the atheist anti-creatuonists say "We could be living in a simulation" any form of creationism is then fine with me.
Mordern Gnosticism has come in this form with such diluted views. How do you expect layperson to understand such complicated interpretation while everyone understood it as six literal days just by reading as it is. This view allow death before Adams fall. Let us not try to integrate something isn't biblical.
I know its not a matter of salvation and i have high respect for Dr. Craig in many areas but in this i strongly disagree.
I hope this view won't change with the change of scientific research.
Very big problem with 750,000 years since Adam. What has mankind been doing in all that time, nothing? We have no history, no accomplishments only nothing and not even the bones. I don't know how old mankind is but it's very recent. History is on my side.
I prefer to believe the bible. Six literal days. 24 hours. Young earth. If you believe this you don’t have to juggle what is explicitly written in Genesis with regards to creation being very good. Which it couldn’t have been described as that if there was a huge period of time before Adam and Eve when animals died.
We don't have to juggle anything with what's written in Genesis. You have to juggle the Genesis denial of all human history and science.
@@ji8044 There is no human history going back 750,000 years nor are there bones to prove it. Science is dead wrong where common sense prevails.
Where did the 750,000 years come from?
There is no break in the hominid line at that time frame.
Probably from some selection of attributes that make humans human, and then estimating when those attributes appeared.
@@ricksonora6656 I suppose that's as good an answer as any. My point was rather that there is no historically or scientifically identifiable change in the biological record at that time, so there must be some reason that number was chosen.
@ Reliance on “identifiable change” assumes a population would be large enough for a record of that change to be found. Obviously, the initial population would be minuscule. Finds of hominids in that geological era are so rare that I don’t think such an assumption is warranted.
Another possibility is a regression based on rates at which genetic factors spread.
But this is outside my area of study, so I’m just making educated guesses.
Based on homo heidelbergensis who seemed to have all the physical necessities for “humanness” and far enough back to account for an historical Adam and Eve being parents of all humans.
@@kevingates5851 But that line splits into extinct Neandertal and Homo Sapiens, which is not accounted for in Genesis.
Since Leviticus 23:32 clarifies what we call 24-hour days by measuring them "from evening to evening," the fact that Genesis 1 by stark contrast concludes every creation "day" with the refrain, "and there was evening and there was morning" which bears no connection with duration, is it not clear that Moses was distancing himself altogether from the creation days being 24-hours? No 24-hour-day metric appears anywhere at all in Genesis 1:1.
So can I ask ? How long do you think the days are
I love Ken Samples and Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig, though they have their differences they're all godly intelligent men 😊
where can i watch the whole thing?
It's linked in the description. - RF Admin
Dr Craig is also in error about “creation ex-ni Hilo” which comes from philosophers but not from the Bible. Hebrews 11:3 does not say that God created from nothing but by his word and that He did not create anything from what it is seen but from unseen elements, this is not “ nothing” as WLC, Ken Samples and many others believe.
thats a great point.
No, "logos" is Greek philosophy, not Jewish theology.
@@ji8044 if we dig deeper, the idea of two powers in heaven exists in the Hebrew literature, not correct but it is there. It is a misunderstanding of the Logos idea also.
I agree with most of that, the exception being the 750,000 year dating.
If evolution is true, then Genesis is wrong about death (and thorns) entering creation from Adam/Eve's sin. Death and thorns would have been around for hundreds of millions of years, thus falsifying Genesis.
Not at all. You're demanding a literal meaning to "death" where this passage of scripture is clearly using death in a metaphorical sense. Death in scripture somtimes means sin. Just as us being dead in sin and made alive in Christ doesn't mean that we are biologically dead until we believe the gospel, the death that entered the world through Adam is not literal, biological death. Sin entered the world through Adam, therefore dead in the figurative sense entered the world through Adam.
@EnyartTheology
Indeed, I agree! But not just Genesis, but ALL of scripture! Just one example...
_"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now."_
*ROMANS 8:19-22*
@@LawlessNate
_"For the wages of sin is death..."_
*ROMANS 6:23*
*_thanatos_* = physical death
@@mbgrafix 1: That's untrue. There are two Greek words often used for death in scripture, "thanatos" and "necros". Although both words are used in scripture in literal and metaphorical ways, "necros" is the word more likely of the two to refer to literal, biological death while "thanatos" is the more likely of the two to refer to metaphorical, spiritual death.
2: Context always trumps Greek etymology. Always always always. Understanding what a verse means by the context of its surrounding passages, by the context of any diffrent passages of scripture it quotes, etc always gives you a better understanding of what the verse says than trying to whip out an ancient Greek lexicon. Always.
3: I don't think you know what a metaphor is. A metaphor is when a word or concept's intended meaning is different from its literal meaning. You're just poinitng out that the literal meaning of "thanatos" is biological death. That doesn't do anything to suggest that the word is or isn't be used metaphorically. The literal meaning of a word isn't going to tell you whether or not that word is being used literally. Only context can tell you that.
@LawlessNate
I'm not a Greek scholar. I rely on Strongs...and I absolutely believe that it refers to physical death.
Nevertheless...moving on...
When Jesus rose from death...
What was it that He rose from?
What was it that He had defeated?
Precisely why I don't reference Dr. Craig in defending the Bible!
What's your objection? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos You don't help your case as a 'defender of the faith' when you undermine the integrity of the very first chapter of the Bible. Dr. Craig's position on Genesis chapter 1, he actually said 1-11 is all the same genre, was never considered with any seriousness before the onset of evolutionary theories in the 1800's. So if he is consistent with believing what 'science' has 'proven' to be true then his position on the age of the earth has changed multiple times as has the theory of evolution. The Bible however has never changed and doesn't need to because what it plainly states (in historical narrative, NOT symbolism) has always been correct.
@ As Dr. Craig notes in his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, Genesis 1-11 has internal indications of mythology with some trace interest in history (eg the genealogies). So, wholly apart from scientific considerations, to say that the text should be taken literalistically is to deny what even Christian scholars admit, as well as tacitly deny that God can use the genre of myth in his inspired word. This seems patently absurd, since God has obviously used all sorts of non-literalistic genres throughout Scripture (eg Psalms, Revelation, etc.). - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I never said God doesn't use non-literal methods of communicating in the Bible such as metaphor or symbology, etc. - I don't accept the idea that God uses mythology to communicate - and yes there are other theologians who agree with Dr. Craig but they all fall in the same category of 'liberal theologians'. There are many conservative theologians who uphold the literal view of Gen. 1-11 and amazingly there are NO theologians espousing the long age/symbolic view prior to the 1800's and the rise of evolutionary thought. It comes down to a simple fact - you either have more faith in the plainly written Word of God or in the ever changing 'scientific findings/explanations' of man. I have more faith in God's Word.
The creation stories in Genesis presumably would have been understood as literal and accurate by those writing it, but I think God can still place higher symbolic meaning into the stories. There might be some literal meaning as well as symbolic meaning, such as the tree of knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve being given the ability to make choices and be held accountable as moral agents.
The mistake is when you start presuming things. There are other interpretations that do no injustice to Christianity nor scientific studies.
I think it’s cringe to affirm Genesis as allegory or non-historical.
Genesis 2:4 and 37:2 call it history, some translations say “account”.
I can't that I'm surprised by how hardened these responses are, because I was once in that boat as well. Don't criticize his view if you're not willing to even consider it first. That's not a good faith practice and is in the pattern of biblical foolishness.
Yeah that aint it. Macro Evolution and Theistic Creation cannot coexist. Early Christians held to the literarity of Genesis. This isnt contested.
Early Christian knew nothing at all about the world, so that is hardly the standard to go by.
@ji8044 Oh yes it is a standard to go by because it is of theological importance. There was no death before the fall and Adam and Eve were the first actual humans without any evolution. If you contest this you go against Christian teachings. And Macro Evolution has no ground to stand on to begin with. Funny how people try to treat this as something proven.
You are wrong. Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Augustine (and probably more I don't know about) did not believe Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, as a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. This was in the first centuries, when they didn't have modern science to learn more about the world and the universe, like we do today, which shows that just by the way Genesis 1 was written in, one can realize it is meant to be understood figuratively and not literally.
@Coltey-oc1fg Find me one that doesnt believe Adam and Eve were directly created and the first humans and that sin brought death into the world.
@Coltey-oc1fg Anyone who denied Adam and Eve being the first humans?
Evolution proves creation in Genesis is myth and fable. The evidence for evolution by natural selection grows more massive every year. Even Craig acknowledges the fact of evolution if im not mistaken. I know the catholic church does. Religous people who fight evolution will dri e more young people who get educated away from religion...and i hope they do.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He then lied about how he did it.
👌👏
Interesting view, but science sometimes don't have an answer or even fail about some things, especially if we believe that something supernaturally happened in the past, in the time of Creation of life. Maybe we should be more cautious. We shouldn't read Genesis in a literalistic way. We should respect science. But we also should believe strongly in the Bible understood in ANE context.
Biologos got its claws into WLC.
Classic misconstruing of “figurative” literacy with claims of “truth”. Apologists use language figuratively while claiming the contents of the bible are empirically true. But from where does figurative descriptions come from ? The human mind. And is the human mind accurate of All Things that can be known ? Absolutely not !! Thus, why plant complete confidence in figurative language when it’s someone else’s interpretation of reality ?? And “figurative” means “not literal”. Even though clergy & apologists very often portray the bible to be literally true !!
Craig, for all his notoriety should be more notable for his manipulation of language than revealing any biblical truths.
Dr Craig isn't correct when he says about Genesis 1 -11 chapters, although he is a devout believer but damaging more than defending the Biblical doctrine on creation. However, if he doesn't know then he must refrain from engaging in.
There's physically demonstrable evidence that the passages of 1st chapters are literal, for example, Adam & Eve passedover from Eternal life unto death when the day they are the forbidden fruit 🍓, and the same is reversed in the New Testament, the LORD said in John 5:24, Passover from death unto life meaning Eternal life, so both of these accounts are same in nature as < & > respectively.
Now what Dr says about John 5:24, is he says the first 4 books of NT are too like what he says about the first 11 chapters of Genesis?
Genesis is not literal history. End of story.
@ji8044 The point isn't if it's literal or not, do you have a proof to say that it's not literal?
What I say is that if it's not literal then what about the gospel of John, because what John 5:24 says is the same as what Genesis 2 says, already explained in my initial post, so what are you saying now?
@ji8044 Hey dude,
I have proof that it's literal, not just a proof of explanation but a proof of physical demonstration, that too I can do it objectively. So, you're wrong & WLC is wrong as well.
@@williamgeorgepeter2969 Ok let's see your proof.
@@ji8044 In my initial post I gave you explanation, why is it literal and both accounts in Genesis & John are same in nature, so what are you saying about it?
The words of JESUS turned me from mortal unto an immortal, no power can destroy me even bullets, so I have become a temple of God that's physically demonstrable in view of the world.
ua-cam.com/video/UwJ_0eGGkag/v-deo.htmlsi=czoFrLvqOWBBbjt7
It's a book of prophecy; it can't be literal. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick and Harry would be a "prophet" given to see the "secret" of god.
Amos 3:7 (ASV) Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing, except he reveal his secret unto his servants the prophets.
You have been warned of many false prophets.
Love Dr. Craig and all he does for the Kingdom. He is brilliant and irenic. Also, I disagree with him here and in other places. :)
Dr Craig always willing to take the most compromised positions on about every doctrine
William Lame Craig does not believe the Word of God. Substituting for it pagan philosophy and empiricism.
Can Jesus’s resurrection also be taken figuratively? I think it could be.
Do you even listen to what he’s saying? Hes saying Gen 1-11 is a different type of literature. The gospels are closest to ancient biography
@@TheLysineContingency What fundamental evidence is there to suggest Genesis 1-11 is a different type of genre than any of the other historical books and portions of the Bible. If Genesis 1-11 were a figurative narrative what's to stop anyone from suggesting that the gospels and acts that reveal the resurrection from being considered belonging to a mytho-historical genre as well? The resurrection could easily be considered an ackward detail since many don't believe that resurrection is possible. Maybe we should try to convert Richard Dawkins by suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus mentioned in the gospels is just a helpful parable and didn't actually happen.
@@andrhof01 You know that the Bible isn't a single writing, written by a single author, at a single time? It's a collection of writings of various genres of literature written over thousands of years. Craig is saying that the primeval narrative of Genesis 1-11, before the focus becomes Abraham and his descendants, is a different genre that could include non-literal elements. That has nothing to do with the historicity of the gospels.
@@TheLysineContingency You didn’t answer my question as to what fundamental reason to think this this is the case. That Genesis1-11 is somehow different. It seem it is expressed in the same way as the rest of the chapter. As something that happened historically. It comes across as being written after the same manner that Exodus through Job and the book of Daniel is written. As though the events actually happened as written, as it doesn’t state or infer otherwise, unless you can demonstrate that the scriptures teach to take another approach then a direct understanding of these passages.
Exactly. Read thru Genesis and tell me there’s a noticeable difference between chapters 1-11 and the rest.
Don't listen to whackadoodle, Craig.
Godless man
Do you have an actual objection? - RF Admin
Fractal
He sounds like without religion he might have constricted a reasonable worldview. As it stands, garbage
Genesis 1 is a functional ontology, not a material one.
Are you familiar with Dr. Craig's criticisms of the functional creation interpretation? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Yes I am and I think he is wrong.
@@jfrontier1 Feel free to elaborate. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos The basic idea is that the function of an entity or device is the reason for its existence, and since existence is guaranteed not at the individual level but rather at the level of the species or kind, it is to kinds that functions are here associated.
@@drcraigvideos Genesis 1 is not a material ontology, meaning that In other words, with functional creation, the act of bestowing a purpose on the materials is what actually determines the moment of creation. To many Christians, an explanation like this will almost immediately sound like an attempt to accommodate modern science, or to use science to interpret Scripture.
😂. Dr. Craig has drank the Kool-Aid. A 14 billion-year-old earth is not substantiated in Genesis.
No YOU drank the kool-aid. Grow up and use critical thinking.
🙄. You know it's the end times when professing Christians deny God's Word.
I have no respect for those who disrespect brothers who have an alternative interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
News flash: No definition of the gospel hinges on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. At least, not a scripture definition.
@@ricksonora6656 I completely disagree.
Modern day scientific thought, in regards to the age of the earth, are not compatible with the Bible.
If you deny the Genesis account, you are deeming God a liar and are therefore unsaved.
@ Any literate reader of the Bible knows it is saturated with metaphors, poetic imagery, etc. One can take Genesis 1-3 as non-literal without “denying” it or “calling God a liar.”
Rather, it is those who make major issues out of debatable details who add to the gospel and are, at best, “weaker brothers” and, at worst, unsaved.
Genesis 1-11 is literal history, not figures, not allegory. It amazes me when so called biblical scholars undermine the clear teaching of scripture.
It amazes me when non-Jews who can't even read Hebrew and have no education in history are experts in what Genesis says.
ive been punished, tortured abused for 20 years, I begged God and was taught the secrets,
Unfortunately (and ironically), a cause for many young people losing their faith. This causes people to question the accuracy of Genesis. It is very obvious what the text is actually saying, the entire universe created in 6 literal 24 hour days. Craig, who is a brilliant debater and has great arguments for the existence of God, undermines the credibility of Genesis whether he intends to or not. If Genesis isn't accurate, the entire bible falls apart and this is causing people to deconstruct. Very sad. Genesis is accurate, and can be trusted as it is plainly written.
If you agree with big bag theory, then you agree with their calculation on how they age of the universe using their formula. Which reasons to an accurate number, using man tools (science + math = answer). Yes the formula is correct agree with the big bang theory. But... God formula in creating the universe is one day: the Heavens declares His Glory.
Imagine using a foot ball field, representing the Universe above us, every 10 meters is marked, by a cone representing a galaxy. Imagine Earth is at the start of one end of the field, then the other end of the opposite field is the further of the galaxy from Earth, marked by 100 meters cone.
Let us use a toy remote car as symbol, representing the speed of light. The car travels to one cone, and travels back giving us our distance from Earth to first known galaxy. We repeat this process continuesly with the toy car, traveling back and forth, from one cone end to the next. Using this formula to support the man's big bang theory gives, us answers we can calculate. Giving us distance, and giving us time, to predict the age of the Universe using this method.
However, the Bible says... Almighty God created the heavens one day. God formula created that football field in one day, not billions of years. Here is God formula 7 day cycle, supporting the 7 day of creation, which we know is built into our biology (body and soul). May it be the animals, moon sun, vegetation... stars... all mysteriously revolve around the 7 day cycle in creation (Holy Bible KJV).
@@MrMonikura no, it was not in one day, the Hebrew word for day is YOM but this word means several things, not just one 24 hour day, it means also a finite period of time, which could mean millions of years. The earth according to scientific measurements is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13.8 billion years Old, this does not contradict Genesis if we understand Genesis correctly.