19:25 "Actually the best way to honor the scripture and submit to the scripture as the truth of God - is to submit to its way of communicating". It is very rare for me to stumble upon a nugget that I have never heard of or read before. This was a good moment.
Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter! The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin! First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview comes close to the Bible, in explaining it! The first two laws of thermodynamics! So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here! DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“! God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there! Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job! 3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing! The Bible Predicted telecommunications
What does that mean? That we should believe genesis instead of believing in the nonsense that is evolution and the buffoonery that is theistic evolution? I agree.
@@JesusProtects Amen! If we trust in God then we trust in his word and his word is sufficient to prepare a man for every good work and he is willing to give us wisdom if we ask, so long as we are not double minded. When we have to confirm what men think before agreeing what God says, we shouldn't expect anything. See James on double -mindedness
@@JesusProtects it means you could trace your family tree all the way back to the apes if You’re a commie Democrat, Have any more questions, especially concerning the Bible since I know everything ….ie I’m older than UA-camrs , let me know. I’ll help you out. ! But remember, there’s no shortcuts in the kingdom of God!
@@JesusProtects but there is evidence lots of it in the opposite of all this crazy talk. man made religions do not hold a candle to realities left overs!
Gavin, Thank you for making such well constructed and thought provoking videos. I personally went through a period of deconstructing my Christian beliefs, but I felt like I didn’t have anything to build back from. Your content has provided me with historical and intellectual foundations and given me a new appreciation for the history of Protestantism in general. As a younger man it’s very encouraging to see a figure like you who is so kind, honest, and humble. I look forward to more videos!
Amen, when the presenter, the teacher, isn’t very Christlike, as Ken Ham is not, Gavin is a fine example of this quality. Look up Ken Ham talking to Hugh Ross. The video is online. This is a man who uses verse to believe Dinosaurs are living with man. So let’s distrust Science. Yahweh doesn’t deceive us and scientists are not purposely deceiving us.
I hope you can find a body of beleivers who will help you find Christ, not dogma, legalism or feel good "christian", buta true Christ centered church that displays Christ through true fruit in love. Being a Christian add meaning and hope that cannot be found anywhere else
@@user-ql3bq7vr2d sounds like one happy atheist who follows a hopeless faith in nothing and wants to share their joy in life. Thank you! Shalom and salamat.
As a history PhD student, the theme of anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism is so disheartening and its particularly egregious in the 20th century. I really appreciate your efforts to combat these sorts of ideas Gavin! God bless!
To be fair, the fact that one side doesn't even acknowledge the other side I think is more telling of and problematic then someone claiming other is anti intellectual
@defenestratorX Are you saying that YEC don't acknowledge other beliefs as valid or are you saying that those who hold other beliefs don't acknowledge YEC as a valid option? I grew up in a very definitively YEC church and I used to think in the very terms Ken Ham does. If I ever met someone who believed anything other than YEC, I immediately thought they just didn't truly trust the Bible's authority. Once I was in college, I came to a different conclusion, and now I can respect people who hold different opinions on this issue, but I personally really struggled to do so when I was a YEC. Also, I use the term anti-intellectual to mean those who actively distrust scholarship, education, science, and even unintentionally dichotomize faith and reason. Even though many American evangelicals aren't like this, it is a prevalent problem within American evangelicalism, and I think YEC of the Ken Ham variety tends to cultivate and sustain this anti-intellectualism.
What apart from God's word, the Bible, can give you any validly based confidence in your own intellect? - Proverbs 1, 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Colossians 2, 3 Christ, In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
@davidjanbaz7728 It sounds like we agree and that we both appreciate some of the same scholars. I wasn't saying that all evangelicals are YEC or that anti-intellectualism is a defining characterisic of being evangelical, I just said anti-intellectualism is a sadly prevalent theme within American evangelicalism. Mark Noll proved as much in his classic work The Scandel of the Evangelical Mind.
All of those are clearly defined. The gifts are given till the day of Christ return, is 1 of the thesis statements of first Corinthians; see first Corinthians 1:7 ! First Corinthians 12 and 14 are the only chapters that deal with the charismatic gifts in the Bible! So the gifts are here till Jesus comes back! And the doctrine of original sin is correct death came to plants and animals at the first sin genesis 2:17 Romans 5:17 1 Corinthians 15:22
@@jjphankgen 2:17 ,You (Adam) will die. Roman’s 5:17,Death to humans through sin., 1:cor 15:22, death to humans because of Adams Sin, life to humans because of Christ . Not one mention of plants and animals in all these verses only humans.
Thank you Gavin for not only your time in preparing this, your transparency in sharing it, but also your careful/sensitive phrasing throughout. As a young-earth adherent, I have been greatly edified by this discussion. And while I am still not sure if I'm persuaded (at least not yet), I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the quiet and meek demeanor with which you approach this topic. Your spirit is a balm to my soul which is too often exposed to blustering voices proposing rhetoric and not well-reasoned arguments. I look forward to your other videos on this topic and others. Blessings and prayers to you and yours.
I have no problem with a belief in 6 day creation (I lean toward that direction myself). My problem is when you say other creation views are unchristian and make it a salvational issue.
Ken Ham's recent blog series has even accused other YEC groups of being wicked and unsaved for not following his own interpretation to the letter. At this point he has declared to the public that anyone not following Ken Ham's authority is not saved.
Hey Gavin, love you and your videos. I wanted to share why I’m a YEC (or maybe more accurately a “Death After the Fall Creationist) and some responses to some of your thoughts. TLDR; , Being convinced of God’s existence and his power to do whatever he wants, the evidence on the age of things being more of mixed bag that either way necessarily requires God to intervene miraculously throughout the history of life and the cosmos, being convinced of God’s goodness and life giving nature, and being convinced that suffering and death especially of humans but even of animals is an objective moral wrong, I’m a young earth creationist. Building from the ground up, I am convinced by the typical arguments for God’s existence by the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the complexity of life as well as miracles, prophecy, the person of Jesus, the Bible etc. I am also convinced, by people like Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute, that evolution and natural processes do not come even close to having the capability of explaining life specifically without major interventions on the part of an intelligent designer. For example, it seems God had to intervene at the major “explosions” of life (on the OEC view) for it to be possible to get that much new genetic information in that short of time. For me, once the door is opened that God must necessarily have intervened in the history of life, the earth and the cosmos, it opens up many possibilities, because God can do whatever he wants; he could speed starlight, generate light from nothing, preserve some things in the meantime that other things they are dependent on are made etc. Several of the clocks you mentioned also do not matter if you think creation could be old but hold to death only after the fall, so they are not discriminatory evidence. Still the question is worth asking what does it look like he actually did, and that’s where this debate comes in. There are things in the universe that look old, though some can be explained by YEC. It seems to me there are also some things that look young, some of which can also be explained by OEC. Some of these, since you have mentioned examples of the former, are natural “clocks” like you have mentioned in your video: things like 1) short period comets with a lifespan of 10,000 years still remaining in our solar system, though they should have died out long ago, prompting scientists to posit an unseen Oort Cloud 2) the consistent detection of Carbon 14 in fossil, diamond and coal samples that should not be there after supposed millions on years, or 3) the faint young sun paradox (and many other cosmic paradoxes like it) which leaves a mystery as to how our younger sun was able to generate enough heat to keep our oceans from freezing in order to preserve life on the early earth. It seems like one could ask the same questions you did - why would God make anything that could appear young if he didn’t want us to think it was? With some of these considerations I think it becomes more complicated than one side having all the evidence. So how do I decide? I think the theology of death as a result of the fall, God’s nature of goodness and being life-giving and the restoration of creation including total removal of death is the deciding factor for me. You have talked before about the moral argument for God, and how some moral intuitions are so deeply rooted and intuitive, that that alone can be used as evidence for their truth. I believe it is a basic moral intuition that human and animal suffering is wrong. Everyone knows this from the Christian to the Atheist, and it is why it’s one of the primary objections to a good God. It also has deep implications for what kind of future God wants for us - if death, suffering, cancers, predators ripping apart prey etc existed before the fall and was called good, will it exist in the new creation? If not, why not, if it was good? You raised a point that the line has to be drawn somewhere. This has been said in many different ways but just because we can’t point to the line exactly does not mean it’s not there, and it doesn’t mean we can’t know that we’ve crossed it. Even plant death could be avoided in this system if one really felt that it should be, because fruits and even different resources can be used from plants without killing them. Human ancestors and sentient animals suffering horribly for millions of years for nothing (no law given and no sin committed) other than God created them to harm each other, is a hard pill to swallow. I think it makes a mess of the theology of his goodness and his nature of life and not death, his plan for redemption to come through the physical death of Jesus, and the nature of the new creation. I would rather make small messes of natural science (especially when there’s so many mysteries and counterpoints no matter what model you take) than make a big mess of theology. In response to you saying that you think Paul was referring to human death coming through the fall: I think you would be extremely hard pressed yourself to find a scientific model that matches with an old earth and old history of life that does not include the death of humans and human ancestors. Unfortunately, OEC pretty much necessitates human death before the fall as well. The only way I’ve heard to avoid this is to say that God made humans a special creation in a garden away from all the death on a younger timescale until they sinned. This is possible if you want to avoid human death, but it seems just as if not more ad hoc than young earth models and you’ll find just as few or less supporters of that possibility in mainstream science as you would for YEC and definitely less biblical support. And again, that’s only if you want to preserve human life only before the fall. Maybe it would be helpful to hear in the future exactly what model you hold to, if only tentatively. Thanks for anyone who happened to read. Let me know your thoughts.
Extremely well reasoned. I wish there was space to talk this through. If you watch Gavin's previous (edit : previous video) before this one you will see a quote on Augustine speaking about animal death as being part of a "good creation".
@@marinusswanepoel1825 yes I watched that one as well, and I disagree with Augustine that animal death could be good. I believe Gavin would disagree as well with how he spoke of animal death in his video on the fall of satan. Thanks for the response.
@@CollinBoSmith Maybe one last push back and then I'll leave it. It seems to me that - in the command to fill the earth and subdue it - God indicates that the earth, although very good in substance, is not submitting to the will of God, and therefore subject to death. Therefore God wanted Adam to spread his rule over all of the earth so that the fruit of the tree of life might be accessible to all its inhabitants. The fact that there was a tree of life seems to indicate that Adam was himself mortal and as soon as his access to the tree of life was cut off he lived out the remainder of his days and died - a natural progress his life would have followed if he wasn't in the garden.
@@marinusswanepoel1825 Yes those are all interesting points. Obviously it’s a lot of speculation, though that doesn’t mean it isn’t true necessarily. I agree that the fruit may have literally kept Adam and other creatures in the garden alive. I could just as easily speculate scenarios that work with a younger earth or a death after the fall creationism. For example, perhaps the fruit of the tree of life was, although literal fruit, more of a symbol of life, almost like a sacrament, so that every animal did not need to actually consume it for death to not enter. (After all, eating from the tree was not a command, so not eating would not be a sin that would bring in death.) Perhaps subduing the earth was just cultivating it and using its resources to create and make better the lives of all creatures. Whatever we may speculate, I just wonder WHY we’re doing the speculating. I’m willing to speculate on what is left unsaid in the Bible in order to preserve things like the goodness of God, but much less willing to speculate in order to preserve some fact of natural science that we think we’ve gotten enough evidence for in modern times, especially if the preservation of that fact seems to be over against the goodness of God. Thanks again for the response.
Hi Gavin, as an old earth creationists I'm so blessed to be connected with you. Love the excellent way you explain things. God bless you and your work.
As a young earth creationist and fan of the channel, I always appreciate your efforts and goodwill. Would love to see you and Ham sit down and hash it out together.
The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
The non-YEC needs to show not only that there could be animal death before the fall, even though Romans 8 seems to teach that the agony of creation is a result of the fall. BUT ALSO that creatures who are anatomically identical to human beings made in the image of God can die before the fall.
I mean no, not all of them do, I'm not sure why you assumed that... you seem to be conflating OEC with Theistic Evolution. Not all OECs believe in evolution to the extent that they believe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other great apes, so no, not all non-YECers need to explain it.
Regarding your second point, doesn't that presume that the image of God has anything at all to do with how humans are anatomically structured? I'm not sure how one would establish that and, even so, tying the image to anatomy creates a host of problems down the line for how to think biblically about people with disabilities or other anatomical irregularities.
No, they need not show that. Genesis 1:1 says that the earth was created at an undisclosed time before day 1. Therefore, there is no basis for YEC. There's no biological difference between animal death and plant death.
Well it was generally uncontested by the church fathers that animal death predated the fall, a great discussion of this happened on the Pilgrim Faith podcast (episode 9) with Joseph Minich and Bradley Belschner. They go through a host of primary sources from the church fathers all the way to Thomas Aquinas and show that animal death before the fall was uncontroversial throughout most of Church history. But that being said in the same way that Christ's salvation reaches backward in time to gather all the saints going back to Adam and Eve, why couldn't it be the case that the fall has backward reaching effects? So essentially we wouldn't have to deny Romans 8 or that the agony of creation is due to the fall. If the effects of the fall parallel the effects of salvation then they can reach backward in time just as they reach forward. Lastly as has been pointed out above your assuming the image of God has something to do with anatomy, but why think that? I personally subscribe to the covenant model of the image of God. I believe that man being given the image of God is essentially a seal of the first covenant God makes with man, as such even if other animals were to become as intelligent as we are or be anatomically similar this wouldn't be any threat to us as image bearers because the image of God isn't related to our capacities. Just as in salvation God doesn't choose us on the basis of our good deeds and works, but based solely on his sovereign will, God chose humans to be his image bearers, not because we were so much greater than other animals, but based solely on his sovereign will. We weren't chosen because we were better than the other animals, we are better than the other animals because we were chosen. If God had chosen dolphins or eagles then they would have become rational creatures while we stayed beasts of instinct.
This is SUCH A HELPFUL TOPIC. Before I became a Christian, I always wanted to be a paleontologist. I’ve always been fascinated by ancient biology and knew quite a bit about it. When I became a Christian, I just assumed that everything that I learned couldn’t be true! To bring together God’s creation (in science) and God’s word is so important, and it’s amazing that you are a voice of reason in this. Just because someone doesn’t subscribe to young earth doesn’t mean they reject God’s Word. Someone being so divisive because of this issue is unwise at best
@@michaelbrickley2443 - Hebrews 4, 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. - Not man decides / determines 'truth'. God's word, the Bible, is Truth (John 17, 17).
Anyone that supports evolution can't be a voice of reason. Do you believe Genesis or not? And don't tell me "I believe in theistic evolution", because that's would be an oxymoron.
@@JesusProtects Yes, but believe in it as a book written by man not God. And since you seem to have no idea about the nature of stories told in that part of the world, I think I’ll take science over just some fundi telling me the book is literal. Read 7 Days by John Lennox and get an education. The Bible was not written in English. Shalom
Just stumbled onto your UA-cam channel. Absolutely top class. To quote your own reference to another author, but about your own presentations: “Brilliant and balanced”- marked by conciseness, clarity and kindness. Well done!!!
@@TruthUnites thanks for the reply! By the grace of God I made it through and strengthened my faith! I ended up in a doctrinally sound Reformed Church, and gained a new love and appreciation for God's Word and confessional theology.
Thank you so much for discussing these topics. I really look forward to your future videos on the flood and creation! As a very ‘conservative’ Christian who is also very excited by science and astrophysics, it’s really refreshing to hear some fair-minded non-YEC thoughts on these topics. YEC thinking dominates my circles it seems.
Great video Gavin! This summarized my thoughts as well. I also find it interesting that Christ ate fish in his resurrected body which means that resurrected people who are perfect can still eat animals, which at least strains at the idea that animal death apart from sin is evil.
It's not sin and even creationists don't think it's sin. Why would it be sin if God gave permission in Genesis 9? The issue is would an all-powerful all loving good Creator create a world of predation, disease, torture and waste THEN say he "created it very good" and animals to eat vegetation ONLY THEN to send his own son into the world to heal and deliver us from what he created? Seems impossible
@@stephenglasse9756 Where does it say he created the animals to eat vegetation only? And why would a perfect body be able to eat meat if perfect bodies were created to eat only plants?
@@TheRoark there's no reason why a 'perfect body' wouldn't be able to eat meat? Some animals only eat vegetation some eat only 'meat' some can digest both. Obviously human beings had the capacity to do both. It just means both pathways were there in A&E. Why do angels have the capacity to eat bread as in the BOOK OF JUDGES?
You’re making time think. 🤔 I’ve been raised YEC and only have run across Christians in my adult years that are OEC, so am still wrapping my mind around it. You’re giving me a lot to consider.
death came to the entire universe through the first sin! This will explain why plants and animals die! Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter! The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin! First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview comes close to the Bible, in explaining it! The first two laws of thermodynamics! So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here! DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“! God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there! Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job! 3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing! The Bible Predicted telecommunications
I can recommend "Evidence and Reasons Academy" as a YEC who is doing some propper science and someone who invites scientists for interviews. He has a few channels and the academy one is the one where he does the most indepth stuff.
Consider this you today LIVE IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 2023 AS FORETOLD by a 7 day week AS WRITTEN. The Jews didn't evangelize. Genesis is objectively true AS WE SPEAK. The only people questioning this are those trying to fit evolution and the wisdom of this world which is FOOLISHNESS WITH GOD. God wrote with his FINGER on stone tablets CONFIRMING he made EVERYTHING in 6 days and rested on 7th. The Sabbath is proof of literal event that occurred. Just as Passover proves EXODUS literal event passed down. Which also foretells the Lord Jesus Christ. ua-cam.com/video/-GcsEU_aIjc/v-deo.htmlsi=y9quLZsePwu0oQEv
What he said hardly made any sense to me. It felt as though he were akin to a skilled defense attorney attempting to exonerate a client clearly guilty of murder. He seemed to be distorting ideas, interweaving them to construct a narrative that doesn't reflect reality, all in an effort to persuade you of an untrue version of events.
I don't wonder about the science or literalism at all. Trying to read the Bible with the eyes of an ancient Hebrew is my goal. I don't think I'm supposed to care about Creationism vs Evolution, Old vs. Young at all. I'm looking for What God Is Doing, what are the symbols and how do they work? It's so important to work through what the writers of the Bible were trying to convey to the people of God. Were they trying to tell them they needed to believe in a 24 hour day 7 day creation account from 6K years ago? I do not think so. Reading Peter Leithart on these subjects has helped me so much.
I'm someone who comes from, and currently still favors a YEC case for the origin of life, but I can appreciate the weight and reasoning of theologically rooted OEC supporters. I absolutely make a distinction between people like Gavin who approach this from a theological and spiritual perspective seeking truth, rather than that of some others who embrace OEC and even outright evolution entirely to comply with culture. And I also agree this is not an issue that is so clear and necessary in scripture that people should be splitting churches and declaring each other to be in danger of damnation over. One thing that often confuses me though is that I keep hearing claims that science definitively supports an old earth. I simply do not see this evidence as either abundant or compelling. I think that much of the evidence can support either model, and that much of the YEC model's evidence is often overlooked either because people aren't aware of it, or because there are some unfortunate claims that famous YEC supporters like Ken Ham have made (like that denying a six day creation can put you outside Orthodoxy) that are more important to focus on.
Completely agree. I'm in the same boat you are. I'm YEC but I don't think it's an issue to split over and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean you aren't a true Christian if you're OEC.
@@historymajor26 particularly if you're seeking truth like Gavin and many others are. I don't know a percentage but I'd guess the majority of OEC folks are quite genuine in their pursuit of truth and not just bowing to the culture
@@tategarrett3042 Good to have some fellow YEC brothers who are willing to hear the other side in secerity, but still hold to what we beleive is true. i'd also like someone who is OEC to explain what evidence is convincing for an old earth. personally i haven't heard anything that seemed very weighty
@@benjaminwatt2436how about science and the insistence that Genesis is to be read literally? You have Ken Ham and very small, tiny amount of scientists. There’s a great essay from a former YEC believer who was going to school and realized YEC doesn’t have real science to back it up. 🎉It’s promoted by people who believe and they share what they think backs them up. Essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water for what they call Biblical truth. The sciences have proven much of the Bible true
Gavin stated one of the reasons he cares about this is he thinks adopting a YEC position leads some people to leave their faith. How is that a pure concern for hermeneutics?
While I do believe the earth is less than 20K years old, this could just be because OEC and pro-lgbt things are both more common in the modern era. It could also be because pro-lgbt can be OEC and use that to claim the Bible is illegitimate and bound by it’s time.
An extremely astute question. The unwillingness to interpret Genesis based on modern conclusions about science is directly tied to an unwillingness to interpret other passages based on modern conclusions about ethics. The same mistaken methodology is at work in both.
no, but I have never heard of a geocentrist who affirms same-sex relationships, either. It does not follow that geocentrism is true. This kind of litmus test is not a sound basis of truth.
@@TruthUnitesFair point, but on your argument about the universe seemingly showing its age. I agree with what you are saying, but who's the say that God didn't created things that looked older? For example I don't think Adam was made as an infant. Isn't it logical that God made the universe complete rather than an undeveloped one?
I heard him lecture on this topic several years ago. It was very good. But engaging Ken Ham is easier than engaging with a scientific PhD so you don't see as many people actually engage Lisle on that or other topics.
@@briandiehl9257 You should go look up what Dr. Lisle has to say about it, since this falls directly within his field of academic study. You may even learn something new.
The problem with Dr. Lisle's theory is that it can't be tested and is therefore both unproveable and unfalsifiable. Besides trying to account for a young universe, there is no reason to hypothesize that photons behave that way.
Honestly I think a lot of the controversy comes down to the fact that the creation debate is mostly third tier, but a literal Adam and Eve from whom all humanity descend is borderline first-tier because otherwise the core teaching that sin and human death entered the world through Adam makes less sense.
Why should we assume that the "death" that resulted from sin was "physical" death? Especially when the scriptures explicitly tell us that "only" Christ has immortality?
Hi Gavin, another issue I’d be keen to hear you address are the bible verses which seem to indicate that humanity was created at the beginning period of creation. They don’t seem to fit with the view that we’ve only been around for the last tiny percent of time: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Mark 10:6 “His… divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world.” Romans 1:20
Thanks for a gentle but carefully reasoned review of these topics! When I was in HS/college in the late 90s to early 00s, the YEC literature was a lifeline to me for proving that science could be understood through a Christian worldview. However, as time progressed I realized that the leading voices of the YEC view had led me away from carefully reading Scripture without assumptions, particularly on issues of what death is and where it enters the timeline of the natural world. I later realized that much of this was coming from a Restoration Theology framework that I do not believe Scripture teaches. Since then I've tried to become more open minded on Genesis 1-2 and actually check claims made (from both sides) against Scripture.
Great video as always, I would love to see a video dedicated to natural revelation and the idea of "man's science vs god's word." Often times flat earthers and geo-centrists are laughed off as a joke, but there is a not insignificant amount of Christians who believe that all science is a big conspiracy of idol worshippers designed to subvert Christianity. It would be nice to see a humble and loving response to this line of thinking. Thank you for your work, you're a very important link between lay Christians and complicated theology and history topics. It's criminal that your channel doesn't have millions of viewers.
I wouldn’t say it is a conspiracy, but there is a solid majority of sciences who’s practitioners operate under false assumptions about the world: namely, philosophical materialism/naturalism.
I think more helpful than debunking Christians well known for going overboard with their Creationism like mr. Ham would be a constructive dialogue with a well read, irenic Creationist with whom you can reason dr. Ortlund. For example, Marcus Ross. Please invite someone like that on your channel and make it a more fruitful quest.
Agreed. I attended the International Conference on creationism this year and Ham was not one of the theological or scientific presenters. In robust Biblical creationism/yec, he is not the leading thinker, just one with a big platform. Dr. Bill Barrick, Dr. Rob Carter or Dr. Marcus Ross would be better ones to talk to and interact with their work.
@pastorzhhicks Well as he said, he's not trying to disprove the Young Earth. He's just trying to prove that science is not the only reason people reject that view.
@@Draezeth And in the process of trying to show that science is not the only reason, the secular scientific consensus is something he brings up in every single video that he talks about this... funny how that works. You take the secular scientific consensus out of it, whether it is now or the philosophical/scientific ideas present in some of the fathers he named, and instead begin with the text, you don't get an Old Earth. Without exception, rejections of a young earth view require a starting point of a philosophical or scientific viewpoint that rejects six 24 hour days before exegesis begins. In some of the fathers it was various forms of platonism, today it's the conclusion of scientists who do not consider the testimony of Scripture at all as they make their conclusions about the history of the earth.
In part 3, Gavin claims that death before the fall is not necessarily “evil”. I’m going to frame this differently from most other YEC. I think that SUFFERING before the fall seems UNNECESSARILY HARD on animals. We and the Creation suffer now purposefully - to prepare us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison to the suffering. But why would an omnipotent and kind God choose to start His project with millions of years of animal suffering - when He could just as easily create a perfect world without suffering where every creature ate plants?? Suffering rather than death is the moral issue. We wouldn’t have a problem with death if there was no pain or loss involved e.g. if it was simply exiting to a better life painlessly and we could still live our dreams and be with our loved ones. Hence too, the “death” of non-sentient plants is not a moral issue. But the promise/curse in Gen 2:17 is that “dying we shall die” (= one translation of the Hebrew repetition “mut mut” ). This translation indicates and foreshadows the difficult process of death involved for humans and other sentient creatures. Not for plants though, it seems - no nervous systems, no pain receptors. And God gives the green plants for food for the rest (Gen 1:30). Thus I, like other YEC proponents, also would “draw the line of death” between non-sentient plants and sentient animals. I think every other biological kingdom could fit into either in the non-suffering, biosphere-enabling and food-for-others camp… OR… the sentient, also-suffers, plant-eater camp. However, I think the suffering of insects and microscopic animals is likely to be very minimal. Also there are pain-reducing mechanisms built into human and animals that are activated by likely fatal wounds. I note too that Paul does NOT seem to have in mind just human death in Romans as Gavin says, since in Rom 8:20 he talks about “the whole creation having been subjected to futility unwillingly.” Given that Paul explicitly links the ending of this futility to humanity’s eventual physical redemption (Rom 8:21), it seems that he is implicitly indicating that the creation was subjected to futility because of the sin that entered “the world” (Rom 5:12) through Adam’s sin.
Something I don’t get about YEC is that they often believe in a literal flood. So you ask them how every species could be on the Ark. And then they say it’s not a species but a kind, and all the different species descended from the kinds. But that would imply an extreme amount of Evolution to go from X amount of kinds that would fit on a boat to Y number of species alive today in just 6,000 years. So they frequently argue that Evolution can’t happen even over billions of years. But that it can happen over a few thousand years.
You are refering to speciezation, not evolution. everyone agrees animals can change specie, not everyone agrees they can change animal kind. animal speciezations is very quick, sometimes only a few generations. you can see this in a huge number of animals from fish to birds and so on. while i understand a global flood is extraordinary, it does seem to fit with the text and evidence for a global flood seems very strong to me. i'd say there is more evidence for a global flood than a young earth
Yes, YECs have to assume an incredibly rapid hyperevolution and spread around the world post flood for this to work in the 6000 year timeframe. They tend to describe it in terms of microevolution or speciation, in their "kinds" though.
@@skyorrichegg Correct I agree that speciezation an occur during that time period. But for every kind of animal to such an extent that it goes from the number that can fit on a boat to all the species of land animals today, that’s just not possible.
The stories of Genesis 1 - 11 were ancient in Moses' day. But then Ham wants to read them like modern texts. No. We have to understand how people told stories back then. Maybe one of the closest things we have in the 21st century is memes. Very short, simple, unforgettable, picture stories. Eve being tempted by the serpent. Noah's ark. etc. You couldn't forget them if you tried.
I finished your book about Augustine’s view of creation and it has been such a blessing. It was only the grace of God that my faith held up through public school after taking classes on biology and astronomy. This burden has been lifted after seeing figures like Augustine or B.B Warfield embrace different interpretations of Genesis and creation as a whole
Or maybe the lying world of men is, no surprise, lying to you? Have you even thought about the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the atheist bias of those scientists may have played a role in their interpretation of the so called evidence? And what about the multiple missing link frauds? And what about the trees fossilized in an upright position throu several layers of supposed millions of years? And what about the words of God when he tell us that we should not trust in our own understanding but on his perfect knowledge.
To make your videos on the creation account as helpful as your videos on things like Catholic dogmas, I think you need to actually engage the stronger versions of the YEC position. A book like "The Ultimate Proof of Creation", written by a PhD, in the Reformed tradition (specifically the Van Til tradition), with a lot of work dealing with logical fallacies and an appendix on hermeneutic method, is much more worthy of engaging with than the latest inflammatory Ken Ham quote, and it's written by a guy (Jason Lisle) who is just as well known in YEC circles as Ham is, and by many, much more highly regarded. Doing this the way you have, it just feels like you're going after the weakest version of arguments for the position which doesn't seem very helpful for anything other than creating a false perception of the strength, depth, and nature of the YEC position.
Thanks for the comment, I will keep my eyes peeled for that book. I would disagree that engaging Ken Ham is "going after the weakest version" of YEC. He is extremely influential and thus needs to be engaged, and the arguments I am addressing here at the three most common ones I hear across the board. It is necessary to address what is widely held and argued.
It’s fair game to go after Ken Ham. He was very influential to my family, my church, and I. Ken Ham speaks more to the layman than other creationists do.
@@SneakyEmu Even within AIG there are people with doctorate degrees that further arguments far far more complex than what's being addressed in this video. Opening a book by a PhD rather than grabbing a few quotes off of Ken Ham (some even from a podcast) that are clearly going to be in a truncated form would be far more productive.
Gavin I absolutely love your heart and your channel, especially on the ecumenical topics. And I'm grateful for this Part 2 video to clarify much of what you mean to say and to help me to learn more about your old-age perspective. This topic is a tender one for many and for me as old-age theories and evolution led me astray from Christianity for almost two years in high school and college. It was because everyone who proposed those theories had a zealous anti-christian worldview. It was guys like Ken Ham, the AIG team, Institute for Creation Research, Michael Behe, Dr. Stephen Meyer, etc and many others who saw myriads of common youth like myself being led astray by anti-christian worldview science, that absolutely gave great doubt to the rest of biblical truth in the late 21st century, and decided to do their homework theologically and scientifically to try to save or recapture the mass youth exodus. They have received incredible amounts of slander for their work from the secular community and christians which is worth noting. There are some mysteries in the Creation account, yes, but AIG and others like them make a great effort to tackle and explain those mysteries and I honestly find that non-YEC's just don't dig in AIG's extensive and exhaustive work in defending the Creation account and I'm not sure why. I hope we can soberly understand and sincerely honor Ken Ham's zeal in his work in the face of certain 19th century theories that have bore destructive fruits on christians in the public schools ever since.
I hear your pain. I was brought up in a church that taught young earth creation. Went through school and university still believing in young earth. That changed when I was in my early 20s and went to a museum and saw ancient dinosaur fossils and fully reconstructed dinosaur skeletons. It did not shake my faith in God but I had to "re-write" a lot of software in my head. Unfortunately, many do lose their faith. There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 that is in compete agreement with scientific observations of the universe. I wish I could share it with you but this format will not allow for it.
Respectfully @jeremystrand7095 - I do not think Ken Ham's zeal, which leads to an absolute insistence on literal 24-hour days being the *only* faithful interpretation is something we should honor - regardless of position. I'm so happy to hear you came back to the Lord after a period of doubt - and I'm sure you are not the only person for whom AIG has done that. However in my view AIG and Ken Ham create a false dichotomy, and conflate the anti-christian worldview (humanism - there is no God) which we should rally against, with the mechanism (evolution, created mature, something else) which we should be able to disagree on. Ken Ham makes me, previously YEC, an outsider, along with so many millions of Christians through the ages. It burdens me, and just seems so very unnecessary.
I've seen this point made in similar ways by others and the same thought always occurs to me. Could you see a flip side of this argument? If you hadn't been raised to believe that YEC was essential and undeniable would you have been lead astray by learning evolutionary science? I understand (from personal experience!) how complex losing your faith can be but I think this same argument could be used to argue against holding up YEC as an essential aspect of our faith if it contributes to so many people having there faith shaken.
@@zakkonieczka6811 I understand what you mean and I'm certain the flip side experience is true. I think though that most everyone agrees that for the common christian, a simple reading of Genesis tells of a six 24-hr day creation account with day/yom, morning and evening specificity, and Go'd calling back to 6 day creation, 7 day rest in Genesis when giving the law for the Sabbath. That paired with the genealogy traced back from Jesus to Adam just doesn't speak of billions of years at face value. And maybe it would be worth adding that christians haven't been spearheading billion-year theories and evolution to glorify God and make Genesis understandable. Its scientists who generally have an agnostic/atheist worldview who relish in any science, or interpretation of science, to promote their worldview against christianity. So it seems like if a man gets saved while in a related science field, yes - literal 6 day creation will be problematic. But, it also seems like there isn't much interest in many YEC organizations to see many alternative explanations and theories on some Genesis mysteries especially given the ever-changing nature of the mainstream science community. (For instance, now I've seen articles that whales evolved from dogs and humans evolved from squirrels - not kidding.) And I think its because the mainstream science community looks at YECs and related scientific communities as sub-par which is either an unconscious or conscious bias which I can definitely understand and sympathize with. But there are great minds and good alternative theories and explanations out there. Bless you friend.
Gavin, I'm a 52 year old Evangelical Free Church pastor, and I've just found your channel. I love it. Feels like some good seminary classes! Of all biblical issues, the flood passage is still the most intractable to me. I still read the text as best interpreted as global, while the best physical evidence does not seem to indicate that. I live with some tension on this issue. I'm okay with not having it resolved, but I'm still open to learning. I'm very curious about your take.
... but not very wise in light of God's word: Proverbs 1, 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. - Colossians 2, 3 Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
@@axderka - The most obvious explanation is lack of information. - Only a global flood is as well in accordance with God's revelation, the Bible, as with globally observable traces of the global flood. The problem is: if you wear the spectacles of the naturalistic evolutionary world view you cannot but see things in this interpretation without any relevance in relation to the Truth.
@@axderka I understand that is how many Old Earth Creationists handle it, but I don't think that is the best interpretation of the text. It seems forced based upon coming to the text with an outside understanding already in mind. I also understand that the ancient near eastern people had a very different understanding of cosmology, but the original readers, whether after the Exodus or after it was compiled in the Babylonian exile, would almost certainly have understood that all animal life was wiped out and that all the surface of the earth was covered. They may not have understood a round globe or continents, but the text seems to go to some pains to make it clear that all animal life and all the surface of the earth was covered. Using the grammatical historic method and understanding that the meaning of the text comes from what the original author (Moses) meant to say to the original readers (Hebrews in Moses' time), it is hard for me to see how they would have understood it any other way. PS. I'm an Old Earth Creationsist, and I'm quite comfortable with the understanding that Genesis 1-2 do not demand a young earth.
That intro was brilliant 😂😂 Here to be sharpened theologically and intellectually too. May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with you and your family, Dr Gavin #from Kenya This video was funny😂. I was laughing a lot throughout the video. Ah, the Word of God is full of joy mahn.
Excellent discussion on this. I'd also add to your discussion on all death not being evil that in John 12:24, Jesus, when speaking about His coming death, says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." He doesn't seem to have an issue with plant death, but see the fruitful result of that.
In the garden every herb was given as food, but in the days of Noah Gen 6:11 We see that even the animals (all living things) are cursed for filling the world with violence. Doesn't explicitly says animal predation was wrong, but it seems strange if animal predation was standard, that animals be cursed for their violence.
I believe plants are a special creation in that when a part of them dies it produces more of them. Man and animals do not do that. Our seed is living and must be in order to reproduce, which creates a new life.. Jesus is the only “seed” of the woman which produced life from his death, as he gave the example of the seed only referring to Himself. I do not believe there is any relevant equality or comparison between death of a seed and the death of an animal.
@@bytesizedbible Genesis 6:11-14 all flesh had corrupted his way and was intended for destruction, while the mellenium describes the lion, often described as voracious and murderous, lying with the lamb without violence. Maybe to call them "cursed" is careless. Corrupted is the word he actually used.
@kriegjaeger It's interesting that it does actually say flesh in veres 12, 13, 17, and 19. Verse 19 is exclusively about animals. The word for corrupt, however, in veses 12-13 in Hebrew actually means morally corrupt. So, I'm not sure how animals could be morally corrupt. It is true that the mandate to subdue the Earth was not happening, and therefore, I guess there is a corruption of the natural order that God wanted to be done. But this still doesn't make the animals morally culpable. It seems that being destroyed as an animal was due to mankind only, as verse 7 seems to indicate. If God was to wipe out all the humans via a flood, the earth and animals and flora and everything on the earth would also be wiped out except maybe the water animals. However, the receeding of the flood waters would wipe them out a lot too in the end for those stranded on the now dry ground again. As for the Isaiah 11v6 and 65v25 where the wolf will live with/feed together with the lamb, and the lion will lay down with the yearling and calf and eat straw like an ox, this is indeed in the new earth where Jesus will rule. In this earth now, even before sin, Adam and Eve lived in a garden. Why live in a garden if the rest of the world was also a paradise? Also, why give the mandate to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1v28, the word subdue is a strong warlike word. It is a violent word in Hebrew. What is to be subdued if the animals were all cohabiting with kids and each other? What exactly is there to subdue? There is a theory that the animal like gods and half human/half animals we see in art in places like Egypt, etc, are actually what happened before the flood. Some suppose that they had the knowledge from the "sons of God" to corrupt themselves with gene splicing and thus making half breeds. However, this seems to be lacking from scripture as well as any evidence from archaeology. It seems to make much more sense to believe these are just the outworkings of humans worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. These could be fallen angels or spirit beings as we see half breed like creatures in heaven in the book Ezekiel and Revelation. However, both books deal with symbolism a lot, and so it is hard to say if we should take it literally or not. The destruction is linked with the previous verses with the Sons of God and daughters of men producing the Nephilim. God was no longer ruling in any capacity in the hearts of men except with Noah and his family. All else were following their evil desires and violence. All this to say that I am not sure we can link animals with being corrupt and thus destroyed. If that is the case, then were the animals being saved on the ark not corrupted and violent? If so, why do we not see this today? Have they been corrupted again? This made me really think and research more into this topic. Thank you for that! Quite interesting stuff! May the Spirit lead us into all Truth!
Two ideas: 1. Going over your understanding of the Tower of Babel and the significance of that narrative. 2. Your thoughts on the age of Adam and his descendants.
Based on his videos on Noah and Creation, I’d say he doesn’t think Adam was a real man, and there’s no actual garden, nor any real fall, let alone a tower in anyplace called Babel.
Gavin, Have you read Creation Ministries’ Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s book “The Genesis Account” It is a thorough commentary on Genesis 1 to 11. It would be very helpful and instructive if you would give your thoughts on it in depth as you have in this presentation. Thanks.
A good recommendation. It's very easy to create the perception that YEC doesn't have stronger arguments when all his videos on the topic avoid more academic versions of the exegesis and science.
I’m excited for the video on Noah’s flood, I don’t understand on an evolutionarily creation position how Noah’s flood could wipe off everybody on the earth, except for the few people the Bible says survived. Actually, now that I think about it, I can kind of see how it could work out, Its just is a little difficult to accept
I don't know if it helps but there is ample physical/geological evidence for the flood. I'm very thankful that modern science and research has continued to affirm what the Bible teaches as historical fact.
Most do not take Noah’s flood to be global. There’s actually good exegetical reasons not to. The word used for whole earth in Hebrew is “erets” which means earth, land, nation, etc… It can mean both the whole earth or the whole land. The same Hebrew words to say the “whole earth” were used in the story of Joseph when describing the famine. Multiple times it said there was a famine over the “whole earth.” We later find out that the famine was in Canaan and Egypt. The whole earth really meant the whole land (of Canaan and Egypt). We have to understand that the bible is narrative driven, not scientifically driven. In Genesis 6 from the narrative the “whole land” is the middle-east. Further proof is the table of nations in Genesis 10. The nations listed are what was considered the “whole earth” even though it says nothing of the Americas, Australia, China, etc… Many scholars touch on this topic but if you want easy to access and easy to understand content I recommend watching Michael Heiser’s videos of the flood on UA-cam.
Adam and Eve were vegetarians. God didn’t allow eating of meat until after the flood. Animals were vegetarians too. Many animals have teeth that look like they are for meat but are used for plants. See the panda who eats bamboo but needs stronger teeth. Everyone and all animals will become vegetarians in the new heaven and earth when the wolf lays down with the lamb.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5roNope. 1:28 "...**have dominion over** the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over every living thing upon the earth." God gives man special authority and responsibility over the rest of creation, as he is made in the image of God Himself. How do I know "dominion" is NOT a reference to eating? Because God literally clarifies in the literal next two verses: 1:29 "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you **every herb bearing seed,** which is upon the face of the whole earth, **and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.**" He then EXTRA clarifies that the exact same provision of herb and tree for food ALSO applied to the animals: 1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepth on the earth, wherein there is life, **I have given every green herb for meat.'** And it was so." Genesis 9's meaning is even more explicitly obvious with this context, as it uses a lot of the same language and makes intentional changes to reflect God changing the rules post-flood: 9:2 (To Noah and his sons) "And the **fear and dread of you** will be upon every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered." (A pretty stark contrast from the original promise, as the animals were not implied to fear Adam. "Delivering into the hand" is a phrase often used of God when referring to armies being conquered in war. This is very aggressive language, not at all like the "dominion over them" talk earlier.) 9:3 **"Every moving thing shall be meat for you; even as the green herb I have given you all things."** I literally do not know how much more explicitly God could put this. It's an extremely black and white phrase. He is quite literally calling back to His original command and explicitly stating how it has changed. And then He clarifies what PART of the animal not to eat: 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, **which is the blood thereof,** shall ye not eat." It's laid out in incredibly simple language. Even in the KJV the meaning is incredibly clear. You also didn't even attempt to answer the promise of the lion lying down with the lamb, but it's a very pertinent question: if not only did death exist BEFORE Adam and sin (in a "good" world, God's "perfect" creation), and not only death but violent carnivory among animals, why on earth would God suddenly promise the absence of killing and death even among mere animals in the "New Earth"? Was the original actually not very good, and He was calling it good for no reason...? Why would he "fix" the ills of the world by removing a feature, not a bug?
No death before the fall of Adam/Eve, man and animals ate fruit of the land,, Romans 8 tells that the whole creation groaneth waiting for the adoption, for the creature was made subject to vanity , not willingly but suffers now because of the fall of our first parents etc
@@Romans5.1I don't think anyone would disagree with the quote from Paul, it's the interpretation that is in question. What would need to be establish is that the groaning/waiting and the subjection to vanity, and the unwilling suffering of creation is equivalent to non-human death. Otherwise, it's begging the question to simply assume that Paul is addressing YEC concerns as the point of the Romans 8. I note that in Genesis 4, the distress of the ground that "opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand" resulted from human violence and death, not animal violence and death. The Earth is negatively impacted by sinful human behavior. It is sinful humanity that corrupts the earth and therefore the appearing of the sons of God and the adoption as son (which will come with the redemption of our bodies) that will end the earth's bondage. This isn't hard to see even when we look at the last 150 years of human history: Love Canal, Blood stained fields in numerous wars, Atomic bomb fallout, etc.
@@TruthUnitesyou should speak with more normal people and less "theologians". Anyone can be a theologian, even atheists, only sons of God can interpret the bible correctly, unless they start listening and trusting in someone else, like theologians.
This is another superb and clear-minded presentation by Gavin Ortlund. It might be worth noting that Adam was mortal from the beginning. This is evident from the fact that continuation of his life was dependent on eating from the tree of life. When he sinned, he was blocked from the tree of life. On that day his eventual death became inevitable, and that of his offspring as well. So if Adam was created as a mortal human, prior to the fall, it should be no surprise that the animals were created mortal as well.
Thank you! We need more thoughtful Christians like you addressing the heavy yoke Ken Ham puts on Bible believing Christians. Thank you for addressing this so carefully.
@@andygray5138 beware of the made up interpretation reading between the lines because it doesn't exist. Evolution is nonsense and theistic evolution is an insult to God, and is ok to say it because we are defending scripture from error and preventing others from potentially losing faith in the future, because once you open the gates of "this is metaphorical" it never stops. Trust me, I've seen it a lot.
The yoke has always been light, but perhaps not to those who care about the opinions of man. Especially men that have nothing but contempt for your faith.
Why should Ken Ham waste his time with someone who wouldn't listen to the whole context of God's word, the Bible? Luke 16, 29 Abraham saith unto him, *They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.* 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, *If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.*
Having spent most of my life as a young earth creationist I appreciate these discussions. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 for me is the key and if we can agree on that, I think we can have different perspectives about the specifics and details. It is disappointing to see those who make the young earth vs old earth a point of fellowship.
The one thing you’re missing is that “heavens and earth” is covenant language. Moses isn’t speaking to physical creation ““Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.” Deuteronomy 32:1
Regarding your overall conclusion, I think OECs and YECs are both trying to affirm the historicity of Genesis, truthfulness of Scripture and goodness of God. What's debatable is how successful each side is in affirming these things, because it's possible to hold views that logically undermine something that you otherwise affirm. In response to your three topics: 1. Historicity: I agree that the accusation of denying historicity is often overstated. But your interpretation of Genesis 1 must genuinely respect the literary genre and the details of the text. You can't just point to complexities and assume it opens the door to whatever interpretation happens to agree with currently fashionable naturalistic interpretations of scientific data. 2. Science: a. You can't decide whether something is evidence for an old earth until you've evaluated how it fits in both the young earth and old earth models (and there may be multiple models of each). So merely listing things that have popular old earth interpretations is not helpful. And it seems that very few OECs actually get into specifics on these topics, they tend to just accept the old earth interpretation and assume that it's the only available interpretation. Most of the scientific data fit quite well in either paradigm, but there are many examples where YEC does a better job of explaining the data. I could also say about OECs that they are "maybe not aware of how powerful the evidence is" for a young earth. b. "Fictitious history" is not a problem for most YEC views on distant starlight, it's only a problem for the very weak one that you keep bringing up. 3. Animal death: I agree that the issue of animal death is more complicated than many are acknowledging, and this is something I've thought about before. Drawing the boundary of what died before the Fall is hard. But, just because it's hard to draw the line doesn't mean there aren't clear examples of something being on one side of the line or the other. Many OECs agree that Adam's sin broke the world. There is cancer in the fossil record. When you look into the details of what cancer is, it's so obviously a breaking of God's good design, such that the systems that were designed for flourishing of life become agents of chaos and destruction. So we don't have to perfectly draw the line of pre-Fall death to know that many things in the fossil record are clearly post-Fall.
Thanks for the comment Daniel, I appreciate respectful interaction. Just a question (and my goal is to understand), when you say, "'Fictitious history' is not a problem for most YEC views on distant starlight, it's only a problem for the very weak one that you keep bringing up," what do you mean?
@@TruthUnites Knowledgeable YECs have been saying for many years that light created in transit is not a good explanation of distant starlight for exactly the reason you highlight. Other models would say that the light we are seeing does not represent fictitious events, they are real things that happened, but the light did not require billions of years to elapse on earth to reach us. For example, I believe Humphreys' model would say that billions of years passed in the outer universe during one day on earth due to gravitational time dilation.
@@danielklassen1513 Thanks for the reply. I get mixed reports on the "created in transit" answer so its tough for me to know who is considered "knowledgeable" and who isn't. I appreciate you mentioning another model, but I struggle to understand how the other models (both the ones I read about, and what you mention here) don't result in their own kind of fictitious history.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for your responses Gavin. I enjoy talking about these things and I love that we can have these conversations among brothers. I guess I don't really understand your objection to the other models, but I'm happy to leave it there.
@@TruthUnites I don't mean to oversimplify things, but one thing that always struck me as being an unnecessary conflict between OEC and YEC models is the light and "apparent age" that it implies, according to current scientific models, for the stars at the far ends of the universe. When God created the universe he broke every natural law that governs it today - creating something from nothing, bringing forth heat from absolute zero, and life from death, so the idea of creating the light between the most distant galaxies and us at the same time hardly seems like an issue to me. Especially since we know that God created the heavens to declare his glory, and thus if we couldn't see and appreciate them they wouldn't be able to fulfill their purpose.
I'm now about half an hour through in this video, and I hear you give loads and loads of reasons from logic and naturalism. Problem is that most if not all of them are founded in naturalism. For example the universe must be millions of years old because light took that long to get here. Really? We haven't the slightest clue (except for naturalistic models!) of how starlight travels, and there are indications that it isn't actually old light. You talk about craters, assuming those occur incidentally, yet that presupposes uniformity of events. Light before stars as a reason to doubt historicity? Why? Because it isn't according to naturalistic properties. Note that none of those stem from scripture itself, as you claim.
An error spoken with kindness is still an error. Would you agree? Then what is the point on building bridges with error? Please tell me. Think for some time before writing an answer and try to not have that knee jerk reaction that we all have when defending a friend while doing it please. Consider scripture and forget about everything else. What is written in the text? Do you see evolution in the text in any way?
_Revelation 2.10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation._ Is the church in Smyrna going to suffer persecution for only 240 hours? Not likely.
I still think it is a slam dunk to point out that the creation story had no eye witness, so the literality cannot be known without "special knowledge".
Great point, i would to point out, generally creationist over come this by saying God was the eye witness, however, that anwer misses the point. honestly i think its a serious question that both sides need to consider
Not really. Jesus is an eye witness to & partaker in Creation as a member of the Trinity who testifies his special knowledge by referencing the scriptural account itself (Genesis) regarding creation, the nature of the human condition, and marriage “from the beginning” multiple times in the Gospel accounts.
@@TheologyVisualized I agree with you except that the IAM is one. (Deut 6.4) Mark 12.29: “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." - this is a Commandment.
Also, literal =/= materialistic interpretation. We are so immerse in a materialistic cosmology, that we think that the word "literal" refers to that, in contrast to "symbolic" as a lesser truth.
Agree. I saw a discussion (not the level of a debate) about new earth (Ken Ham) and old earth (Hugh Ross). I thought Ham was very argumentative and denigrating (eg name calling) in his presentation. Ross was very methodical in his presentation and stuck to the facts. Ken Ham interrupted Ross many times when Ross was speaking, yet Ross did not interrupt Ham or elevate the rhetoric to Ham’s level. Ross never interrupted Ham. Ross kept presenting his evidence, which Ham never refuted. Ham, a theologian, argued from Genesis 1 about the creation of the Earth. Ross an astrophysicist, argued from the many accounts of creation in Scripture as well as characteristics of the Universe. I think I know who knows more about the way the world and universe operate. I believe both are Christians. If I had to choose which one I was most persuaded by based on this interaction (which one of these showed humility and politeness (they ACTED like they were Christians)) I’d choose Dr. Hugh Ross hands down. Full disclosure: earlier in my life I was a young earth creationist. Today I’m a big Hugh Ross fan and old earth creationist.
I cannot image at all that God's orginal design focused around death as the main mechanism for bringing about humanity, the Bible is so clear how God hates death.
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro He created humans with the "capacity" to sin, not sin directly. Why did he create humans for the capacity to sin, well there are many many theodicies for reasons why, for free will, greater goods, His ultimate plans, and so on and so forth. Bottomline for me is He called His first creation "good", the creation without sin, without death, without suffering, this makes sense to me, regardless what happens later in the timeline with sin and whatnot, I cannot imagine the currently world we live in God would call good, so before the fall of man "good", after the fall with sin and death as a consequence not ideal, not his orginal good creation.
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Well, I would lean young earth, so not millions but thousands of years. Also, God planned for it, sent his Son, carried the punishment for all of our sinning, eternal life, all that Jazz. But I mean, would you rather he just destroy everyone? No life at all? Never given an opportunity to experience life whatsoever? What types of creatures would God want to create, just pieces of rocks? mean, we all sin, we all ruined the plans, so I mean it's not as clear you seem to think.
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Interesting so when it says do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or else you will surely die, doesn't sound like death was something they were not going to experience until they sinned and ate the tree? I mean what kind of consequence is death if they were already going to die anyway, and death was just already apart of life? Also, the Bible is clear God hates death, so why would he call His first creation, which revolves around death good? So I hate feces, so then I spread feces all over my room and call it good? Makes no sense lol
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Your two answers are ways you explain it but they are in no way conclusive, and not really convincing, they just do not seem like the plain reading of the text, they feel like work arounds. And as far as your "good" definition goes, it's just not Biblical. The Bible clearly says those who love death hate God, it makes no distinction between spiritual or natural death, just death. God hates all death, God is a God of life, life giving and life sustaining, unless of course one sins, for the wages of sin is death, but that is not His goal, it is always His goal to give life, life eternal. To think anything dying, even a plant wilting to dust, the notion of death just seems crazy to be the literal primary first method of God's choosing, to bring about mankind, i.e., evolution, makes absolutely no sense.
I found your YT channel recently, and am enjoying your content. You are covering things the Church needs to know. Since you are talking about the creation narrative, will you also continue through chapter 11? I hope you will cover Genesis 4:1 and possible translations. Thanks for sharing.
You will realize this guy is not a Christian when you listen to them. This man has no faith and does not believe Adam was created by God with eternal life, sinned and as a result death entered the world, then the flood came and the lifespan of man was reduced from a 1000 to 120 years. These are all supernatural events and this man”s infatuation with science and the natural have killed his faith in Jesus.
About Gavin’s second point where he tries to refute the accusation that those Christians who believe in millions of years because of “science” are taking “Man’s science over God’s truth”…. Gavin says, we “need to work hard to distinguish between valid scientific claims from invalid scientific claims”. I agree. Unfortunately, other things Gavin says, seem to indicate that he has not done this himself. For example, he has heard that lots of YECs don’t like the idea that God created the universe with a mere appearance of age - in fact most of us hate it for the same reason Gavin hates it - it smacks of deception. But although Gavin says he has been told there are other ideas, he doesn’t seem to know what they are because he goes straight back to saying how much damage YECs might cause with the appearance-of-age idea. So that really seems like a strawman argument there. Now it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of pages to give an adequate explanation of the most pertinent data from a YEC perspective - and for those interested to dig in I recommend the Creation Ministries International archive (I have no special association with them myself). I’ll make just a couple of points now to argue that Gavin really IS an unwitting apologist for Deep Time and has let atheistic interpretations of reality deeply influence his view of Scripture without him actually realising how much that is the case. (Not that it’s Gavin specifically I'm criticising. He is just doing a reasonable job of presenting the dominant modern Christian view in his characteristically respectful and personable way. And I’m a big fan of Gavin’s goals and channel generally. However, I have strong convictions about this topic in the opposite direction, which I am trying to express clearly and respectfully. ) Firstly, we don’t find “evidence of” Deep Time any where. What we find is reality in real time. We observe reality’s various “facts” and “data”. It only becomes “evidence for Deep Time” in the arguments we make for Deep Time. YEC’s use the same facts and data as “evidence for a Young Universe” in their arguments. As such it is scientific argument against scientific argument. One difference between the two schema, is that the YEC’s schema allows for a supernatural Creator Who both uses natural processes and, if they don’t already exist, makes those NPs ex nihilo. But this is a difference common to Christian evolutionists as well, who believe that God created at the start and intervened at other points, eg. the creation of Adam & Eve. Of course, atheists consider a recourse to anything non-natural as unscientific but actually they mischaracterise the problem. Really, the unscientific aspect is when scientists extrapolate from current physical data to the past. In contrast, science, in the purest sense, is about repeated, systematically-refined observations in real time. Extrapolation to the past (in the absence of any way to calibrate processes back into Deep Time) is not science. (History can study the past because it has eyewitness testimony (via ancient writings) to support the physical findings of archeology - but only back 5000 years ago.) Evolution has no such eyewitness testimony. Biologically, we only ever observing population genetics change - we never witness an increase in genetic information or specific complexity, not even when a comparative advantage is produced by genetic error (e.g. the lactose digestive enzyme control gene being damaged to allow human adults to drink milk.) The study of origins is not pure science because it also necessarily involves starting assumptions which are driven by prior philosophical standpoints. For example, Deep Time ideas began as an invention of anti-Flood atheists. They scrambled about for "scientific evidence” to support their prior bias. Radiometric dating came much later - 1950s. The point is that Evolution was not built from the beginning on “objective evidence” - no, the theory came first, then neutral data was explained so it would fit the story of naturalism, which in turn required Deep Time to supposedly allow things to “evolve” to their current state from nothing. To be clear, no fossil, tree ring, moon crater, geological formation, starlight, etc, etc ever came with a tag indicating its age. Age cannot in fact be observed or measured; time itself cannot be measured after the event - only during the passing of time by a clock of some kind. Age can only be calculated using physical characteristic interpreted through a set of assumptions, driven by one's starting philosophy. For example, a lot of rock was formed by the eruption of Mt Saint Helens in 1980. Then in 1990, some rocks formed in that event were sent to a mainstream labs for radiometric dating; they calculated their ages in the hundreds of thousands of years. Wrong! These rocks were only 10 years old! In fact, radiodating seems always wrong with rocks of known age - so why should we trust it with rocks of unknown age? (i.e. rocks whose formation was not observed and recorded in human history). How do evolutionary scientists deal with this problem? As I understand it, they just ignore it - google "Wrong radiometric dates, and why they matter" for more. Clearly, no deep time dating methods can ever be calibrated and checked - because we only have recent eyewitness evidence of rock formation (
There’s something almost Gnostic about the view creation is so corrupted we can’t even trust it. God made creation, and He upholds and sustains it. It was good and it is still good, to think it isn’t is not biblical. If I can trust God’s revelation in Christ, I can trust His creation to tell an accurate physical history.
Im worried about you because even in error you receive 99% of not only positive comments but comments absolutely covering you in praise in everything you do and say. I'm afraid this could make you proud in the future and lean even strongly on those errors if you start believing them.
"First glance" literalists - is a great descriptor! We are commanded to STUDY to show ourselves approved unto God. Literalists, like Ham, suggest all meaning shoukd be clear at first glance. Ive been a Christian for decades and I can assure you the Bible continues to reveal new truths to me daily. Anyone who reads it once and think they've fully comprehended all its truth do not know God.
Having listened to the video, it's very fascinating some of the points he makes. I couldn't agree more about the need for humility, especially since more than half of the things he mentioned as evidence for an old earth, I've actually seen as being powerful evidences for a young earth so we're definitely dealing with differing interpretations of the evidence, not a rejection of existing evidence, or a denial of it.
Good words can't change the fact that evolution is wrong and goes against scripture. I'm not impressed by his sentimentalist approach. What? Are we supposed to hold hands with evolutionists now? What is next? Do we build bridges to other false churches that teach false doctrines too?
Hello Gavin! Can I make a request? I have heard so many arguments against the YEC position (that I hold) and it always seems to boil down to: Day doesn´t have to mean day, genre must be considered, we must be humble and not assume our interpretations are correct etc. But what do you actually believe the text means then? I have never heard that.
You can find videos by John Walton on that subject on youtube if you'd like to learn more. The Liturgy of Creation is also a great book on the subject; it doesn't argue for any particular view of the age of the earth but does make a convincing argument that Genesis is often misread.
@@bjn3232 Thank you for the reply and the tip. I have read a book by Walton, and it exemplifies my issue. After a whole book on the topic I still had no idea how he reads gen 1. It argues create can mean form or establish, and I agree. How does that change the interpretation of the text? He then notices that the Genesis structure is similar to an ancient temple ceremony. But how does that help our reading of the text? For example, does it mean God describes to us that Creation was like taking up residence in a temple, even if the actual events was nowhere near what is described? And if it was nothing like what is described (millions of years instead of days, long, slow processes of chaos into order etc) in what way was it actually similar to a temple ceremony? Does the number of days matter? Does the order matter? Does the way God is said to create matter?
@@thomasfryxelius5526 I have learned a good lesson: satan and his ilk ALL have the gift of glib gab without ever making a point. It is about hypnosis. Hip-Gnosis.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro I cannot agree. The text describes how things happened. Even if you can conclude there are interesting parallells to temple ceremonies, that doesn't mean what is described did not also happen in the way it is portrayed. In Ex 20, in the 10 commandments, it says that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days. I think that shows that the ancient israelites, even though they say depths we sometimes miss, nonetheless accepted the straightforward claims of what happened.
I so much appreciate your humility and breadth of study of this important topic. We are privileged to live after centuries of theological rigor. But not so many invest the time and had work needed to read, digest, and teach this topic without diatribe.
I haven’t watched this yet, but seeing the video has MADE MY DAY! I will say that unfortunately Young Earth Creationists do a much better job of publishing and explaining their views in an accessible way. It’s been hard for me to find substantial research on this topic as a new theistic evolutionist. I have searched here and there and only from knowledgable individuals on Discord and Twitter have I been able to get pieces here and there on this aspect of theology. I can’t wait to watch this video!
I think the reason there are fewer OEC's trying to engage argumentation is because it's the default position in the culture so less of an apologetic seems to be required. That being said, I think the arguments adressed in this video were somewhat straw-manned. Granting that the YEC arguments may not always be stated with exact precision, I think the essence of the objections are not as simple as Gavin made them out to be.
@@joeh8130 You're absolutely right. But to go after something other than a straw man would require deeper engagement with the YEC view than the vast majority of OEC persuaded people are willing to do, in my experience.
@@joeh8130 As someone who was raised strongly in YEC, though some things were simplified for brevity, I didn't feel like any YEC view was straw-manned. Over time, through my studying of scripture, I have come to realize that Genesis does not require a YEC reading. I also hold to biblical inerrancy.
Thanks Gavin. It’s important to talk about this. So many struggle with this thinking they may have to suspend their reasoning to be a Christian. We live by faith, but it’s a faith that engages heart and mind.
Young earth creationism can't negatively affect the faith of any believer, unless you let the world fool you and you worry about what others may say about you. Do you want to be a friend of the world or what? Is the ridicule of their fat fingers pointing at you too much for you to bear for Christ? Come on now. Are you going to start throwing out basic teachings just because "a guy in a lab coat laughed at me and said that I'm dumb of I don't believe in evolution"? A faith that engages heart and mind... are you saying that young earth creationism is dumb???? So you are saying raca to me? For staying with the word of God?
@@JesusProtectsAnd stop assuming your entirely literal modern interpretation of a passage is "true to the word of God." It's laughably naïve and denies millennia of Church History.
Intuitively, I have never been able to sit comfortably with the "appearance of age" argument, but I have never been able to articulate it. This video does a pretty good job of (respectfully) blowing it out of the water. God is not a man that He would lie, neither in His word nor in His creation. If they appear to contradict to us, then it is we who have misunderstood something, either in Creation or in Scripture. God has not conspired to trick us scientifically in order to test our faith Scripturally, nor vice versa. Edit: I would add that a biblical view of humanity as ontologically distinct from all other creatures means that the death of plants and animals is ontologically distinct from human death, even if it is biologically indistinct.
Many miracles do create the appearance of age. When Jesus changed water into wine, do you think it still looked like water, or did it look like wine? When Jesus reattached the ear (or other healings), the appearance of now functioning organs/limbs/etc would indicate to all of us that they always worked since we can’t instantly reattach ears or heal the blind or …. By no means is that deceptive, I think the deceptive argument in itself is in some sense deceptive as it assumes an answer we don’t know since God hasn’t given that to us. His does say over 20 times that He stretches the heavens, is it beyond God to stretch it faster the the speed of light while keeping relative laws in line?
@@coloradodutch7480 the difference at play is that those miracles are contained within the universe. We are not contained within those miracles. We are contained within the universe. There is no analogy between "appearance of age" within the universe and "appearance of age" of the universe. Adam, the water into wine, none of that has any bearing on what persists around us all the time without straying from the rules placed upon it. Miracles do not disprove the operation of nature any more than the operation of nature disproves miracles. We look in on miracles; we look out on the operation of nature. The logic just doesn't carry over.
St Basil insisted the first 6 days were miraculous and mysterious/sacramental. It seems that St Basil takes the history literally from the creation of Adam
I enjoyed the video. I am a Young Earth Creationist though I no longer see this issue as a perfect litmus test for genuine belief. To be sure I think that Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism are often stepping stones people take as they are slowly exiting the Church. I think Ken Ham’s concerns about liberalism have validity. However, over the last few years I have been realizing that Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism are often not part of this trajectory and many serious believers hold these positions and do so in a way not unbecoming of the Christian. One point I would argue against which I think you should consider: the idea that Young Earth Creationism entails intentional deception on the part of God as he created the Universe. I would use the following analogy: Imagine watching someone create a bust of George Washington from clay. They start with a large lump. They roughly shape a hunk into a nose and chin and eye sockets. They start with large changes, squeezes, scoops and pinches. Eventually they pull out some medium shaped tools to help provide some texture. And after working the clay they eventually proceed to miniscule, exact shaping tools by which, with very precise strokes, they work the final details of the bust. If all you saw was the last few strokes someone might suppose the entire piece was made by these little strokes of the artist. Its not deception on the part of the artist and neither would it be so with God if the natural laws by which he governs our modern universe had been of a more dramatic nature in the past.
I think, in addition to your analogy, the simple Biblically stated fact of a world wide flood has a massive impact on how 'old' the earth looks. It's no different than a human being who has been through a ton of physical drama aging (by appearance) prematurely. I think many OEC instinctually know this which is why so many of them opt to reject a genuine worldwide flood account.
I've also heard another commenter on his last creation video use this analogy - when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding as his first miracle, it was said to taste better than all the others served then. Wine generally is a drink that improves its taste with age. Thus an experienced wine taster would probably have concluded that Jesus's wine was quite old. Was Jesus deceptive in creating wine with the "appearance of age"? I think not - he created wine with the reality of a fantastic taste, and us arguing about its age would be to miss the point of how marvelous the miracle is. Similarly, creation may "appear old" without it actually being old, and also without it being God deceiving us so much us people fixating on the wrong details.
Most denominations don't hold to YEC, and most of Christendom hasn't held to it historically. It's fairly rare. I don't see leaving it as a stepping stone to anything but Truth.
I think Moses goes out of his way to make sure the reader understands that there is no death before the fall. In Genesis 1:28-31, God gives Man and Animals "every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." (1:29b) This immediately follows the creation that declared everything, "good" again and again. Then Moses ends in verse 31 saying that God declared everything: "was very good." After the fall in Genesis 3, the first thing that happens is murder (Gen 4 with Cain), then materialism + wickedness + more murder is shown dominating the line of the 'seed of the serpent'. Genesis 5 "and he died" emphasizing the universal result of the fall. Genesis 6, man is completely wicked, flood judgement, Noah. Then, after the flood, God re-institutes His creation covenant, this time with Noah, using language that mirrors the language used with Adam... but He changes the rules: "The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (Gen 9:2-3) The game changes, now Noah can legitimately eat everything, because of the fall. I am hard pressed to believe this would even be in the text or part of the covenant if there were death prior to the fall. It would be a needless and pointless textual addition. Moses goes out of his way to highlight the difference/change that has taken place. This is not a pros vs poetry issue. This is a covenant stipulation change as a result of the fall. The relationship of man to the animals is changed because of the fall. Moses codifies this for the reader in the stipulations of the Noahic covenant. Everything else in this discussion, perfectly fine. The 'high' pros of Gen 1:1-2:3 is decidedly different than the rest of the Pentateuch. Some variation in understanding this section is certainly permissible. However, Darwinian evolution is antithetical to Christianity. This is what men like Ken Ham and the YEC are trying to stand against. I am a YEC because of the text of Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." We interpret scripture by scripture. When faced with a difficult passage we see if a more straightforward passage can make it clear. Exodus 20:11 strikes me as very straightforward. This passage is not high pros, it is Yahweh Himself, giving the law to the people of Israel from Mount Sinai (read the whole thing in context). Yahweh Himself gives the fourth commandment and His justification for the Sabbath rest is based on His creation in six days and His rest on the seventh. As I said earlier, I am very hard pressed to understand this passage in any other way than a straightforward literal understanding. Gen 1:1-2:3, can in many ways be very difficult. Exodus 20:11, not difficult.
You are correct, animals were being consumed before the flood. Moses is pointing to the stipulations and regulations of the covenant. However, the central point is that before the fall, animals were not given to be consumed... ie no death. After the fall, animals were being consumed. Without the change in Gen 9, that consumption would be sinful. It is declared not sinful at that point in the text. But make no mistake, it is as a result of the fall and the entering in of death.@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro
Incorrect. In verse 29 God lays out what He has given to them: "And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. verse 30. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. God spells out exactly what He has given to be eaten. The reason is plain, to point out that humans and animals are not eating one another. The dominion mandate is not about eating, it is about Lordship. Adam is to reflect God as His vice regent on earth. The fact that there is a major change to this in Genesis 9 proves the point. The fact that death enters in in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 proves the point. The rest of scripture backs this up. Death is the final enemy to be defeated. It's why in the "age to come" the lion lies down with the lamb and the child plays over the adders den and is not bitten. The curse is removed. I don't say this because I want to win an argument. I say this because without it, Christianity is just false. Christ came to conquer death and bring new life. The consummation ends death for good, all death. That is the whole thread of the Bible. Satan is the antagonist and death is the great evil that needs to be defeated by the 'seed of the woman' to make things right (or good) again.
I think you're isolating to the dietary laws here and missing the big picture. No animals, Gen 1... Eat animals, Gen 9. There is a dietary context in the background because Moses is writing it to an audience that is being given dietary laws. However, the clear meaning relates to lack of death and goodness from all of Gen 1 that precedes it. Then in Gen 9, the change is highlighted. Not that suddenly after the flood animals were being eaten, the change took place in the fall, emphasized through human death in Gen 4 and Adam and Eve being covered with skins at the end of 3. We're not going to convince each other one way or the other. I read the text of Genesis and it is basically very clear what is going on. In fact, it's a core issue. But that particular detail isn't going to change your salvation. We'll be surrounded by plenty of people who had bad theology in heaven, but they belonged to Christ. (not saying your theology is bad, I don't even know what it is outside your belief in death existing before the fall, which I find incredibly problematic). As an aside, one of my OT seminary professors held to the same position you do. I think he is an incredible Christian and scholar. I also think he's very wrong on this point. Another two of my professors held to basically a 6-day view with Ken Ham. They wrote part of a book on the issue. "Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique" I highly recommend it. The Biblical Theological portion is at the end. There is a smaller book that just addresses the Biblical issues, "A Biblical Case against Theistic Evolution: Is It Compatible with the Bible" You can find either on Christianbook or amazon etc.
Gavin, I haven't gotten to watch the video yet, but I have a question. What are your thoughts on Vern Poythress' work on this subject. Particularly his statements on the continuity and discontinuity between the creation week and the rest of providential history?
"the evening and the morning were the first day... and the evening and the morning were the second day... etc..." There is no discontinuity. 7 literal days, one literal week. There is nothing that indicates this to be metaphorical, allegorical or whatever. Man was created in a very short moment, and the animals, and plants... everything was created in a short time. Evolution is a lie, a serious error, and as you can see in the comments something that can even deceive the very elect as long as you preach it in false love and false kindness. And I say false because something that leads to an error this big does not come from a place of love and kindness, even if Gavin don't realize it. He may think he is acting out of love, but he is leading people to a very grave mistake.
As I wrote in the comments of Part 1, if we as believers accept God’s word that ‘kinds’ can only reproduce after ‘kinds’ and that consequently evolution is a lie from the pit of Hell, why the need amongst believers for the discussion about deep time verses 6000 years. I choose to believe in a young earth because God does not make reference to deep time, but six days. But there is a lot that God does not make specific reference to in scripture, but instead tells us enough to prove that He is the creator God, and that His word is the Book of Truth. I believe that Gavin is seeking answers that will become plain in the hereafter. Meanwhile, I believe his questioning of what God has told us will lead to confusion for both believers and unbelievers. Ken Ham does not reject scientific facts, he just examines the facts in the light of God’s revelations. No one but God was there at the beginning, and it cannot be replicated. Science has not revealed major errors in the Book of Truth. So, accept the Truth and win souls for Jesus.
@@briandiehl9257 You mean worms can turn into monkeys and then in to humans and that is consistent with the word of God, and provable by science? I don't think so.
@@kennethmiller4083 Not even remotely at all what anyone has ever said. Specieciation has been observed in a lab before. The species exclusively gives birth to the same species, yet after 35 generations to different species exist. Evolution at no point implies any species gave birth to another
Thanks for another awesome video. This 2-part video series was incredibly helpful for me. I'll probably be coming back to revisit these and will likely glean new info I didn't catch the first time through. I really appreciate your succinct and thoughtful explanations, your attention to detail, and most importantly, your gracious approach to it all. You sweat the details and we are all the better for it. I'm looking forward to your video on the flood of Noah's day!
A thousand years from now, when English is an archaic, ancient and unspoken language, archaeologists will dig up a book or an article or a letter saying that it's raining cats and dogs. And people will argue the possibility and historical actuality of dogs and cats raining down out of the skies.
Most nowadays are steeped from infancy in evolution in movies, tv, school and games (this was my case) and some are taught creation from infancy. I feel like some people make it seem that those who are raised YEC by their fathers and small communities were somehow gullible, when the power of those who push old ages is far greater. @@michaelbabbitt3837
Your “science over Scripture” section certainly left a stone in my shoe about this subject. However, your comments pondering why would God create a false History to show age compels the question of why would God create a false narrative by using the “evening and morning” concept in the Creation narrative, which allude to a 24-hour day? Love your work btw! God bless you!
Because a "day" used metaphorically will also have evenings and mornings in the picture-world. It's like asking "If the Armor of God (Ephesians 6) is metaphorical, why does it have a helmet, shield, breastplate, shoes, sword, etc. The difference is - each part in this is explained. but sometimes not all the pictures are explained. For example the fourth beast in Daniel 7 ends up killed and it's body burned (Daniel 7.11), but will you then say it can't be referring to a world power like Rome because how can an empire be slain, and it's body be thrown into a fire?
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Do you see how you are having to put a "temple-text" lens on your interpretation in order to get around the text? I'm familiar with your view, I had Walton as a professor, but my problem with this understanding is it brings a lens to the text more than it seems to just understand the text. Isn't there a sense where the text is the real meta-narrative? It's not about the author's scientific worldview or having to interpret Genesis from an ANE textual perspective, though of course these have import, but it's about the fundament truth that God is the Creator, and He certainly seems to reveal that He created in 6 days with evening and morning. And we all know what this means.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Those are interesting parallels, but we can again ask the question, does it work with a 24 hour days? And of course it does. Does it work with also saying something about geology, science and the age of the earth? Of course it does. We can have the Creation text which is then the basis for the temple text of Exodus, which is actually the basis for all the ANE cultural correlations. And this would make sense because if God first created with a 7 day cycle, and this is passed down to human generations as common knowledge, particularly through Noah's 3 sons, then it makes sense that it all goes back to the literal 7 day truth of the text which is written in Genesis. Instead of working backwards we are actually working forwards. The truth is that God created in 7 days, and this exact truth is what forms the idea for temple texts, it's the basis for everything. And doesn't this make better sense? All truth is founded in God as Creator, it's not that Genesis happens to be like other ANE literature, it's that God's truth is the basis for all of culture, all civilization, all logic, all truth.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro I'm a little surprised at your response, I understand that we have some metaphor in the language used for creation. But that metaphor doesn't preclude the scientific possibilities. Pillars under the earth is a good description of the idea that we have mountains holding up all the land, when we look at the oceans we still see pillars (mountains) under the very waters. And astronauts understand the dome of the atmosphere that is the very protection of the planet, an atmosphere that takes great force to pass through. And underwater currents in the oceans, we understand this is true. Yes, there's no sun the first few days, but there is light enough for photosynthesis. This just shows that God made a universe in progress and mature, in fact it's how life would have to be made, Adam and Eve had to be mature, so did the universe. It's quite speculative to say the 7th day hasn't ended. The clear implication of the text is that God rested the 7th day, which was the same as the 6 days. There's certainly an application that God has finished His creative work, but not that the 7th day is an eon of remaining time. And verse 2 does show a starting point before verse 3 making a theological point that God's creative acts move from chaos to order, but obviously anything material would have to have been created by God before since everything comes from God. That's of course why verse 1 makes this clear. And again I ask why we have to say the Bible is ANE cultural metaphor when the reality is the truth of the Creation account formed oral tradition and is the basis for all metaphor. Certainly there is cultural influence in the time Moses wrote Genesis, but truths already extant and the reality of God's creation is the basis for all civilization. The context doesn't mean the Bible only points to flat-earth geocentrism, we have clues in the text about the sphere of the earth, and certainly from all we know about the universe the earth is at the unique center, being the only place with life and where God has been incarnated. I think particularly with Genesis, an origin and Creation text, we can see metaphor and science, theology and narrative, cultural elements and trans-cultural elements, or what I would call universal elements. Always in the Bible we have a balance of text in context, and text as universal context. By that I mean that truths learned and shaped by culture have universal appeal and can apply to all cultures. When I read that the pillars of the earth and the dome of the sky are formed by God, I don't need to be an ancient Mesopotamian to know what the text is saying. A Creation text would inevitably have to say something about science, since science is simply observed truth about materials and reality. So Creation tells us about science, temple metaphor, origins, theology, history, time, functionality, it really is foundational to our understanding.
Young earth scientists have theories such as Time Dilation dealing with starlight which you might take issue with but is an interesting theory. Old earth theories also have issues such as the distant mature galaxies the James Webb telescope recently found which should not have been there. Scientists from both sides are always having to adjust their theories because neither side has solid answers without issues. Another issue is that you cannot measure the one-way speed of light, only a two-way speed of light so how do we really know how fast light travels one way? We don't really know what the answer is. Your arguments certainly don't sound as plausible as those I have heard from respected theologians and respected scientists. I especially like to read and listen to the scientists from the Institute for Creation Research on their podcasts because they talk about both sides and then what they believe.
"old earth theories also have issues such as the distant mature galaxies the James Webb telescope recently found which should not have been there" That was only an issue because they had an incorrect calculation for things like mass, that is not an actual problem for any of our 'old earth' theories. "Another issue is that you cannot measure the one-way speed of light, only a two-way speed of light so how do we really know how fast light travels one way" by the maxwell equations. We knew what the speed of light was long before we attempted to measure it scientifically. Because the speed of light is so fundamental there are many many ways to determine the speed of light without even involving light
This anti-science thing some YECs have reminds me of the time I told my grandpa (who is an itinerant preacher, now retired) that the myth of the eagle snapping off its beak and claws, pulling out its feathers, &c. (allegedly referred to in Psalm 103) is utter nonsense and no bird does that. He found it very hard to accept, because he has used this anecdote a lot in his sermons. This didn’t affect our relationship in any way and I wouldn’t cut off any relationship over stuff like this. I hope the same cordiality can come into place between YECs and OECs, with both groups showing grace and compassion for one another.
It's worth noting that the word used for eagle in the Old Testament does not exclusively refer to eagles, but to a more generic bird of prey. It more often refers to vultures, though maybe they don't do the thing with beaks and feathers either, I wouldn't know.
The important issue is this: is it of Christ or is it anti-Christ? We must discern, there are many deceivers and they all come appearing as angels of light, like their father.
Dr. Ortlund, can I get a link to your Patreon? I'd be happy to support on a monthly basis. Keep in mind I cannot give a lot as I am on SSDI and I have several other ministries I want to give to. But I have gotten a LOT of value out of your videos and I would be happy to take my support to the next step!
i appreciate the emphasis on the term "literal" i'm a YEC, but i understand the debate is an interpretation issue, not a Biblical authority issue. I find it frustrating that many of my fellow YEC cannot discuss the topic, because its like we are speaking two languages. I would love to talk about Biblical interpretation without the pitfall of misinterpreting OEC view on scripture
Brilliant observation. Every interpretation is necessarily based on what is literally written. What would be the point of "old earth" - and what do you mean by old? When was the earth created and why? There was no time before earth so with the inception of earth, God meant something, what was it´s purpose? Certainly not "evolution"?
"Every explicit duality is an implicit unity." - Alan W. Watts Buddhism & Science, Alan Watts ua-cam.com/video/io4ewu-cdrE/v-deo.htmlsi=sGqSSXHjCvc2r6jY
@@godisreality7014 You learn quickly. Dissing the taijitu is in keeping with the dialectical method. Chaos Theory | The Edge of Chaos | Cellular Automata, Wolfram & Psychology ua-cam.com/video/XcB_7jv98uE/v-deo.htmlsi=qMV72JodVHfJXePY
Please explain why the dischronology of the plant creation / shrubs springing up is a bigger problem for YEC people than it would be for OEC views. What an I missing that it seems like that's a much bigger problem for OEC, if YEC only needs them to take a couple days to spring up, but OEC needs millennia? Or doesn't it?
19:25 "Actually the best way to honor the scripture and submit to the scripture as the truth of God - is to submit to its way of communicating".
It is very rare for me to stumble upon a nugget that I have never heard of or read before. This was a good moment.
Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter!
The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin!
First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview comes close to the Bible, in explaining it! The first two laws of thermodynamics!
So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here!
DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“.
John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“!
God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there!
Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job!
3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing!
The Bible Predicted telecommunications
What does that mean? That we should believe genesis instead of believing in the nonsense that is evolution and the buffoonery that is theistic evolution? I agree.
@@JesusProtects
Amen!
If we trust in God then we trust in his word and his word is sufficient to prepare a man for every good work and he is willing to give us wisdom if we ask, so long as we are not double minded.
When we have to confirm what men think before agreeing what God says, we shouldn't expect anything. See James on double -mindedness
@@JesusProtects it means you could trace your family tree all the way back to the apes if You’re a commie Democrat,
Have any more questions, especially concerning the Bible since I know everything ….ie I’m older than UA-camrs , let me know. I’ll help you out. ! But remember, there’s no shortcuts in the kingdom of God!
@@JesusProtects but there is evidence lots of it in the opposite of all this crazy talk. man made religions do not hold a candle to realities left overs!
Gavin,
Thank you for making such well constructed and thought provoking videos. I personally went through a period of deconstructing my Christian beliefs, but I felt like I didn’t have anything to build back from. Your content has provided me with historical and intellectual foundations and given me a new appreciation for the history of Protestantism in general. As a younger man it’s very encouraging to see a figure like you who is so kind, honest, and humble. I look forward to more videos!
Helping people reconstruct and go deeper is exactly the kind of thing I hope my videos accomplish, so that means so much to me. Bless you!
Amen, when the presenter, the teacher, isn’t very Christlike, as Ken Ham is not, Gavin is a fine example of this quality. Look up Ken Ham talking to Hugh Ross. The video is online. This is a man who uses verse to believe Dinosaurs are living with man. So let’s distrust Science. Yahweh doesn’t deceive us and scientists are not purposely deceiving us.
I hope you can find a body of beleivers who will help you find Christ, not dogma, legalism or feel good "christian", buta true Christ centered church that displays Christ through true fruit in love. Being a Christian add meaning and hope that cannot be found anywhere else
@@user-ql3bq7vr2d sounds like one happy atheist who follows a hopeless faith in nothing and wants to share their joy in life. Thank you! Shalom and salamat.
@@user-ql3bq7vr2d what a clown.
As a history PhD student, the theme of anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism is so disheartening and its particularly egregious in the 20th century. I really appreciate your efforts to combat these sorts of ideas Gavin! God bless!
To be fair, the fact that one side doesn't even acknowledge the other side I think is more telling of and problematic then someone claiming other is anti intellectual
@defenestratorX Are you saying that YEC don't acknowledge other beliefs as valid or are you saying that those who hold other beliefs don't acknowledge YEC as a valid option? I grew up in a very definitively YEC church and I used to think in the very terms Ken Ham does. If I ever met someone who believed anything other than YEC, I immediately thought they just didn't truly trust the Bible's authority. Once I was in college, I came to a different conclusion, and now I can respect people who hold different opinions on this issue, but I personally really struggled to do so when I was a YEC. Also, I use the term anti-intellectual to mean those who actively distrust scholarship, education, science, and even unintentionally dichotomize faith and reason. Even though many American evangelicals aren't like this, it is a prevalent problem within American evangelicalism, and I think YEC of the Ken Ham variety tends to cultivate and sustain this anti-intellectualism.
I became more open to YEC *after* researching the topic in more depth. I would encourage you to not write it off as “anti intellectual”.
What apart from God's word, the Bible, can give you any validly based confidence in your own intellect? -
Proverbs 1, 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Colossians 2, 3 Christ, In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
@davidjanbaz7728 It sounds like we agree and that we both appreciate some of the same scholars. I wasn't saying that all evangelicals are YEC or that anti-intellectualism is a defining characterisic of being evangelical, I just said anti-intellectualism is a sadly prevalent theme within American evangelicalism. Mark Noll proved as much in his classic work The Scandel of the Evangelical Mind.
That intro was top tier 😂
Hi Ethan
Good to see you here
@@colinbrown9476Hey Colin. Good to see you here as well.
You two know each other?
It’s wild to me Ken Ham holds that Baptism and Spiritual gifts are not as clearly defined in Scripture as the exact age of the Earth.
Does he say exact?
St. Peter when he says “Baptism now saves you.” That it’s “for the remission of your sins”. And people treat it as a secondary issue:🧍♂️
All of those are clearly defined. The gifts are given till the day of Christ return, is 1 of the thesis statements of first Corinthians; see first Corinthians 1:7 ! First Corinthians 12 and 14 are the only chapters that deal with the charismatic gifts in the Bible! So the gifts are here till Jesus comes back!
And the doctrine of original sin is correct death came to plants and animals at the first sin genesis 2:17 Romans 5:17 1 Corinthians 15:22
@@bman5257And the Eucharist... 👀👀👀
@@jjphankgen 2:17 ,You (Adam) will die. Roman’s 5:17,Death to humans through sin., 1:cor 15:22, death to humans because of Adams Sin, life to humans because of Christ . Not one mention of plants and animals in all these verses only humans.
Thank you Gavin for not only your time in preparing this, your transparency in sharing it, but also your careful/sensitive phrasing throughout. As a young-earth adherent, I have been greatly edified by this discussion. And while I am still not sure if I'm persuaded (at least not yet), I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the quiet and meek demeanor with which you approach this topic. Your spirit is a balm to my soul which is too often exposed to blustering voices proposing rhetoric and not well-reasoned arguments.
I look forward to your other videos on this topic and others.
Blessings and prayers to you and yours.
So good to hear you say that
I have no problem with a belief in 6 day creation (I lean toward that direction myself). My problem is when you say other creation views are unchristian and make it a salvational issue.
When did he say that?
@@thelonelysponge5029I think he's saying YECs tend to do that.
Police your own, then!
@@MeanBeanComedy I’m in the PCA, not all of them are YEC like I lean towards. Also, I don’t really view YEC related content that much to be honest.
Ken Ham's recent blog series has even accused other YEC groups of being wicked and unsaved for not following his own interpretation to the letter. At this point he has declared to the public that anyone not following Ken Ham's authority is not saved.
im a creationist but i don't have a position on the age of the earth
Hey Gavin, love you and your videos. I wanted to share why I’m a YEC (or maybe more accurately a “Death After the Fall Creationist) and some responses to some of your thoughts.
TLDR; , Being convinced of God’s existence and his power to do whatever he wants, the evidence on the age of things being more of mixed bag that either way necessarily requires God to intervene miraculously throughout the history of life and the cosmos, being convinced of God’s goodness and life giving nature, and being convinced that suffering and death especially of humans but even of animals is an objective moral wrong, I’m a young earth creationist.
Building from the ground up, I am convinced by the typical arguments for God’s existence by the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the complexity of life as well as miracles, prophecy, the person of Jesus, the Bible etc. I am also convinced, by people like Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute, that evolution and natural processes do not come even close to having the capability of explaining life specifically without major interventions on the part of an intelligent designer. For example, it seems God had to intervene at the major “explosions” of life (on the OEC view) for it to be possible to get that much new genetic information in that short of time. For me, once the door is opened that God must necessarily have intervened in the history of life, the earth and the cosmos, it opens up many possibilities, because God can do whatever he wants; he could speed starlight, generate light from nothing, preserve some things in the meantime that other things they are dependent on are made etc. Several of the clocks you mentioned also do not matter if you think creation could be old but hold to death only after the fall, so they are not discriminatory evidence.
Still the question is worth asking what does it look like he actually did, and that’s where this debate comes in. There are things in the universe that look old, though some can be explained by YEC. It seems to me there are also some things that look young, some of which can also be explained by OEC. Some of these, since you have mentioned examples of the former, are natural “clocks” like you have mentioned in your video: things like 1) short period comets with a lifespan of 10,000 years still remaining in our solar system, though they should have died out long ago, prompting scientists to posit an unseen Oort Cloud 2) the consistent detection of Carbon 14 in fossil, diamond and coal samples that should not be there after supposed millions on years, or 3) the faint young sun paradox (and many other cosmic paradoxes like it) which leaves a mystery as to how our younger sun was able to generate enough heat to keep our oceans from freezing in order to preserve life on the early earth. It seems like one could ask the same questions you did - why would God make anything that could appear young if he didn’t want us to think it was?
With some of these considerations I think it becomes more complicated than one side having all the evidence. So how do I decide? I think the theology of death as a result of the fall, God’s nature of goodness and being life-giving and the restoration of creation including total removal of death is the deciding factor for me. You have talked before about the moral argument for God, and how some moral intuitions are so deeply rooted and intuitive, that that alone can be used as evidence for their truth. I believe it is a basic moral intuition that human and animal suffering is wrong. Everyone knows this from the Christian to the Atheist, and it is why it’s one of the primary objections to a good God. It also has deep implications for what kind of future God wants for us - if death, suffering, cancers, predators ripping apart prey etc existed before the fall and was called good, will it exist in the new creation? If not, why not, if it was good? You raised a point that the line has to be drawn somewhere. This has been said in many different ways but just because we can’t point to the line exactly does not mean it’s not there, and it doesn’t mean we can’t know that we’ve crossed it. Even plant death could be avoided in this system if one really felt that it should be, because fruits and even different resources can be used from plants without killing them. Human ancestors and sentient animals suffering horribly for millions of years for nothing (no law given and no sin committed) other than God created them to harm each other, is a hard pill to swallow. I think it makes a mess of the theology of his goodness and his nature of life and not death, his plan for redemption to come through the physical death of Jesus, and the nature of the new creation. I would rather make small messes of natural science (especially when there’s so many mysteries and counterpoints no matter what model you take) than make a big mess of theology.
In response to you saying that you think Paul was referring to human death coming through the fall: I think you would be extremely hard pressed yourself to find a scientific model that matches with an old earth and old history of life that does not include the death of humans and human ancestors. Unfortunately, OEC pretty much necessitates human death before the fall as well. The only way I’ve heard to avoid this is to say that God made humans a special creation in a garden away from all the death on a younger timescale until they sinned. This is possible if you want to avoid human death, but it seems just as if not more ad hoc than young earth models and you’ll find just as few or less supporters of that possibility in mainstream science as you would for YEC and definitely less biblical support. And again, that’s only if you want to preserve human life only before the fall. Maybe it would be helpful to hear in the future exactly what model you hold to, if only tentatively.
Thanks for anyone who happened to read. Let me know your thoughts.
Extremely well reasoned. I wish there was space to talk this through. If you watch Gavin's previous (edit : previous video) before this one you will see a quote on Augustine speaking about animal death as being part of a "good creation".
@@marinusswanepoel1825 yes I watched that one as well, and I disagree with Augustine that animal death could be good. I believe Gavin would disagree as well with how he spoke of animal death in his video on the fall of satan. Thanks for the response.
@@CollinBoSmith Maybe one last push back and then I'll leave it. It seems to me that - in the command to fill the earth and subdue it - God indicates that the earth, although very good in substance, is not submitting to the will of God, and therefore subject to death. Therefore God wanted Adam to spread his rule over all of the earth so that the fruit of the tree of life might be accessible to all its inhabitants. The fact that there was a tree of life seems to indicate that Adam was himself mortal and as soon as his access to the tree of life was cut off he lived out the remainder of his days and died - a natural progress his life would have followed if he wasn't in the garden.
@@marinusswanepoel1825 Yes those are all interesting points. Obviously it’s a lot of speculation, though that doesn’t mean it isn’t true necessarily. I agree that the fruit may have literally kept Adam and other creatures in the garden alive. I could just as easily speculate scenarios that work with a younger earth or a death after the fall creationism. For example, perhaps the fruit of the tree of life was, although literal fruit, more of a symbol of life, almost like a sacrament, so that every animal did not need to actually consume it for death to not enter. (After all, eating from the tree was not a command, so not eating would not be a sin that would bring in death.) Perhaps subduing the earth was just cultivating it and using its resources to create and make better the lives of all creatures.
Whatever we may speculate, I just wonder WHY we’re doing the speculating. I’m willing to speculate on what is left unsaid in the Bible in order to preserve things like the goodness of God, but much less willing to speculate in order to preserve some fact of natural science that we think we’ve gotten enough evidence for in modern times, especially if the preservation of that fact seems to be over against the goodness of God.
Thanks again for the response.
Well said
Hi Gavin, as an old earth creationists I'm so blessed to be connected with you. Love the excellent way you explain things. God bless you and your work.
As an OEC you agree that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, don't you?
@@gusolsthoorn1002That’s not the Old Earth position. That’s Theistic Evolution.
@@ravikeller9626 In the OEC position, where did humans comes from? Please explain because I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation.
As a young earth creationist and fan of the channel, I always appreciate your efforts and goodwill. Would love to see you and Ham sit down and hash it out together.
The greatest confusion comes from equating (Adam, Eve, and Garden of Eden in Gen2) to (man & woman & earth of Gen1) these 2 accounts are completly different & try make as same is great confusion. Bible is but a love story of a jilted lover and the apple of his eye. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world... so when was this sinful world founded but upon the day of Adam & Eve disobedience for it was then that God discarded Adam and Eve fig leaves and gave them covering of animal skins.. of necessity was the shedding of the lambs blood and Christ was appointed as He who would give his life as seed of woman to redeem men from their sins
Jesus was clear and precise doubt no more. He drew a line into the sands of time by saying
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John and there remain 3k years from Jesus 3 day prophesy
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
From Christ baptism & anointing unto the anointing dedication of Solomons temple was one God day of 1000yrs and from that dedication unto Adam's sin is yet another 3000yrs from OT chronology... but to equate Gen2 with Gen1 is a grave error leading to great confusion. The time between events of Gen2 and Gen1 is wholly unspecified by scripture
@@otisarmyalso Nonsense. Genesis 1 and 2 are not separate accounts but are complementary. Gen 1 is the run-through, Gen 2 highlights salient points.
As you mentioned, Genesis chapter 1 is the overview, while Genesis chapter 2 drills down to specifics (not in a scientific sense).
The non-YEC needs to show not only that there could be animal death before the fall, even though Romans 8 seems to teach that the agony of creation is a result of the fall. BUT ALSO that creatures who are anatomically identical to human beings made in the image of God can die before the fall.
I mean no, not all of them do, I'm not sure why you assumed that... you seem to be conflating OEC with Theistic Evolution. Not all OECs believe in evolution to the extent that they believe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other great apes, so no, not all non-YECers need to explain it.
Regarding your second point, doesn't that presume that the image of God has anything at all to do with how humans are anatomically structured? I'm not sure how one would establish that and, even so, tying the image to anatomy creates a host of problems down the line for how to think biblically about people with disabilities or other anatomical irregularities.
No, they need not show that. Genesis 1:1 says that the earth was created at an undisclosed time before day 1. Therefore, there is no basis for YEC.
There's no biological difference between animal death and plant death.
Well it was generally uncontested by the church fathers that animal death predated the fall, a great discussion of this happened on the Pilgrim Faith podcast (episode 9) with Joseph Minich and Bradley Belschner. They go through a host of primary sources from the church fathers all the way to Thomas Aquinas and show that animal death before the fall was uncontroversial throughout most of Church history. But that being said in the same way that Christ's salvation reaches backward in time to gather all the saints going back to Adam and Eve, why couldn't it be the case that the fall has backward reaching effects? So essentially we wouldn't have to deny Romans 8 or that the agony of creation is due to the fall. If the effects of the fall parallel the effects of salvation then they can reach backward in time just as they reach forward.
Lastly as has been pointed out above your assuming the image of God has something to do with anatomy, but why think that? I personally subscribe to the covenant model of the image of God. I believe that man being given the image of God is essentially a seal of the first covenant God makes with man, as such even if other animals were to become as intelligent as we are or be anatomically similar this wouldn't be any threat to us as image bearers because the image of God isn't related to our capacities. Just as in salvation God doesn't choose us on the basis of our good deeds and works, but based solely on his sovereign will, God chose humans to be his image bearers, not because we were so much greater than other animals, but based solely on his sovereign will. We weren't chosen because we were better than the other animals, we are better than the other animals because we were chosen. If God had chosen dolphins or eagles then they would have become rational creatures while we stayed beasts of instinct.
Well the alternative is to put Adam back nearly two million years ago which stretches the genealogies in Gen 5, 11 to silly proportions.
This is SUCH A HELPFUL TOPIC. Before I became a Christian, I always wanted to be a paleontologist. I’ve always been fascinated by ancient biology and knew quite a bit about it. When I became a Christian, I just assumed that everything that I learned couldn’t be true! To bring together God’s creation (in science) and God’s word is so important, and it’s amazing that you are a voice of reason in this. Just because someone doesn’t subscribe to young earth doesn’t mean they reject God’s Word. Someone being so divisive because of this issue is unwise at best
Ungodly….
@@michaelbrickley2443 - Hebrews 4, 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. -
Not man decides / determines 'truth'.
God's word, the Bible, is Truth (John 17, 17).
Anyone that supports evolution can't be a voice of reason. Do you believe Genesis or not? And don't tell me "I believe in theistic evolution", because that's would be an oxymoron.
@@JesusProtects Yes, but believe in it as a book written by man not God. And since you seem to have no idea about the nature of stories told in that part of the world, I think I’ll take science over just some fundi telling me the book is literal. Read 7 Days by John Lennox and get an education. The Bible was not written in English. Shalom
@@Morewecanthink your point? Read it literally? Follow Ken Ham and not God who made the world understandable
Just stumbled onto your UA-cam channel. Absolutely top class. To quote your own reference to another author, but about your own presentations: “Brilliant and balanced”- marked by conciseness, clarity and kindness. Well done!!!
The next video I want is a treatise on why the life of mosquitoes is evil.
Of the nearly 400 comments, this is the best! =D lol Very Good lol
I wish I had this ten years ago when i almost completly lost my faith over young earth creationism. I had a lot I had to deconstruct and understand.
I hope you made your way through it. That is a common experience, sadly.
@@TruthUnites thanks for the reply! By the grace of God I made it through and strengthened my faith! I ended up in a doctrinally sound Reformed Church, and gained a new love and appreciation for God's Word and confessional theology.
@@1988cascoGlad to hear it. Proud of you. 😎👉🏻👉🏻
Thank you so much for discussing these topics. I really look forward to your future videos on the flood and creation! As a very ‘conservative’ Christian who is also very excited by science and astrophysics, it’s really refreshing to hear some fair-minded non-YEC thoughts on these topics. YEC thinking dominates my circles it seems.
Great video Gavin! This summarized my thoughts as well. I also find it interesting that Christ ate fish in his resurrected body which means that resurrected people who are perfect can still eat animals, which at least strains at the idea that animal death apart from sin is evil.
It's not sin and even creationists don't think it's sin. Why would it be sin if God gave permission in Genesis 9? The issue is would an all-powerful all loving good Creator create a world of predation, disease, torture and waste THEN say he "created it very good" and animals to eat vegetation ONLY THEN to send his own son into the world to heal and deliver us from what he created? Seems impossible
@@stephenglasse9756 Where does it say he created the animals to eat vegetation only? And why would a perfect body be able to eat meat if perfect bodies were created to eat only plants?
@@TheRoark there's no reason why a 'perfect body' wouldn't be able to eat meat? Some animals only eat vegetation some eat only 'meat' some can digest both. Obviously human beings had the capacity to do both. It just means both pathways were there in A&E. Why do angels have the capacity to eat bread as in the BOOK OF JUDGES?
@@stephenglasse9756 so before the fall there were animals that only ate meat? Wouldn’t carnivorous digestive systems be a result of the fall?
@@TheRoark 3/3)
28 minutes with Dawkins and creationists
ua-cam.com/video/ClleN8ysimg/v-deo.htmlsi=e-8YeP2KUnKl3Mv3
You’re making time think. 🤔 I’ve been raised YEC and only have run across Christians in my adult years that are OEC, so am still wrapping my mind around it. You’re giving me a lot to consider.
death came to the entire universe through the first sin! This will explain why plants and animals die!
Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter!
The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin!
First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview comes close to the Bible, in explaining it! The first two laws of thermodynamics!
So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here!
DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“.
John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“!
God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there!
Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job!
3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing!
The Bible Predicted telecommunications
I can recommend "Evidence and Reasons Academy" as a YEC who is doing some propper science and someone who invites scientists for interviews.
He has a few channels and the academy one is the one where he does the most indepth stuff.
Consider this you today LIVE IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 2023 AS FORETOLD by a 7 day week AS WRITTEN. The Jews didn't evangelize. Genesis is objectively true AS WE SPEAK. The only people questioning this are those trying to fit evolution and the wisdom of this world which is FOOLISHNESS WITH GOD. God wrote with his FINGER on stone tablets CONFIRMING he made EVERYTHING in 6 days and rested on 7th. The Sabbath is proof of literal event that occurred. Just as Passover proves EXODUS literal event passed down. Which also foretells the Lord Jesus Christ.
ua-cam.com/video/-GcsEU_aIjc/v-deo.htmlsi=y9quLZsePwu0oQEv
What he said hardly made any sense to me. It felt as though he were akin to a skilled defense attorney attempting to exonerate a client clearly guilty of murder. He seemed to be distorting ideas, interweaving them to construct a narrative that doesn't reflect reality, all in an effort to persuade you of an untrue version of events.
@@philippbrogli779 Reasons to Believe is outstanding as well as Joel Duff's channel!
I don't wonder about the science or literalism at all. Trying to read the Bible with the eyes of an ancient Hebrew is my goal. I don't think I'm supposed to care about Creationism vs Evolution, Old vs. Young at all. I'm looking for What God Is Doing, what are the symbols and how do they work? It's so important to work through what the writers of the Bible were trying to convey to the people of God. Were they trying to tell them they needed to believe in a 24 hour day 7 day creation account from 6K years ago? I do not think so. Reading Peter Leithart on these subjects has helped me so much.
I'm someone who comes from, and currently still favors a YEC case for the origin of life, but I can appreciate the weight and reasoning of theologically rooted OEC supporters. I absolutely make a distinction between people like Gavin who approach this from a theological and spiritual perspective seeking truth, rather than that of some others who embrace OEC and even outright evolution entirely to comply with culture. And I also agree this is not an issue that is so clear and necessary in scripture that people should be splitting churches and declaring each other to be in danger of damnation over.
One thing that often confuses me though is that I keep hearing claims that science definitively supports an old earth. I simply do not see this evidence as either abundant or compelling. I think that much of the evidence can support either model, and that much of the YEC model's evidence is often overlooked either because people aren't aware of it, or because there are some unfortunate claims that famous YEC supporters like Ken Ham have made (like that denying a six day creation can put you outside Orthodoxy) that are more important to focus on.
Completely agree. I'm in the same boat you are. I'm YEC but I don't think it's an issue to split over and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean you aren't a true Christian if you're OEC.
@@historymajor26 particularly if you're seeking truth like Gavin and many others are. I don't know a percentage but I'd guess the majority of OEC folks are quite genuine in their pursuit of truth and not just bowing to the culture
@@tategarrett3042 Good to have some fellow YEC brothers who are willing to hear the other side in secerity, but still hold to what we beleive is true. i'd also like someone who is OEC to explain what evidence is convincing for an old earth. personally i haven't heard anything that seemed very weighty
@@benjaminwatt2436how about science and the insistence that Genesis is to be read literally? You have Ken Ham and very small, tiny amount of scientists. There’s a great essay from a former YEC believer who was going to school and realized YEC doesn’t have real science to back it up. 🎉It’s promoted by people who believe and they share what they think backs them up. Essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water for what they call Biblical truth. The sciences have proven much of the Bible true
Gavin stated one of the reasons he cares about this is he thinks adopting a YEC position leads some people to leave their faith. How is that a pure concern for hermeneutics?
Gavin, have you ever seen a church that affirms same-sex relationships also hold to YEC? If not, why do you think that is?
While I do believe the earth is less than 20K years old, this could just be because OEC and pro-lgbt things are both more common in the modern era. It could also be because pro-lgbt can be OEC and use that to claim the Bible is illegitimate and bound by it’s time.
Because serious Christians have made a huge point about believing in YEC as a necessity.
An extremely astute question.
The unwillingness to interpret Genesis based on modern conclusions about science is directly tied to an unwillingness to interpret other passages based on modern conclusions about ethics.
The same mistaken methodology is at work in both.
no, but I have never heard of a geocentrist who affirms same-sex relationships, either. It does not follow that geocentrism is true. This kind of litmus test is not a sound basis of truth.
@@TruthUnitesFair point, but on your argument about the universe seemingly showing its age. I agree with what you are saying, but who's the say that God didn't created things that looked older? For example I don't think Adam was made as an infant. Isn't it logical that God made the universe complete rather than an undeveloped one?
Star light has been well addressed by Dr Jason Lisle. One way speed of light is only conventional and can't be measured.
I heard him lecture on this topic several years ago. It was very good. But engaging Ken Ham is easier than engaging with a scientific PhD so you don't see as many people actually engage Lisle on that or other topics.
@@pastorzhhicks agreed Lisle is a much better representative of YEC than Ham.
the speed of light is definitely not only conventional, and I don't know where he is going with the speed can't be measured
@@briandiehl9257 You should go look up what Dr. Lisle has to say about it, since this falls directly within his field of academic study.
You may even learn something new.
The problem with Dr. Lisle's theory is that it can't be tested and is therefore both unproveable and unfalsifiable. Besides trying to account for a young universe, there is no reason to hypothesize that photons behave that way.
Honestly I think a lot of the controversy comes down to the fact that the creation debate is mostly third tier, but a literal Adam and Eve from whom all humanity descend is borderline first-tier because otherwise the core teaching that sin and human death entered the world through Adam makes less sense.
Why should we assume that the "death" that resulted from sin was "physical" death? Especially when the scriptures explicitly tell us that "only" Christ has immortality?
Hi Gavin, another issue I’d be keen to hear you address are the bible verses which seem to indicate that humanity was created at the beginning period of creation. They don’t seem to fit with the view that we’ve only been around for the last tiny percent of time:
“from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Mark 10:6
“His… divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world.”
Romans 1:20
How long is the beginning?
@@EmberBright2077 However long it is, it’s not the “end of creation” or the “final period” of universe history which OEC would make it be.
@@EmberBright2077 "In" the beginning. Not during or in the middle or at the end of the beginning but "In", as in "at".
@@godisreality7014 Ok..?
Thanks for a gentle but carefully reasoned review of these topics! When I was in HS/college in the late 90s to early 00s, the YEC literature was a lifeline to me for proving that science could be understood through a Christian worldview. However, as time progressed I realized that the leading voices of the YEC view had led me away from carefully reading Scripture without assumptions, particularly on issues of what death is and where it enters the timeline of the natural world. I later realized that much of this was coming from a Restoration Theology framework that I do not believe Scripture teaches. Since then I've tried to become more open minded on Genesis 1-2 and actually check claims made (from both sides) against Scripture.
Great video as always,
I would love to see a video dedicated to natural revelation and the idea of "man's science vs god's word." Often times flat earthers and geo-centrists are laughed off as a joke, but there is a not insignificant amount of Christians who believe that all science is a big conspiracy of idol worshippers designed to subvert Christianity. It would be nice to see a humble and loving response to this line of thinking.
Thank you for your work, you're a very important link between lay Christians and complicated theology and history topics. It's criminal that your channel doesn't have millions of viewers.
I wouldn’t say it is a conspiracy, but there is a solid majority of sciences who’s practitioners operate under false assumptions about the world: namely, philosophical materialism/naturalism.
I think more helpful than debunking Christians well known for going overboard with their Creationism like mr. Ham would be a constructive dialogue with a well read, irenic Creationist with whom you can reason dr. Ortlund. For example, Marcus Ross. Please invite someone like that on your channel and make it a more fruitful quest.
Agreed. I attended the International Conference on creationism this year and Ham was not one of the theological or scientific presenters. In robust Biblical creationism/yec, he is not the leading thinker, just one with a big platform. Dr. Bill Barrick, Dr. Rob Carter or Dr. Marcus Ross would be better ones to talk to and interact with their work.
Yes! He should be engaging the strongest arguments not the weakest.
@pastorzhhicks Well as he said, he's not trying to disprove the Young Earth. He's just trying to prove that science is not the only reason people reject that view.
@@Draezeth I understand that. Dr. Bill Barrick is a hebrew scholar, that's why I mentioned him.
@@Draezeth And in the process of trying to show that science is not the only reason, the secular scientific consensus is something he brings up in every single video that he talks about this... funny how that works.
You take the secular scientific consensus out of it, whether it is now or the philosophical/scientific ideas present in some of the fathers he named, and instead begin with the text, you don't get an Old Earth. Without exception, rejections of a young earth view require a starting point of a philosophical or scientific viewpoint that rejects six 24 hour days before exegesis begins. In some of the fathers it was various forms of platonism, today it's the conclusion of scientists who do not consider the testimony of Scripture at all as they make their conclusions about the history of the earth.
In part 3, Gavin claims that death before the fall is not necessarily “evil”. I’m going to frame this differently from most other YEC. I think that SUFFERING before the fall seems UNNECESSARILY HARD on animals. We and the Creation suffer now purposefully - to prepare us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison to the suffering. But why would an omnipotent and kind God choose to start His project with millions of years of animal suffering - when He could just as easily create a perfect world without suffering where every creature ate plants??
Suffering rather than death is the moral issue. We wouldn’t have a problem with death if there was no pain or loss involved e.g. if it was simply exiting to a better life painlessly and we could still live our dreams and be with our loved ones. Hence too, the “death” of non-sentient plants is not a moral issue. But the promise/curse in Gen 2:17 is that “dying we shall die” (= one translation of the Hebrew repetition “mut mut” ). This translation indicates and foreshadows the difficult process of death involved for humans and other sentient creatures.
Not for plants though, it seems - no nervous systems, no pain receptors. And God gives the green plants for food for the rest (Gen 1:30). Thus I, like other YEC proponents, also would “draw the line of death” between non-sentient plants and sentient animals. I think every other biological kingdom could fit into either in the non-suffering, biosphere-enabling and food-for-others camp… OR… the sentient, also-suffers, plant-eater camp. However, I think the suffering of insects and microscopic animals is likely to be very minimal. Also there are pain-reducing mechanisms built into human and animals that are activated by likely fatal wounds.
I note too that Paul does NOT seem to have in mind just human death in Romans as Gavin says, since in Rom 8:20 he talks about “the whole creation having been subjected to futility unwillingly.” Given that Paul explicitly links the ending of this futility to humanity’s eventual physical redemption (Rom 8:21), it seems that he is implicitly indicating that the creation was subjected to futility because of the sin that entered “the world” (Rom 5:12) through Adam’s sin.
Something I don’t get about YEC is that they often believe in a literal flood. So you ask them how every species could be on the Ark. And then they say it’s not a species but a kind, and all the different species descended from the kinds. But that would imply an extreme amount of Evolution to go from X amount of kinds that would fit on a boat to Y number of species alive today in just 6,000 years. So they frequently argue that Evolution can’t happen even over billions of years. But that it can happen over a few thousand years.
You are refering to speciezation, not evolution. everyone agrees animals can change specie, not everyone agrees they can change animal kind. animal speciezations is very quick, sometimes only a few generations. you can see this in a huge number of animals from fish to birds and so on. while i understand a global flood is extraordinary, it does seem to fit with the text and evidence for a global flood seems very strong to me.
i'd say there is more evidence for a global flood than a young earth
Good point, definitely: "Noah's Ark and the Cheetah" ua-cam.com/video/rIlWKp44T50/v-deo.htmlsi=n6y7s9lU-tQJoUKj
Yes, YECs have to assume an incredibly rapid hyperevolution and spread around the world post flood for this to work in the 6000 year timeframe. They tend to describe it in terms of microevolution or speciation, in their "kinds" though.
@@skyorrichegg Correct I agree that speciezation an occur during that time period. But for every kind of animal to such an extent that it goes from the number that can fit on a boat to all the species of land animals today, that’s just not possible.
@bman5257 Yeah, I agree. It is hyperevolution at a scale and rate to make even the most ardent atheistic evolutionist blush at its rapidity.
The stories of Genesis 1 - 11 were ancient in Moses' day. But then Ham wants to read them like modern texts. No. We have to understand how people told stories back then. Maybe one of the closest things we have in the 21st century is memes. Very short, simple, unforgettable, picture stories. Eve being tempted by the serpent. Noah's ark. etc. You couldn't forget them if you tried.
Gavin, thanks as always for all your hard work, for your charity, and your pastoral heart. God bless you and your fam 🙏
I finished your book about Augustine’s view of creation and it has been such a blessing. It was only the grace of God that my faith held up through public school after taking classes on biology and astronomy. This burden has been lifted after seeing figures like Augustine or B.B Warfield embrace different interpretations of Genesis and creation as a whole
Or maybe the lying world of men is, no surprise, lying to you? Have you even thought about the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the atheist bias of those scientists may have played a role in their interpretation of the so called evidence? And what about the multiple missing link frauds? And what about the trees fossilized in an upright position throu several layers of supposed millions of years? And what about the words of God when he tell us that we should not trust in our own understanding but on his perfect knowledge.
To make your videos on the creation account as helpful as your videos on things like Catholic dogmas, I think you need to actually engage the stronger versions of the YEC position. A book like "The Ultimate Proof of Creation", written by a PhD, in the Reformed tradition (specifically the Van Til tradition), with a lot of work dealing with logical fallacies and an appendix on hermeneutic method, is much more worthy of engaging with than the latest inflammatory Ken Ham quote, and it's written by a guy (Jason Lisle) who is just as well known in YEC circles as Ham is, and by many, much more highly regarded.
Doing this the way you have, it just feels like you're going after the weakest version of arguments for the position which doesn't seem very helpful for anything other than creating a false perception of the strength, depth, and nature of the YEC position.
Thanks for the comment, I will keep my eyes peeled for that book. I would disagree that engaging Ken Ham is "going after the weakest version" of YEC. He is extremely influential and thus needs to be engaged, and the arguments I am addressing here at the three most common ones I hear across the board. It is necessary to address what is widely held and argued.
Ham and AIG is by far the most prominent voice of YEC in the world today
Lisle is not a serious thinker.
It’s fair game to go after Ken Ham. He was very influential to my family, my church, and I. Ken Ham speaks more to the layman than other creationists do.
@@SneakyEmu Even within AIG there are people with doctorate degrees that further arguments far far more complex than what's being addressed in this video.
Opening a book by a PhD rather than grabbing a few quotes off of Ken Ham (some even from a podcast) that are clearly going to be in a truncated form would be far more productive.
Gavin I absolutely love your heart and your channel, especially on the ecumenical topics. And I'm grateful for this Part 2 video to clarify much of what you mean to say and to help me to learn more about your old-age perspective. This topic is a tender one for many and for me as old-age theories and evolution led me astray from Christianity for almost two years in high school and college. It was because everyone who proposed those theories had a zealous anti-christian worldview.
It was guys like Ken Ham, the AIG team, Institute for Creation Research, Michael Behe, Dr. Stephen Meyer, etc and many others who saw myriads of common youth like myself being led astray by anti-christian worldview science, that absolutely gave great doubt to the rest of biblical truth in the late 21st century, and decided to do their homework theologically and scientifically to try to save or recapture the mass youth exodus. They have received incredible amounts of slander for their work from the secular community and christians which is worth noting.
There are some mysteries in the Creation account, yes, but AIG and others like them make a great effort to tackle and explain those mysteries and I honestly find that non-YEC's just don't dig in AIG's extensive and exhaustive work in defending the Creation account and I'm not sure why.
I hope we can soberly understand and sincerely honor Ken Ham's zeal in his work in the face of certain 19th century theories that have bore destructive fruits on christians in the public schools ever since.
I hear your pain. I was brought up in a church that taught young earth creation. Went through school and university still believing in young earth. That changed when I was in my early 20s and went to a museum and saw ancient dinosaur fossils and fully reconstructed dinosaur skeletons. It did not shake my faith in God but I had to "re-write" a lot of software in my head.
Unfortunately, many do lose their faith.
There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 that is in compete agreement with scientific observations of the universe. I wish I could share it with you but this format will not allow for it.
Respectfully @jeremystrand7095 - I do not think Ken Ham's zeal, which leads to an absolute insistence on literal 24-hour days being the *only* faithful interpretation is something we should honor - regardless of position. I'm so happy to hear you came back to the Lord after a period of doubt - and I'm sure you are not the only person for whom AIG has done that. However in my view AIG and Ken Ham create a false dichotomy, and conflate the anti-christian worldview (humanism - there is no God) which we should rally against, with the mechanism (evolution, created mature, something else) which we should be able to disagree on.
Ken Ham makes me, previously YEC, an outsider, along with so many millions of Christians through the ages. It burdens me, and just seems so very unnecessary.
I've seen this point made in similar ways by others and the same thought always occurs to me. Could you see a flip side of this argument? If you hadn't been raised to believe that YEC was essential and undeniable would you have been lead astray by learning evolutionary science? I understand (from personal experience!) how complex losing your faith can be but I think this same argument could be used to argue against holding up YEC as an essential aspect of our faith if it contributes to so many people having there faith shaken.
Very well said brother, thank you for sharing.
@@zakkonieczka6811 I understand what you mean and I'm certain the flip side experience is true. I think though that most everyone agrees that for the common christian, a simple reading of Genesis tells of a six 24-hr day creation account with day/yom, morning and evening specificity, and Go'd calling back to 6 day creation, 7 day rest in Genesis when giving the law for the Sabbath. That paired with the genealogy traced back from Jesus to Adam just doesn't speak of billions of years at face value. And maybe it would be worth adding that christians haven't been spearheading billion-year theories and evolution to glorify God and make Genesis understandable. Its scientists who generally have an agnostic/atheist worldview who relish in any science, or interpretation of science, to promote their worldview against christianity.
So it seems like if a man gets saved while in a related science field, yes - literal 6 day creation will be problematic. But, it also seems like there isn't much interest in many YEC organizations to see many alternative explanations and theories on some Genesis mysteries especially given the ever-changing nature of the mainstream science community. (For instance, now I've seen articles that whales evolved from dogs and humans evolved from squirrels - not kidding.) And I think its because the mainstream science community looks at YECs and related scientific communities as sub-par which is either an unconscious or conscious bias which I can definitely understand and sympathize with. But there are great minds and good alternative theories and explanations out there.
Bless you friend.
Gavin, I'm a 52 year old Evangelical Free Church pastor, and I've just found your channel. I love it. Feels like some good seminary classes!
Of all biblical issues, the flood passage is still the most intractable to me. I still read the text as best interpreted as global, while the best physical evidence does not seem to indicate that. I live with some tension on this issue. I'm okay with not having it resolved, but I'm still open to learning.
I'm very curious about your take.
... but not very wise in light of God's word: Proverbs 1, 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. - Colossians 2, 3 Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
The flood was not global. That's the easiest explanation.
@@axderka - The most obvious explanation is lack of information. - Only a global flood is as well in accordance with God's revelation, the Bible, as with globally observable traces of the global flood.
The problem is: if you wear the spectacles of the naturalistic evolutionary world view you cannot but see things in this interpretation without any relevance in relation to the Truth.
@@axderka I understand that is how many Old Earth Creationists handle it, but I don't think that is the best interpretation of the text. It seems forced based upon coming to the text with an outside understanding already in mind. I also understand that the ancient near eastern people had a very different understanding of cosmology, but the original readers, whether after the Exodus or after it was compiled in the Babylonian exile, would almost certainly have understood that all animal life was wiped out and that all the surface of the earth was covered. They may not have understood a round globe or continents, but the text seems to go to some pains to make it clear that all animal life and all the surface of the earth was covered.
Using the grammatical historic method and understanding that the meaning of the text comes from what the original author (Moses) meant to say to the original readers (Hebrews in Moses' time), it is hard for me to see how they would have understood it any other way.
PS. I'm an Old Earth Creationsist, and I'm quite comfortable with the understanding that Genesis 1-2 do not demand a young earth.
@@littlemas2Watch his video from last week, brother. 😎👍🏻
That intro was brilliant 😂😂
Here to be sharpened theologically and intellectually too. May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with you and your family, Dr Gavin
#from Kenya
This video was funny😂. I was laughing a lot throughout the video. Ah, the Word of God is full of joy mahn.
Excellent discussion on this.
I'd also add to your discussion on all death not being evil that in John 12:24, Jesus, when speaking about His coming death, says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
He doesn't seem to have an issue with plant death, but see the fruitful result of that.
In the garden every herb was given as food, but in the days of Noah Gen 6:11 We see that even the animals (all living things) are cursed for filling the world with violence.
Doesn't explicitly says animal predation was wrong, but it seems strange if animal predation was standard, that animals be cursed for their violence.
I believe plants are a special creation in that when a part of them dies it produces more of them. Man and animals do not do that. Our seed is living and must be in order to reproduce, which creates a new life..
Jesus is the only “seed” of the woman which produced life from his death, as he gave the example of the seed only referring to Himself.
I do not believe there is any relevant equality or comparison between death of a seed and the death of an animal.
@@kriegjaegerwhere are animals cursed? Not sure I ever read that scripture. Thanks
@@bytesizedbible
Genesis 6:11-14 all flesh had corrupted his way and was intended for destruction, while the mellenium describes the lion, often described as voracious and murderous, lying with the lamb without violence.
Maybe to call them "cursed" is careless. Corrupted is the word he actually used.
@kriegjaeger It's interesting that it does actually say flesh in veres 12, 13, 17, and 19. Verse 19 is exclusively about animals. The word for corrupt, however, in veses 12-13 in Hebrew actually means morally corrupt. So, I'm not sure how animals could be morally corrupt. It is true that the mandate to subdue the Earth was not happening, and therefore, I guess there is a corruption of the natural order that God wanted to be done. But this still doesn't make the animals morally culpable.
It seems that being destroyed as an animal was due to mankind only, as verse 7 seems to indicate. If God was to wipe out all the humans via a flood, the earth and animals and flora and everything on the earth would also be wiped out except maybe the water animals. However, the receeding of the flood waters would wipe them out a lot too in the end for those stranded on the now dry ground again.
As for the Isaiah 11v6 and 65v25 where the wolf will live with/feed together with the lamb, and the lion will lay down with the yearling and calf and eat straw like an ox, this is indeed in the new earth where Jesus will rule. In this earth now, even before sin, Adam and Eve lived in a garden. Why live in a garden if the rest of the world was also a paradise? Also, why give the mandate to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1v28, the word subdue is a strong warlike word. It is a violent word in Hebrew. What is to be subdued if the animals were all cohabiting with kids and each other? What exactly is there to subdue?
There is a theory that the animal like gods and half human/half animals we see in art in places like Egypt, etc, are actually what happened before the flood. Some suppose that they had the knowledge from the "sons of God" to corrupt themselves with gene splicing and thus making half breeds. However, this seems to be lacking from scripture as well as any evidence from archaeology. It seems to make much more sense to believe these are just the outworkings of humans worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. These could be fallen angels or spirit beings as we see half breed like creatures in heaven in the book Ezekiel and Revelation. However, both books deal with symbolism a lot, and so it is hard to say if we should take it literally or not. The destruction is linked with the previous verses with the Sons of God and daughters of men producing the Nephilim. God was no longer ruling in any capacity in the hearts of men except with Noah and his family. All else were following their evil desires and violence.
All this to say that I am not sure we can link animals with being corrupt and thus destroyed. If that is the case, then were the animals being saved on the ark not corrupted and violent? If so, why do we not see this today? Have they been corrupted again? This made me really think and research more into this topic. Thank you for that! Quite interesting stuff! May the Spirit lead us into all Truth!
14:22 thank you! I’ve been waiting for you to make content on Adam and Eve and also the flood. I am so looking forward to both videos!
Two ideas:
1. Going over your understanding of the Tower of Babel and the significance of that narrative.
2. Your thoughts on the age of Adam and his descendants.
Based on his videos on Noah and Creation, I’d say he doesn’t think Adam was a real man, and there’s no actual garden, nor any real fall, let alone a tower in anyplace called Babel.
@@davidfkendallhe does affirm a historical Adam and fall actually
Gavin, Have you read Creation Ministries’ Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s book “The Genesis Account” It is a thorough commentary on Genesis 1 to 11. It would be very helpful and instructive if you would give your thoughts on it in depth as you have in this presentation. Thanks.
A good recommendation. It's very easy to create the perception that YEC doesn't have stronger arguments when all his videos on the topic avoid more academic versions of the exegesis and science.
Good book recommendation.
He refused to make any effort to look into what the Bible clearly states and the current, scientific evidence that supports it.
I’m excited for the video on Noah’s flood, I don’t understand on an evolutionarily creation position how Noah’s flood could wipe off everybody on the earth, except for the few people the Bible says survived. Actually, now that I think about it, I can kind of see how it could work out, Its just is a little difficult to accept
I don't know if it helps but there is ample physical/geological evidence for the flood. I'm very thankful that modern science and research has continued to affirm what the Bible teaches as historical fact.
@@tategarrett3042yep Dr John Baumgardner and Prof Kurt Wise for a start
Most do not take Noah’s flood to be global. There’s actually good exegetical reasons not to. The word used for whole earth in Hebrew is “erets” which means earth, land, nation, etc… It can mean both the whole earth or the whole land. The same Hebrew words to say the “whole earth” were used in the story of Joseph when describing the famine. Multiple times it said there was a famine over the “whole earth.” We later find out that the famine was in Canaan and Egypt. The whole earth really meant the whole land (of Canaan and Egypt). We have to understand that the bible is narrative driven, not scientifically driven. In Genesis 6 from the narrative the “whole land” is the middle-east. Further proof is the table of nations in Genesis 10. The nations listed are what was considered the “whole earth” even though it says nothing of the Americas, Australia, China, etc… Many scholars touch on this topic but if you want easy to access and easy to understand content I recommend watching Michael Heiser’s videos of the flood on UA-cam.
Genetics is a huge flaw in this narrative of complete literal global flood.
Adam and Eve were vegetarians. God didn’t allow eating of meat until after the flood. Animals were vegetarians too. Many animals have teeth that look like they are for meat but are used for plants. See the panda who eats bamboo but needs stronger teeth. Everyone and all animals will become vegetarians in the new heaven and earth when the wolf lays down with the lamb.
Yes, in Genesis 2:16 Adam and Eve could only eat plants. In Genesis 9 God let’s them eat animals. Isaiah 11 the wolf will lay down with the lamb.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5roNope.
1:28 "...**have dominion over** the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over every living thing upon the earth."
God gives man special authority and responsibility over the rest of creation, as he is made in the image of God Himself. How do I know "dominion" is NOT a reference to eating? Because God literally clarifies in the literal next two verses:
1:29 "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you **every herb bearing seed,** which is upon the face of the whole earth, **and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.**"
He then EXTRA clarifies that the exact same provision of herb and tree for food ALSO applied to the animals:
1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepth on the earth, wherein there is life, **I have given every green herb for meat.'** And it was so."
Genesis 9's meaning is even more explicitly obvious with this context, as it uses a lot of the same language and makes intentional changes to reflect God changing the rules post-flood:
9:2 (To Noah and his sons) "And the **fear and dread of you** will be upon every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered."
(A pretty stark contrast from the original promise, as the animals were not implied to fear Adam. "Delivering into the hand" is a phrase often used of God when referring to armies being conquered in war. This is very aggressive language, not at all like the "dominion over them" talk earlier.)
9:3 **"Every moving thing shall be meat for you; even as the green herb I have given you all things."**
I literally do not know how much more explicitly God could put this. It's an extremely black and white phrase. He is quite literally calling back to His original command and explicitly stating how it has changed.
And then He clarifies what PART of the animal not to eat:
9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, **which is the blood thereof,** shall ye not eat."
It's laid out in incredibly simple language. Even in the KJV the meaning is incredibly clear.
You also didn't even attempt to answer the promise of the lion lying down with the lamb, but it's a very pertinent question: if not only did death exist BEFORE Adam and sin (in a "good" world, God's "perfect" creation), and not only death but violent carnivory among animals, why on earth would God suddenly promise the absence of killing and death even among mere animals in the "New Earth"? Was the original actually not very good, and He was calling it good for no reason...? Why would he "fix" the ills of the world by removing a feature, not a bug?
You are such a smooth communicator.
Adam was created brand new , no liver spots ,no chipped teeth , great cholesterol levels , good blood pressure because he hadn’t had any coffee yet.
After all that was said, I am still literal 6 days creation believer, a non believer in common grace, only one kind of grace, saving grace!
No death before the fall of Adam/Eve, man and animals ate fruit of the land,, Romans 8 tells that the whole creation groaneth waiting for the adoption, for the creature was made subject to vanity , not willingly but suffers now because of the fall of our first parents etc
to not believe in common grace is a very radical view. I don't know of any theologian who has denied that. I encourage you to reconsider.
@@Romans5.1I don't think anyone would disagree with the quote from Paul, it's the interpretation that is in question. What would need to be establish is that the groaning/waiting and the subjection to vanity, and the unwilling suffering of creation is equivalent to non-human death. Otherwise, it's begging the question to simply assume that Paul is addressing YEC concerns as the point of the Romans 8.
I note that in Genesis 4, the distress of the ground that "opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand" resulted from human violence and death, not animal violence and death. The Earth is negatively impacted by sinful human behavior. It is sinful humanity that corrupts the earth and therefore the appearing of the sons of God and the adoption as son (which will come with the redemption of our bodies) that will end the earth's bondage. This isn't hard to see even when we look at the last 150 years of human history: Love Canal, Blood stained fields in numerous wars, Atomic bomb fallout, etc.
@@TruthUnitesyou should speak with more normal people and less "theologians". Anyone can be a theologian, even atheists, only sons of God can interpret the bible correctly, unless they start listening and trusting in someone else, like theologians.
This is another superb and clear-minded presentation by Gavin Ortlund. It might be worth noting that Adam was mortal from the beginning. This is evident from the fact that continuation of his life was dependent on eating from the tree of life. When he sinned, he was blocked from the tree of life. On that day his eventual death became inevitable, and that of his offspring as well. So if Adam was created as a mortal human, prior to the fall, it should be no surprise that the animals were created mortal as well.
Proud to have Gavin as a brother!
Believing oneself wiser than God's revelation is nothing to be proud of!!!
Thank you! We need more thoughtful Christians like you addressing the heavy yoke Ken Ham puts on Bible believing Christians. Thank you for addressing this so carefully.
I like the warning. Beware the self-fulfilling interpretation.
What yoke are you talking about? Young earth? Is the truth, is in your bible!
@@andygray5138 beware of the made up interpretation reading between the lines because it doesn't exist. Evolution is nonsense and theistic evolution is an insult to God, and is ok to say it because we are defending scripture from error and preventing others from potentially losing faith in the future, because once you open the gates of "this is metaphorical" it never stops. Trust me, I've seen it a lot.
If you agree with the world and it agrees with you, something is wrong.
The yoke has always been light, but perhaps not to those who care about the opinions of man. Especially men that have nothing but contempt for your faith.
🎉🎉🎉 I love videos on creation! You should have a 2 hour long discussion with ken ham
Why should Ken Ham waste his time with someone who wouldn't listen to the whole context of God's word, the Bible?
Luke 16, 29 Abraham saith unto him, *They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.* 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, *If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.*
@@MorewecanthinkThat has literally nothing to do with how to interpret Genesis 1.
Ken would *never.* Unfortunate.
@@MeanBeanComedy - How so?
Having spent most of my life as a young earth creationist I appreciate these discussions. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 for me is the key and if we can agree on that, I think we can have different perspectives about the specifics and details. It is disappointing to see those who make the young earth vs old earth a point of fellowship.
The one thing you’re missing is that “heavens and earth” is covenant language.
Moses isn’t speaking to physical creation
““Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.”
Deuteronomy 32:1
But according to OEC he created the earth 10 billion years later. We don't agree on that
Regarding your overall conclusion, I think OECs and YECs are both trying to affirm the historicity of Genesis, truthfulness of Scripture and goodness of God. What's debatable is how successful each side is in affirming these things, because it's possible to hold views that logically undermine something that you otherwise affirm. In response to your three topics:
1. Historicity: I agree that the accusation of denying historicity is often overstated. But your interpretation of Genesis 1 must genuinely respect the literary genre and the details of the text. You can't just point to complexities and assume it opens the door to whatever interpretation happens to agree with currently fashionable naturalistic interpretations of scientific data.
2. Science:
a. You can't decide whether something is evidence for an old earth until you've evaluated how it fits in both the young earth and old earth models (and there may be multiple models of each). So merely listing things that have popular old earth interpretations is not helpful. And it seems that very few OECs actually get into specifics on these topics, they tend to just accept the old earth interpretation and assume that it's the only available interpretation. Most of the scientific data fit quite well in either paradigm, but there are many examples where YEC does a better job of explaining the data. I could also say about OECs that they are "maybe not aware of how powerful the evidence is" for a young earth.
b. "Fictitious history" is not a problem for most YEC views on distant starlight, it's only a problem for the very weak one that you keep bringing up.
3. Animal death: I agree that the issue of animal death is more complicated than many are acknowledging, and this is something I've thought about before. Drawing the boundary of what died before the Fall is hard. But, just because it's hard to draw the line doesn't mean there aren't clear examples of something being on one side of the line or the other. Many OECs agree that Adam's sin broke the world. There is cancer in the fossil record. When you look into the details of what cancer is, it's so obviously a breaking of God's good design, such that the systems that were designed for flourishing of life become agents of chaos and destruction. So we don't have to perfectly draw the line of pre-Fall death to know that many things in the fossil record are clearly post-Fall.
Thanks for the comment Daniel, I appreciate respectful interaction. Just a question (and my goal is to understand), when you say, "'Fictitious history' is not a problem for most YEC views on distant starlight, it's only a problem for the very weak one that you keep bringing up," what do you mean?
@@TruthUnites Knowledgeable YECs have been saying for many years that light created in transit is not a good explanation of distant starlight for exactly the reason you highlight. Other models would say that the light we are seeing does not represent fictitious events, they are real things that happened, but the light did not require billions of years to elapse on earth to reach us. For example, I believe Humphreys' model would say that billions of years passed in the outer universe during one day on earth due to gravitational time dilation.
@@danielklassen1513 Thanks for the reply. I get mixed reports on the "created in transit" answer so its tough for me to know who is considered "knowledgeable" and who isn't. I appreciate you mentioning another model, but I struggle to understand how the other models (both the ones I read about, and what you mention here) don't result in their own kind of fictitious history.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for your responses Gavin. I enjoy talking about these things and I love that we can have these conversations among brothers. I guess I don't really understand your objection to the other models, but I'm happy to leave it there.
@@TruthUnites I don't mean to oversimplify things, but one thing that always struck me as being an unnecessary conflict between OEC and YEC models is the light and "apparent age" that it implies, according to current scientific models, for the stars at the far ends of the universe. When God created the universe he broke every natural law that governs it today - creating something from nothing, bringing forth heat from absolute zero, and life from death, so the idea of creating the light between the most distant galaxies and us at the same time hardly seems like an issue to me. Especially since we know that God created the heavens to declare his glory, and thus if we couldn't see and appreciate them they wouldn't be able to fulfill their purpose.
I'm now about half an hour through in this video, and I hear you give loads and loads of reasons from logic and naturalism. Problem is that most if not all of them are founded in naturalism. For example the universe must be millions of years old because light took that long to get here. Really? We haven't the slightest clue (except for naturalistic models!) of how starlight travels, and there are indications that it isn't actually old light. You talk about craters, assuming those occur incidentally, yet that presupposes uniformity of events. Light before stars as a reason to doubt historicity? Why? Because it isn't according to naturalistic properties. Note that none of those stem from scripture itself, as you claim.
I love Gavin's spirit and approach to his videos. Always very kind and very thoughtful. ❤
An error spoken with kindness is still an error. Would you agree? Then what is the point on building bridges with error? Please tell me. Think for some time before writing an answer and try to not have that knee jerk reaction that we all have when defending a friend while doing it please. Consider scripture and forget about everything else. What is written in the text? Do you see evolution in the text in any way?
Still waiting for those next creation videos!! - Adam and Eve then the Flood of Noah !!! SOON!!! please!!
Its funny.. no where in the Bible do you deny the word day being 24 hours except for in the Book of Genesis
Because Genesis is a very poetically heavy and non-literal book.
_Revelation 2.10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation._
Is the church in Smyrna going to suffer persecution for only 240 hours? Not likely.
genesis defines what is means by day, morning and night
Oec are liars
I’d love to hear your response to Historical Creationism by Sailhammer
YES
I still think it is a slam dunk to point out that the creation story had no eye witness, so the literality cannot be known without "special knowledge".
Great point, i would to point out, generally creationist over come this by saying God was the eye witness, however, that anwer misses the point. honestly i think its a serious question that both sides need to consider
Not really. Jesus is an eye witness to & partaker in Creation as a member of the Trinity who testifies his special knowledge by referencing the scriptural account itself (Genesis) regarding creation, the nature of the human condition, and marriage “from the beginning” multiple times in the Gospel accounts.
@@TheologyVisualized Except what Jesus says does not preclude a non-literal reading of Genesis.
@@EmberBright2077 Jesus Christ is the I AM.
@@TheologyVisualized I agree with you except that the IAM is one. (Deut 6.4) Mark 12.29: “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." - this is a Commandment.
Also, literal =/= materialistic interpretation. We are so immerse in a materialistic cosmology, that we think that the word "literal" refers to that, in contrast to "symbolic" as a lesser truth.
Perfectly said. 😎👍🏻
Imo, Ham is causing harm to the Gospel by causing division.
Agree. I saw a discussion (not the level of a debate) about new earth (Ken Ham) and old earth (Hugh Ross). I thought Ham was very argumentative and denigrating (eg name calling) in his presentation. Ross was very methodical in his presentation and stuck to the facts. Ken Ham interrupted Ross many times when Ross was speaking, yet Ross did not interrupt Ham or elevate the rhetoric to Ham’s level. Ross never interrupted Ham. Ross kept presenting his evidence, which Ham never refuted. Ham, a theologian, argued from Genesis 1 about the creation of the Earth. Ross an astrophysicist, argued from the many accounts of creation in Scripture as well as characteristics of the Universe. I think I know who knows more about the way the world and universe operate. I believe both are Christians.
If I had to choose which one I was most persuaded by based on this interaction (which one of these showed humility and politeness (they ACTED like they were Christians)) I’d choose Dr. Hugh Ross hands down.
Full disclosure: earlier in my life I was a young earth creationist. Today I’m a big Hugh Ross fan and old earth creationist.
I cannot image at all that God's orginal design focused around death as the main mechanism for bringing about humanity, the Bible is so clear how God hates death.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro As a punishment, a consequence for our sin.
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro He created humans with the "capacity" to sin, not sin directly. Why did he create humans for the capacity to sin, well there are many many theodicies for reasons why, for free will, greater goods, His ultimate plans, and so on and so forth. Bottomline for me is He called His first creation "good", the creation without sin, without death, without suffering, this makes sense to me, regardless what happens later in the timeline with sin and whatnot, I cannot imagine the currently world we live in God would call good, so before the fall of man "good", after the fall with sin and death as a consequence not ideal, not his orginal good creation.
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Well, I would lean young earth, so not millions but thousands of years. Also, God planned for it, sent his Son, carried the punishment for all of our sinning, eternal life, all that Jazz. But I mean, would you rather he just destroy everyone? No life at all? Never given an opportunity to experience life whatsoever? What types of creatures would God want to create, just pieces of rocks? mean, we all sin, we all ruined the plans, so I mean it's not as clear you seem to think.
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Interesting so when it says do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or else you will surely die, doesn't sound like death was something they were not going to experience until they sinned and ate the tree? I mean what kind of consequence is death if they were already going to die anyway, and death was just already apart of life? Also, the Bible is clear God hates death, so why would he call His first creation, which revolves around death good? So I hate feces, so then I spread feces all over my room and call it good? Makes no sense lol
@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Your two answers are ways you explain it but they are in no way conclusive, and not really convincing, they just do not seem like the plain reading of the text, they feel like work arounds. And as far as your "good" definition goes, it's just not Biblical. The Bible clearly says those who love death hate God, it makes no distinction between spiritual or natural death, just death. God hates all death, God is a God of life, life giving and life sustaining, unless of course one sins, for the wages of sin is death, but that is not His goal, it is always His goal to give life, life eternal. To think anything dying, even a plant wilting to dust, the notion of death just seems crazy to be the literal primary first method of God's choosing, to bring about mankind, i.e., evolution, makes absolutely no sense.
I found your YT channel recently, and am enjoying your content. You are covering things the Church needs to know. Since you are talking about the creation narrative, will you also continue through chapter 11? I hope you will cover Genesis 4:1 and possible translations. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Gavin. Agree wholeheartedly with your positions. Eager to hear the next "2 in the que", especially the flood.
You will realize this guy is not a Christian when you listen to them. This man has no faith and does not believe Adam was created by God with eternal life, sinned and as a result death entered the world, then the flood came and the lifespan of man was reduced from a 1000 to 120 years. These are all supernatural events and this man”s infatuation with science and the natural have killed his faith in Jesus.
About Gavin’s second point where he tries to refute the accusation that those Christians who believe in millions of years because of “science” are taking “Man’s science over God’s truth”…. Gavin says, we “need to work hard to distinguish between valid scientific claims from invalid scientific claims”. I agree. Unfortunately, other things Gavin says, seem to indicate that he has not done this himself.
For example, he has heard that lots of YECs don’t like the idea that God created the universe with a mere appearance of age - in fact most of us hate it for the same reason Gavin hates it - it smacks of deception. But although Gavin says he has been told there are other ideas, he doesn’t seem to know what they are because he goes straight back to saying how much damage YECs might cause with the appearance-of-age idea. So that really seems like a strawman argument there.
Now it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of pages to give an adequate explanation of the most pertinent data from a YEC perspective - and for those interested to dig in I recommend the Creation Ministries International archive (I have no special association with them myself). I’ll make just a couple of points now to argue that Gavin really IS an unwitting apologist for Deep Time and has let atheistic interpretations of reality deeply influence his view of Scripture without him actually realising how much that is the case.
(Not that it’s Gavin specifically I'm criticising. He is just doing a reasonable job of presenting the dominant modern Christian view in his characteristically respectful and personable way. And I’m a big fan of Gavin’s goals and channel generally. However, I have strong convictions about this topic in the opposite direction, which I am trying to express clearly and respectfully. )
Firstly, we don’t find “evidence of” Deep Time any where. What we find is reality in real time. We observe reality’s various “facts” and “data”. It only becomes “evidence for Deep Time” in the arguments we make for Deep Time. YEC’s use the same facts and data as “evidence for a Young Universe” in their arguments. As such it is scientific argument against scientific argument. One difference between the two schema, is that the YEC’s schema allows for a supernatural Creator Who both uses natural processes and, if they don’t already exist, makes those NPs ex nihilo. But this is a difference common to Christian evolutionists as well, who believe that God created at the start and intervened at other points, eg. the creation of Adam & Eve.
Of course, atheists consider a recourse to anything non-natural as unscientific but actually they mischaracterise the problem. Really, the unscientific aspect is when scientists extrapolate from current physical data to the past. In contrast, science, in the purest sense, is about repeated, systematically-refined observations in real time. Extrapolation to the past (in the absence of any way to calibrate processes back into Deep Time) is not science. (History can study the past because it has eyewitness testimony (via ancient writings) to support the physical findings of archeology - but only back 5000 years ago.) Evolution has no such eyewitness testimony. Biologically, we only ever observing population genetics change - we never witness an increase in genetic information or specific complexity, not even when a comparative advantage is produced by genetic error (e.g. the lactose digestive enzyme control gene being damaged to allow human adults to drink milk.)
The study of origins is not pure science because it also necessarily involves starting assumptions which are driven by prior philosophical standpoints. For example, Deep Time ideas began as an invention of anti-Flood atheists. They scrambled about for "scientific evidence” to support their prior bias. Radiometric dating came much later - 1950s. The point is that Evolution was not built from the beginning on “objective evidence” - no, the theory came first, then neutral data was explained so it would fit the story of naturalism, which in turn required Deep Time to supposedly allow things to “evolve” to their current state from nothing.
To be clear, no fossil, tree ring, moon crater, geological formation, starlight, etc, etc ever came with a tag indicating its age. Age cannot in fact be observed or measured; time itself cannot be measured after the event - only during the passing of time by a clock of some kind. Age can only be calculated using physical characteristic interpreted through a set of assumptions, driven by one's starting philosophy. For example, a lot of rock was formed by the eruption of Mt Saint Helens in 1980. Then in 1990, some rocks formed in that event were sent to a mainstream labs for radiometric dating; they calculated their ages in the hundreds of thousands of years. Wrong! These rocks were only 10 years old!
In fact, radiodating seems always wrong with rocks of known age - so why should we trust it with rocks of unknown age? (i.e. rocks whose formation was not observed and recorded in human history). How do evolutionary scientists deal with this problem? As I understand it, they just ignore it - google "Wrong radiometric dates, and why they matter" for more. Clearly, no deep time dating methods can ever be calibrated and checked - because we only have recent eyewitness evidence of rock formation (
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Just Bored, trolling and looking for a bite?
There’s something almost Gnostic about the view creation is so corrupted we can’t even trust it. God made creation, and He upholds and sustains it. It was good and it is still good, to think it isn’t is not biblical. If I can trust God’s revelation in Christ, I can trust His creation to tell an accurate physical history.
Im worried about you because even in error you receive 99% of not only positive comments but comments absolutely covering you in praise in everything you do and say. I'm afraid this could make you proud in the future and lean even strongly on those errors if you start believing them.
"First glance" literalists - is a great descriptor! We are commanded to STUDY to show ourselves approved unto God. Literalists, like Ham, suggest all meaning shoukd be clear at first glance.
Ive been a Christian for decades and I can assure you the Bible continues to reveal new truths to me daily. Anyone who reads it once and think they've fully comprehended all its truth do not know God.
Having listened to the video, it's very fascinating some of the points he makes. I couldn't agree more about the need for humility, especially since more than half of the things he mentioned as evidence for an old earth, I've actually seen as being powerful evidences for a young earth so we're definitely dealing with differing interpretations of the evidence, not a rejection of existing evidence, or a denial of it.
Good words can't change the fact that evolution is wrong and goes against scripture. I'm not impressed by his sentimentalist approach. What? Are we supposed to hold hands with evolutionists now? What is next? Do we build bridges to other false churches that teach false doctrines too?
Earendel is a reference to Tolkien’s character Eärendel, the half-elven father of Elrond.
Hello Gavin!
Can I make a request?
I have heard so many arguments against the YEC position (that I hold) and it always seems to boil down to: Day doesn´t have to mean day, genre must be considered, we must be humble and not assume our interpretations are correct etc. But what do you actually believe the text means then? I have never heard that.
You can find videos by John Walton on that subject on youtube if you'd like to learn more. The Liturgy of Creation is also a great book on the subject; it doesn't argue for any particular view of the age of the earth but does make a convincing argument that Genesis is often misread.
@@bjn3232 Thank you for the reply and the tip.
I have read a book by Walton, and it exemplifies my issue. After a whole book on the topic I still had no idea how he reads gen 1.
It argues create can mean form or establish, and I agree. How does that change the interpretation of the text?
He then notices that the Genesis structure is similar to an ancient temple ceremony.
But how does that help our reading of the text?
For example, does it mean God describes to us that Creation was like taking up residence in a temple, even if the actual events was nowhere near what is described? And if it was nothing like what is described (millions of years instead of days, long, slow processes of chaos into order etc) in what way was it actually similar to a temple ceremony?
Does the number of days matter? Does the order matter? Does the way God is said to create matter?
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro
Thank you for the suggestion, I am working through it now, very interesting
@@thomasfryxelius5526 I have learned a good lesson: satan and his ilk ALL have the gift of glib gab without ever making a point. It is about hypnosis.
Hip-Gnosis.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro
I cannot agree. The text describes how things happened. Even if you can conclude there are interesting parallells to temple ceremonies, that doesn't mean what is described did not also happen in the way it is portrayed.
In Ex 20, in the 10 commandments, it says that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days. I think that shows that the ancient israelites, even though they say depths we sometimes miss, nonetheless accepted the straightforward claims of what happened.
I so much appreciate your humility and breadth of study of this important topic. We are privileged to live after centuries of theological rigor. But not so many invest the time and had work needed to read, digest, and teach this topic without diatribe.
I haven’t watched this yet, but seeing the video has MADE MY DAY! I will say that unfortunately Young Earth Creationists do a much better job of publishing and explaining their views in an accessible way. It’s been hard for me to find substantial research on this topic as a new theistic evolutionist. I have searched here and there and only from knowledgable individuals on Discord and Twitter have I been able to get pieces here and there on this aspect of theology. I can’t wait to watch this video!
I think the reason there are fewer OEC's trying to engage argumentation is because it's the default position in the culture so less of an apologetic seems to be required.
That being said, I think the arguments adressed in this video were somewhat straw-manned. Granting that the YEC arguments may not always be stated with exact precision, I think the essence of the objections are not as simple as Gavin made them out to be.
@@joeh8130 You're absolutely right. But to go after something other than a straw man would require deeper engagement with the YEC view than the vast majority of OEC persuaded people are willing to do, in my experience.
I'm sorry, but any kind of evolution (whether darwin or "theistic") is not compatible with the Bible at all.
ua-cam.com/video/ClleN8ysimg/v-deo.htmlsi=e-8YeP2KUnKl3Mv3
@@joeh8130 As someone who was raised strongly in YEC, though some things were simplified for brevity, I didn't feel like any YEC view was straw-manned. Over time, through my studying of scripture, I have come to realize that Genesis does not require a YEC reading. I also hold to biblical inerrancy.
Thanks Gavin. It’s important to talk about this. So many struggle with this thinking they may have to suspend their reasoning to be a Christian. We live by faith, but it’s a faith that engages heart and mind.
Young earth creationism can't negatively affect the faith of any believer, unless you let the world fool you and you worry about what others may say about you. Do you want to be a friend of the world or what? Is the ridicule of their fat fingers pointing at you too much for you to bear for Christ? Come on now. Are you going to start throwing out basic teachings just because "a guy in a lab coat laughed at me and said that I'm dumb of I don't believe in evolution"?
A faith that engages heart and mind... are you saying that young earth creationism is dumb???? So you are saying raca to me? For staying with the word of God?
@@JesusProtectsThe "world" didn't cause people to drop YEC, since YEC is relatively novel (i.e. within the past few decades).
@@JesusProtectsAnd stop assuming your entirely literal modern interpretation of a passage is "true to the word of God."
It's laughably naïve and denies millennia of Church History.
Intuitively, I have never been able to sit comfortably with the "appearance of age" argument, but I have never been able to articulate it. This video does a pretty good job of (respectfully) blowing it out of the water. God is not a man that He would lie, neither in His word nor in His creation. If they appear to contradict to us, then it is we who have misunderstood something, either in Creation or in Scripture. God has not conspired to trick us scientifically in order to test our faith Scripturally, nor vice versa.
Edit: I would add that a biblical view of humanity as ontologically distinct from all other creatures means that the death of plants and animals is ontologically distinct from human death, even if it is biologically indistinct.
Many miracles do create the appearance of age. When Jesus changed water into wine, do you think it still looked like water, or did it look like wine? When Jesus reattached the ear (or other healings), the appearance of now functioning organs/limbs/etc would indicate to all of us that they always worked since we can’t instantly reattach ears or heal the blind or …. By no means is that deceptive, I think the deceptive argument in itself is in some sense deceptive as it assumes an answer we don’t know since God hasn’t given that to us. His does say over 20 times that He stretches the heavens, is it beyond God to stretch it faster the the speed of light while keeping relative laws in line?
@@coloradodutch7480 the difference at play is that those miracles are contained within the universe. We are not contained within those miracles. We are contained within the universe. There is no analogy between "appearance of age" within the universe and "appearance of age" of the universe. Adam, the water into wine, none of that has any bearing on what persists around us all the time without straying from the rules placed upon it. Miracles do not disprove the operation of nature any more than the operation of nature disproves miracles. We look in on miracles; we look out on the operation of nature. The logic just doesn't carry over.
Bingo. God would be trying to deceive us. He would never.
Hello Gavin, thanks for the video! Could you do a video on the creation of language or more specific about the story of the Tower of Babel?
St Basil insisted the first 6 days were miraculous and mysterious/sacramental. It seems that St Basil takes the history literally from the creation of Adam
I always assumed young earth creationists WOULD argue that ALL death is a result of the fall
Wow this was excellent. I've more or less always leaned old earth but now I have a more intellectual reason why. Thanks homie G!
There’s basically 2 things that divide YEC and OEC .Was there death before the fall of man ,and did the laws of physics change after the fall of man.
I enjoyed the video. I am a Young Earth Creationist though I no longer see this issue as a perfect litmus test for genuine belief. To be sure I think that Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism are often stepping stones people take as they are slowly exiting the Church. I think Ken Ham’s concerns about liberalism have validity. However, over the last few years I have been realizing that Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism are often not part of this trajectory and many serious believers hold these positions and do so in a way not unbecoming of the Christian.
One point I would argue against which I think you should consider: the idea that Young Earth Creationism entails intentional deception on the part of God as he created the Universe.
I would use the following analogy:
Imagine watching someone create a bust of George Washington from clay. They start with a large lump. They roughly shape a hunk into a nose and chin and eye sockets. They start with large changes, squeezes, scoops and pinches. Eventually they pull out some medium shaped tools to help provide some texture. And after working the clay they eventually proceed to miniscule, exact shaping tools by which, with very precise strokes, they work the final details of the bust.
If all you saw was the last few strokes someone might suppose the entire piece was made by these little strokes of the artist.
Its not deception on the part of the artist and neither would it be so with God if the natural laws by which he governs our modern universe had been of a more dramatic nature in the past.
I think, in addition to your analogy, the simple Biblically stated fact of a world wide flood has a massive impact on how 'old' the earth looks. It's no different than a human being who has been through a ton of physical drama aging (by appearance) prematurely.
I think many OEC instinctually know this which is why so many of them opt to reject a genuine worldwide flood account.
I've also heard another commenter on his last creation video use this analogy - when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding as his first miracle, it was said to taste better than all the others served then. Wine generally is a drink that improves its taste with age. Thus an experienced wine taster would probably have concluded that Jesus's wine was quite old. Was Jesus deceptive in creating wine with the "appearance of age"? I think not - he created wine with the reality of a fantastic taste, and us arguing about its age would be to miss the point of how marvelous the miracle is. Similarly, creation may "appear old" without it actually being old, and also without it being God deceiving us so much us people fixating on the wrong details.
Good analogy.
Most denominations don't hold to YEC, and most of Christendom hasn't held to it historically. It's fairly rare. I don't see leaving it as a stepping stone to anything but Truth.
There's a difference between an art piece and the *entire universe.*
I think Moses goes out of his way to make sure the reader understands that there is no death before the fall. In Genesis 1:28-31, God gives Man and Animals "every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." (1:29b) This immediately follows the creation that declared everything, "good" again and again. Then Moses ends in verse 31 saying that God declared everything: "was very good." After the fall in Genesis 3, the first thing that happens is murder (Gen 4 with Cain), then materialism + wickedness + more murder is shown dominating the line of the 'seed of the serpent'. Genesis 5 "and he died" emphasizing the universal result of the fall. Genesis 6, man is completely wicked, flood judgement, Noah. Then, after the flood, God re-institutes His creation covenant, this time with Noah, using language that mirrors the language used with Adam... but He changes the rules: "The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (Gen 9:2-3) The game changes, now Noah can legitimately eat everything, because of the fall. I am hard pressed to believe this would even be in the text or part of the covenant if there were death prior to the fall. It would be a needless and pointless textual addition. Moses goes out of his way to highlight the difference/change that has taken place. This is not a pros vs poetry issue. This is a covenant stipulation change as a result of the fall. The relationship of man to the animals is changed because of the fall. Moses codifies this for the reader in the stipulations of the Noahic covenant.
Everything else in this discussion, perfectly fine. The 'high' pros of Gen 1:1-2:3 is decidedly different than the rest of the Pentateuch. Some variation in understanding this section is certainly permissible. However, Darwinian evolution is antithetical to Christianity. This is what men like Ken Ham and the YEC are trying to stand against.
I am a YEC because of the text of Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
We interpret scripture by scripture. When faced with a difficult passage we see if a more straightforward passage can make it clear. Exodus 20:11 strikes me as very straightforward. This passage is not high pros, it is Yahweh Himself, giving the law to the people of Israel from Mount Sinai (read the whole thing in context). Yahweh Himself gives the fourth commandment and His justification for the Sabbath rest is based on His creation in six days and His rest on the seventh. As I said earlier, I am very hard pressed to understand this passage in any other way than a straightforward literal understanding. Gen 1:1-2:3, can in many ways be very difficult. Exodus 20:11, not difficult.
Plant death is still death
Re-read the text, look what is given a spirit by Yahweh.@@EmberBright2077
You are correct, animals were being consumed before the flood. Moses is pointing to the stipulations and regulations of the covenant. However, the central point is that before the fall, animals were not given to be consumed... ie no death. After the fall, animals were being consumed. Without the change in Gen 9, that consumption would be sinful. It is declared not sinful at that point in the text. But make no mistake, it is as a result of the fall and the entering in of death.@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro
Incorrect. In verse 29 God lays out what He has given to them: "And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. verse 30. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
God spells out exactly what He has given to be eaten. The reason is plain, to point out that humans and animals are not eating one another. The dominion mandate is not about eating, it is about Lordship. Adam is to reflect God as His vice regent on earth. The fact that there is a major change to this in Genesis 9 proves the point. The fact that death enters in in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 proves the point. The rest of scripture backs this up. Death is the final enemy to be defeated. It's why in the "age to come" the lion lies down with the lamb and the child plays over the adders den and is not bitten. The curse is removed.
I don't say this because I want to win an argument. I say this because without it, Christianity is just false. Christ came to conquer death and bring new life. The consummation ends death for good, all death. That is the whole thread of the Bible. Satan is the antagonist and death is the great evil that needs to be defeated by the 'seed of the woman' to make things right (or good) again.
I think you're isolating to the dietary laws here and missing the big picture. No animals, Gen 1... Eat animals, Gen 9. There is a dietary context in the background because Moses is writing it to an audience that is being given dietary laws. However, the clear meaning relates to lack of death and goodness from all of Gen 1 that precedes it. Then in Gen 9, the change is highlighted. Not that suddenly after the flood animals were being eaten, the change took place in the fall, emphasized through human death in Gen 4 and Adam and Eve being covered with skins at the end of 3.
We're not going to convince each other one way or the other. I read the text of Genesis and it is basically very clear what is going on. In fact, it's a core issue. But that particular detail isn't going to change your salvation. We'll be surrounded by plenty of people who had bad theology in heaven, but they belonged to Christ. (not saying your theology is bad, I don't even know what it is outside your belief in death existing before the fall, which I find incredibly problematic).
As an aside, one of my OT seminary professors held to the same position you do. I think he is an incredible Christian and scholar. I also think he's very wrong on this point. Another two of my professors held to basically a 6-day view with Ken Ham. They wrote part of a book on the issue. "Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique" I highly recommend it. The Biblical Theological portion is at the end. There is a smaller book that just addresses the Biblical issues, "A Biblical Case against Theistic Evolution: Is It Compatible with the Bible" You can find either on Christianbook or amazon etc.
Gavin, I haven't gotten to watch the video yet, but I have a question. What are your thoughts on Vern Poythress' work on this subject. Particularly his statements on the continuity and discontinuity between the creation week and the rest of providential history?
"the evening and the morning were the first day... and the evening and the morning were the second day... etc..."
There is no discontinuity. 7 literal days, one literal week. There is nothing that indicates this to be metaphorical, allegorical or whatever. Man was created in a very short moment, and the animals, and plants... everything was created in a short time.
Evolution is a lie, a serious error, and as you can see in the comments something that can even deceive the very elect as long as you preach it in false love and false kindness. And I say false because something that leads to an error this big does not come from a place of love and kindness, even if Gavin don't realize it. He may think he is acting out of love, but he is leading people to a very grave mistake.
As I wrote in the comments of Part 1, if we as believers accept God’s word that ‘kinds’ can only reproduce after ‘kinds’ and that consequently evolution is a lie from the pit of Hell, why the need amongst believers for the discussion about deep time verses 6000 years. I choose to believe in a young earth because God does not make reference to deep time, but six days. But there is a lot that God does not make specific reference to in scripture, but instead tells us enough to prove that He is the creator God, and that His word is the Book of Truth. I believe that Gavin is seeking answers that will become plain in the hereafter. Meanwhile, I believe his questioning of what God has told us will lead to confusion for both believers and unbelievers. Ken Ham does not reject scientific facts, he just examines the facts in the light of God’s revelations. No one but God was there at the beginning, and it cannot be replicated. Science has not revealed major errors in the Book of Truth. So, accept the Truth and win souls for Jesus.
"that ‘kinds’ can only reproduce after ‘kinds’" that is perfectly consistent with evolution
@@briandiehl9257 Were the neanderthals created in the image of God? Is that not blasphemy? It´s certainly gnostic and gnosticism is anti-Christ.
Amen. Beautiful. Yours is the only comment in the bunch that reflects the mind of Christ. Thank you.
@@briandiehl9257 You mean worms can turn into monkeys and then in to humans and that is consistent with the word of God, and provable by science? I don't think so.
@@kennethmiller4083 Not even remotely at all what anyone has ever said. Specieciation has been observed in a lab before. The species exclusively gives birth to the same species, yet after 35 generations to different species exist. Evolution at no point implies any species gave birth to another
Thanks for another awesome video. This 2-part video series was incredibly helpful for me. I'll probably be coming back to revisit these and will likely glean new info I didn't catch the first time through. I really appreciate your succinct and thoughtful explanations, your attention to detail, and most importantly, your gracious approach to it all. You sweat the details and we are all the better for it. I'm looking forward to your video on the flood of Noah's day!
A thousand years from now, when English is an archaic, ancient and unspoken language, archaeologists will dig up a book or an article or a letter saying that it's raining cats and dogs.
And people will argue the possibility and historical actuality of dogs and cats raining down out of the skies.
Young Earth Creationism is such a depressing and small worldview. I can't understand how anyone believes in it
Maybe because there is scriptural AND scientific evidence that supports it…
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:22)
Well, 99% of christains throughout history have.
Most people cannot conceive of having a different mindset than the one they have been drenched in since infancy.
That cuts both ways
@@michhanesh5466 Did my response say anything otherwise? What are you trying to say? Both ways, in what way? Please clarify.
Most nowadays are steeped from infancy in evolution in movies, tv, school and games (this was my case) and some are taught creation from infancy. I feel like some people make it seem that those who are raised YEC by their fathers and small communities were somehow gullible, when the power of those who push old ages is far greater. @@michaelbabbitt3837
Your “science over Scripture” section certainly left a stone in my shoe about this subject. However, your comments pondering why would God create a false History to show age compels the question of why would God create a false narrative by using the “evening and morning” concept in the Creation narrative, which allude to a 24-hour day?
Love your work btw! God bless you!
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro I agree with your point, but I don’t think that quite answers the question.
Because a "day" used metaphorically will also have evenings and mornings in the picture-world. It's like asking "If the Armor of God (Ephesians 6) is metaphorical, why does it have a helmet, shield, breastplate, shoes, sword, etc. The difference is - each part in this is explained. but sometimes not all the pictures are explained. For example the fourth beast in Daniel 7 ends up killed and it's body burned (Daniel 7.11), but will you then say it can't be referring to a world power like Rome because how can an empire be slain, and it's body be thrown into a fire?
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Do you see how you are having to put a "temple-text" lens on your interpretation in order to get around the text? I'm familiar with your view, I had Walton as a professor, but my problem with this understanding is it brings a lens to the text more than it seems to just understand the text. Isn't there a sense where the text is the real meta-narrative? It's not about the author's scientific worldview or having to interpret Genesis from an ANE textual perspective, though of course these have import, but it's about the fundament truth that God is the Creator, and He certainly seems to reveal that He created in 6 days with evening and morning. And we all know what this means.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro Those are interesting parallels, but we can again ask the question, does it work with a 24 hour days? And of course it does. Does it work with also saying something about geology, science and the age of the earth? Of course it does. We can have the Creation text which is then the basis for the temple text of Exodus, which is actually the basis for all the ANE cultural correlations. And this would make sense because if God first created with a 7 day cycle, and this is passed down to human generations as common knowledge, particularly through Noah's 3 sons, then it makes sense that it all goes back to the literal 7 day truth of the text which is written in Genesis.
Instead of working backwards we are actually working forwards. The truth is that God created in 7 days, and this exact truth is what forms the idea for temple texts, it's the basis for everything. And doesn't this make better sense? All truth is founded in God as Creator, it's not that Genesis happens to be like other ANE literature, it's that God's truth is the basis for all of culture, all civilization, all logic, all truth.
@@The_Bored_Theist-jq5ro I'm a little surprised at your response, I understand that we have some metaphor in the language used for creation. But that metaphor doesn't preclude the scientific possibilities. Pillars under the earth is a good description of the idea that we have mountains holding up all the land, when we look at the oceans we still see pillars (mountains) under the very waters. And astronauts understand the dome of the atmosphere that is the very protection of the planet, an atmosphere that takes great force to pass through. And underwater currents in the oceans, we understand this is true.
Yes, there's no sun the first few days, but there is light enough for photosynthesis. This just shows that God made a universe in progress and mature, in fact it's how life would have to be made, Adam and Eve had to be mature, so did the universe.
It's quite speculative to say the 7th day hasn't ended. The clear implication of the text is that God rested the 7th day, which was the same as the 6 days. There's certainly an application that God has finished His creative work, but not that the 7th day is an eon of remaining time.
And verse 2 does show a starting point before verse 3 making a theological point that God's creative acts move from chaos to order, but obviously anything material would have to have been created by God before since everything comes from God. That's of course why verse 1 makes this clear.
And again I ask why we have to say the Bible is ANE cultural metaphor when the reality is the truth of the Creation account formed oral tradition and is the basis for all metaphor. Certainly there is cultural influence in the time Moses wrote Genesis, but truths already extant and the reality of God's creation is the basis for all civilization. The context doesn't mean the Bible only points to flat-earth geocentrism, we have clues in the text about the sphere of the earth, and certainly from all we know about the universe the earth is at the unique center, being the only place with life and where God has been incarnated.
I think particularly with Genesis, an origin and Creation text, we can see metaphor and science, theology and narrative, cultural elements and trans-cultural elements, or what I would call universal elements. Always in the Bible we have a balance of text in context, and text as universal context. By that I mean that truths learned and shaped by culture have universal appeal and can apply to all cultures.
When I read that the pillars of the earth and the dome of the sky are formed by God, I don't need to be an ancient Mesopotamian to know what the text is saying. A Creation text would inevitably have to say something about science, since science is simply observed truth about materials and reality. So Creation tells us about science, temple metaphor, origins, theology, history, time, functionality, it really is foundational to our understanding.
Thank you Gavin.
Thank you very much brother Gavin.
Food for meditation.
God bless from France!
Young earth scientists have theories such as Time Dilation dealing with starlight which you might take issue with but is an interesting theory. Old earth theories also have issues such as the distant mature galaxies the James Webb telescope recently found which should not have been there. Scientists from both sides are always having to adjust their theories because neither side has solid answers without issues. Another issue is that you cannot measure the one-way speed of light, only a two-way speed of light so how do we really know how fast light travels one way? We don't really know what the answer is. Your arguments certainly don't sound as plausible as those I have heard from respected theologians and respected scientists. I especially like to read and listen to the scientists from the Institute for Creation Research on their podcasts because they talk about both sides and then what they believe.
"old earth theories also have issues such as the distant mature galaxies the James Webb telescope recently found which should not have been there" That was only an issue because they had an incorrect calculation for things like mass, that is not an actual problem for any of our 'old earth' theories.
"Another issue is that you cannot measure the one-way speed of light, only a two-way speed of light so how do we really know how fast light travels one way" by the maxwell equations. We knew what the speed of light was long before we attempted to measure it scientifically. Because the speed of light is so fundamental there are many many ways to determine the speed of light without even involving light
Looking forward to the next videos!
This anti-science thing some YECs have reminds me of the time I told my grandpa (who is an itinerant preacher, now retired) that the myth of the eagle snapping off its beak and claws, pulling out its feathers, &c. (allegedly referred to in Psalm 103) is utter nonsense and no bird does that. He found it very hard to accept, because he has used this anecdote a lot in his sermons. This didn’t affect our relationship in any way and I wouldn’t cut off any relationship over stuff like this. I hope the same cordiality can come into place between YECs and OECs, with both groups showing grace and compassion for one another.
It's worth noting that the word used for eagle in the Old Testament does not exclusively refer to eagles, but to a more generic bird of prey. It more often refers to vultures, though maybe they don't do the thing with beaks and feathers either, I wouldn't know.
The important issue is this: is it of Christ or is it anti-Christ? We must discern, there are many deceivers and they all come appearing as angels of light, like their father.
Dr. Ortlund, can I get a link to your Patreon? I'd be happy to support on a monthly basis. Keep in mind I cannot give a lot as I am on SSDI and I have several other ministries I want to give to. But I have gotten a LOT of value out of your videos and I would be happy to take my support to the next step!
What a sweetheart. 😊☺️🤗
i appreciate the emphasis on the term "literal" i'm a YEC, but i understand the debate is an interpretation issue, not a Biblical authority issue. I find it frustrating that many of my fellow YEC cannot discuss the topic, because its like we are speaking two languages. I would love to talk about Biblical interpretation without the pitfall of misinterpreting OEC view on scripture
Brilliant observation. Every interpretation is necessarily based on what is literally written. What would be the point of "old earth" - and what do you mean by old? When was the earth created and why? There was no time before earth so with the inception of earth, God meant something, what was it´s purpose? Certainly not "evolution"?
This was fascinating and enlightening! Thank you!
Luke 1:37
[37]For with God nothing shall be impossible.
May Truth soon Unite.
"Every explicit duality is an implicit unity."
- Alan W. Watts
Buddhism & Science, Alan Watts
ua-cam.com/video/io4ewu-cdrE/v-deo.htmlsi=sGqSSXHjCvc2r6jY
Yep. Alot of talk about uniting while dividing and conquering. Many meek sheep will follow the Phd. Hegelian Dialectic happening here.
@@godisreality7014 You learn quickly. Dissing the taijitu is in keeping with the dialectical method.
Chaos Theory | The Edge of Chaos | Cellular Automata, Wolfram & Psychology
ua-cam.com/video/XcB_7jv98uE/v-deo.htmlsi=qMV72JodVHfJXePY
Please explain why the dischronology of the plant creation / shrubs springing up is a bigger problem for YEC people than it would be for OEC views. What an I missing that it seems like that's a much bigger problem for OEC, if YEC only needs them to take a couple days to spring up, but OEC needs millennia? Or doesn't it?