Gavin, thank you for making this video. You described my journey from being raised as a Christian, getting a doctorate and turning towards atheism, to turning back to Christianity after I got deeper into apologetics and having my own spiritual experiences. I have been reading the comments on this video and many are misinterpreting your message. Your argument is not to convert YEC to OEC. Your argument is to deflect against the pull of atheism among those that cannot genuinely accept a young earth philosophy.
@@iGotMySniperSticky Studiously following 1 Peter 3;15 ejected me from Christianity. I am now heavily involved in paranormal phenomena & spirit communication. Christianity is VERY ACCURATE when it comes to ontological matters. 1. The spirit world exists. 2. There is an afterlife. 3. Human & non-human spirits exist & interact with people on a regular basis. 4. All manner of paranormal phenomena are real.
I am a YEC, and I think you are spot on. While I believe that YEC is the correct view, we YECs should present other views fairly, but to be fair, OEC nor Theistic Evolutionists rarely, if ever, give this kind of fairness to YEC. I wish we could all do better in this area. Thank you for this video, and God bless. Proverbs 9:7-9 He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
It can be very frustrating from a YEC perspective because i'll hear arguments and no one addresses them. I'll listen to naturalist or OEC and they either say nothing at all about YE science or that jsut make a passing joke. So i'd say OEC needs to do a better job communicating
Let me try to improve then. I am a theistic evolutionist. And I used to be a creationist. My problem with creationism, be it old earth or young earth, is that even if I were to accept either view, I logically come back to accepting Darwinian biological evolution. The issue with creation is that it logically contradicts itself. This is seen especially in. It's a denial of 'macro evolution', but its insistence of microevolution.
@@benjaminwatt2436 I think that the issue with people accepting Young Earth science as a legitimate discipline is that it appears to force or ignore the interpretation of our observable universe rather than allow observers to draw conclusions from the data.
I almost broke up with my now husband when we were courting and he brought up that he was not a YEC. I was so convinced that a person could not be a Bible believing, Scripture loving, faithful Christian and believe anything else. My two greatest problems with anything other than an YEC view: I could not accept death and decay being present on earth before the Fall, and I could not get over terminology that indicated 24 hour days (day and night) or a worldwide flood (repeated emphasis on flooding over the WHOLE world). But discovering Hough Ross as well as meeting sincere Christians that I respected and saw loving God’s word who did not have a YEC view helped me widen my acceptance of other viewpoints and wanting to help other Christians in my age range who might deconstruct over this issue. Needless to say, I am glad that I did not break up with my now husband over this issue. I also feel badly that the YEC view is treated as the only view a consistent, fully devoted follower of Christ can have.
Were birds created on day 5? How long was day 5? Is the repeated singular morning and evening able to be coherently understood within normal experience if it really means an undetermined amount of extreme lengths of time? Evolutionary models don't follow the order or Creation in Genesis.
Happy to hear that! I would be happy to always talk with an OEC person on it regarding the importance and cruciality of the literal creation account, but not reject them over such things. It's not a salvation issue but it is something that can mislead people or drive them away once they start to accept worldly teachings and fit them into the bible to appeal to the current popular view.
I sincerely believe that Christian Narcissism is engulfing a great number of "Christians" in this very topic. The mere suggestion that YEC is the only valid viewpoint and if you don't believe it your believing in the rest of scripture is doubtful is a huge evidence for Christian Narcissism. Also the hidden accusation and blasphemy behind thoughts like ( if death was before Adam sinned then there is no use for Jesus death/ Christianity looses it's sense/ God's character is questionable etc is definitely a troublesome thought driven by huge Narcissism, meaning a spirit not Christian but camouflaged as Christian. These people profess to follow Christ but enjoy the abuse and dispersion/ quarrels that ensure in these topics. There are diverse creation sites on FB with this very spirit of Christian Narcissism obviously delighting in huge arguments to the extend of open hatred amongst "Christians". You will notice that the admins of such groups delight in these discussions which is best evidence that they are Christian Narcissists.
I rarely comment on videos in general, but your short summary is spot on necessary to help avoid a faith crisis for some younger likely Christians. I believe in an old earth. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the gospel. Dr. Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe Ministry has given me peace in his gentle but precise scientific joining with the inerrancy of scripture. I am going to be 81 shortly but my mind is not gone quite yet. I am offended by the Ken Hamm heavy handed interpretation of scripture and the harm it can cause to some Christians caught in the trap. I have found that I will be joining my grandchildren on a trip to the ARK this winter. I found it necessary to have a teaching session with them to explain the controversy to them and not allow it to have an effect on their faith in the love and truth of Jesus in our lives. Your presentation is probably too deep for them to absorb at their age, but grateful for your consise summary of the errors in the movie
I appreciate your comment as I, too, take offensive at KH’s “all or nothing” approach. Many of our friends have visited the Ark Encounter and while I’m sure it’s impressive, I cannot bring myself to take that trip. I hope you have a wonderful experience with your grandchildren!
Thank you for speaking into this topic Gavin! I work in college ministry and just yesterday met with a guy who had serious doubts because he had been shown he HAS to interpret Genesis 1 as literal and didnt know how to reconcile that with the science classes he is taking. I have a science degree and am an OEC myself, and hearing the love and thoughtfulness in your arguments is extremely helpful! Bless you for doing Gods work to help bridge this gap culture is trying to create
It doesn’t help when people like Ham put forth the idea that God wrote the Genesis account and meant it literally so if you disagree, you’re of the devil. People like Ham get any political power and OEC people will end up on crosses.
I have heard many people claiming this topic to be one of the reasons they left the faith/doubted the church. I find it ridiculous Young earth creationism has become so prevalent that it has skewed the reality that church history has been open to, and embraced multiple views as to the interpretation of these texts. Its ridiculous because it has nothing to do with the gospel.
Agreed, i think Christians on all sides need to make it clear that how God created the universe is not vital to the Gospel massage. Unfortunately our society pushes the narrative that you have to either beleive in science or God. It would be helpful for Christians to offer useful explainations either YEC or OEC but emphasize the gospel
Thank you Gavin. As a Christian who is also a scientist, I find it frustrating how the scientific data is often misinterpreted by young earth creationists. It is also frustrating how often some of these same people insist it is science vs religion and that I have been indoctrinated by science or that I’m compromising on my reading of scripture. I take scripture very seriously and have spent years thinking about this issue. I find the forced dichotomies nonproductive. Thank you for being respectful and desiring to see Christians unite in our love of the gospel.
I'm a YEC, and I agree that the group can be overly dogmatic, and I apologize for anyone that has struggled with their faith because of it. But if I may say something in our defense, it does often feel like we're often standing alone against the rest of the world. Even other Christians often treat us like the black-sheep of the faith, lumping us together with flat-earthers and geocentrists. I appreciate how you don't ostracize us for our different opinion and I ask that you forgive us if we tend to be oversensitive, we've been picked on a lot over the years and we generally feel backed into a corner. Its made us overly defensive and quick to lash out.
@@heather602 Oh, I see what your getting at now. All I'm going to point out is that people will disagree on the interpretation of instructions for assembling a cabinet. The Bible is much more complicated than that. I believe that the creation account given in Genesis is meant to be taken literally, but I'm not going to question someone's salvation if they struggle to agree with that.
@@HSuper_Lee I don't focus on the bible being complicated because it's not me who understands it by myself. The Holy Spirit guides me into all truth just as Jesus promised he would. Honestly, God is pretty straightforward as He says there is simplicity in Christ. It's people who complicate things due to sin, the flesh and listening to satan, who is the author of confusion. Jesus's closest companions were fishermen and a tax collector. People the world would see as foolish to understand, let alone teach, spiritual things. Jesus praised the Father for revealing things unto babes.
Gavin, first, I appreciate your willingness to challenge certain views knowing many in your audience might not like it. That authenticity is greatly valued. On your first point, while I would also appreciate a recognition of the middle ground that the movie neglected, all variations apart from YEC do in fact borrow heavily from the conventional (naturalistic) paradigm. Speaking of clarification, when you clarify YEC has taken a big role in American culture only fairly recently, you didn't clarify that our culture has also accused YEC of being invented only recently (which is false). I appreciate the fact your video has only certain points you want to address, but so does the movie you are critiquing. Second, no one in the movie claimed a literal (or literalistic) take of the creation account equates to thinking EVERYTHING in the bible is meant to be taken as literal. This is a false equivalency, and a very common, though false, accusation. The YEC I've researched freely recognize differing genres of writing in scripture (I know of no credentialed speaker/author/teacher in YEC who thinks the parables of Jesus are meant to be taken literally, for example). The genre of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is also highly disputed, so the non-literalistic interpretations also need to be justified. Many people claim they know the genre (such as the contested "mytho-history" genre) but because there are so many differing interpretations (a lot of middle ground) let us be careful to recognize all sides need to make a good case. I think you recognize that, but it's worth reiterating. Third, you made a good clarification on the Grand Canyon. However, mainstream science (and many Old Earthers) present a false authority (pretending to have it all figured out) as a matter of standard practice in all scientific matters. This is in fact one of the things this movie is reacting against. On the Hebraist matter, while Dr. Boyd does indeed believe the days of creation are literal 24 hour days, you'll notice did not put those words in anyone else's mouth. He did not claim all the Hebrew experts argue the Genesis creation account teaches 24 hour days - he said they all argue Genesis is written in narrative form; a literalistic reading of the nature of the creation days is a separate matter. You've made a false equivalence here, akin to the same problems you highlight in this video. Lastly, when you explain how you feel this movie might prove a stumbling block to some, you actually deferred to the false authority of mainstream science, making no distinction between the data and interpretation of data (a major distinction and one constantly pointed out by YEC). The creation narrative is not the only thing at stake; the reliability of scripture is also on the table, and the creation account is only one area where people struggle to accept the biblical description. Astrophysics teaches blind, unguided nature created the universe and thus there is no need to appeal to a supreme being to explain it; I doubt you would defer to the scientific consensus and challenge the notion God created the universe. You would likely distinguish between the data and mainstream interpretations of that data. If mainstream science returns to an eternal universe model (and once again deny the universe was created at all) would you accept that claim and reinterpret the biblical teaching that God is the creator? A similar problem applies to the exodus out of Egypt, where the mainstream evidence seems to contradict (as a matter of interpretation) the biblical claims. That is the battle YEC fights - separating interpretation from the evidence. We should also recognize the stumbling block created by claiming certain miracles, such as the virgin birth, or resurrection from the dead, or talking plants or animals. A lot of believers (perhaps not you personally) prefer to explain way the supernatural aspect of much of what scripture describes. I hope this comment contributes more to "iron sharpening iron", as I believe your video is also intended to do.
Listening to InspiringPhilosophy actually helped me to see that old earth is not necessarily outside of possibility or even orthodoxy. Then I stumbled upon your videos which are also very helpful. I am still kind of working through it right now.
IP video on YEC if full of errors, misrepresentation and weak logic. Gavin's critiques are weak also. His previous videos on Ken Ham is not much better. Gavin would do well to talk the creationists rather than assume he knows everything on this topic.
@@EmberBright2077 His arguments against Ken Ham focused on literal versus historical but missed the important discussion about which Adam actually existed. An Adam 6,000 years ago is hardly an Adam from 130,000 years ago. He also said that YEC were harmful, as does WLC, so it is not simply about having different views but that one side hurts the church, the very thing he claims Ken Ham is doing. He claims the church fathers weren't literal 6/24 adherents and that somehow gives license to accept billions of years, when none of them did. Rather poor logic. Gavin's anti-YEC bias is clear.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 Ken Ham maintains a sickeningly condescending attitude towards anyone who isn't YEC. But that's besides the point here. **An Adam 6,000 years ago is hardly an Adam from 130,000 years ago.** Why not? As for YEC being harmful, it definitely is. What keeps happening is people convince themselves that you either have to believe in YEC, or become an atheist. Then eventually that person can no longer ignore the evidence for evolution or Old Earth. So they abandon the faith, because they assume Christianity has been proven false. Regarding the Church Fathers, how does a precedent for a non-literal reading of Genesis mean we do not have license to read Genesis non-literally?
I was almost one of those guys who lost their faith over having to view it as literal. This channel has been one of the most helpful resources with strengthening my faith. Thanks!
I don't understand your position. So the world lied to you, you believed it, and it almost made you lose your faith, but you regained your faith by believing the lie. How many more lies have you accepted after believing that first one? How much of the bible can you turn into an allegory? Why not believe the inspired and inerrant word of God instead of the ramblings of a few white coats that profess to be wise but are complete fools that deny creation?
@@JesusProtectsthe oldest traditions such as Orthodox and Catholic do not take a dogmatic position on the age of earth. Early Church Fathers would say there are 3 levels of reading scripture. First is literal plain reading, 2nd is where Jesus is found all throughout and the 3rd is a deeper level of pattern recognition and deep symbolism.
Would you consider doing a video of some exegetical unpacking/teaching on Genesis 1:1-2:3? I think it would really serve people to see an older earth position clearly expounded from the text!
Hope it is going well. This modernist approach to reading a historical document is greatly regressive, mixing the book of nature with the book of the Faith and it is a pitiful intellectual display and layered with deceit. May he return to the Lord's warm embrace and Wisdom be manifest in his heart and the Holy Spirit draw closer to fill his home once again and forever more.
You are saying YE is false. How would u know? And leaving your faith based on that makes no sense. And who said the rest of the world is right? there are some things that made be hard to understand but that don’t mean u lose your faith over it. one still needs Christ to go to heaven. Christianity is not a lie. They should consider Christ’s words first.
@@staal2691 Because you have to operate on basic evidential foundations to properly believe that Christianity is true - unless you just picked up a Bible one day and decided arbitrarily to believe everything it says. So if the evidence can show that Christianity is true, you can't then just abandon evidence when it doesn't suit you.
I was under the impression that all theologically orthodox Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox) before the 19th century believed that the universe was created around 4000 to 5500 B.C.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case considering that contemporary science had no evidence of the earth being older than a few thousand years. Since there was no evidence prior to certain advances in Geology, there was no reason to posit that the Earth was significantly older than recorded history.
See( Inspiring Philosophy)video on Genesis and how the hyper literalist interpretations started with the 19th century SDA church (false) prophetess Helen G. White!
While that's largely true, we have plenty of precedent for a non-literal reading of the Days of Creation (St Irenaeus, St Augustine, St Justin Martyr, St Clement of Alexandria, St Athanasius, Origen, and others). As someone else recommended, check out InspiringPhilosophy's *The Origins of Young Earth Creationism*.
Here's where we differ: If I make a video presenting what I firmly believe, while also responding to a particular viewpoint, I don't have to go into all the other "options". For instance, if I make a video on soteriology, I can present my view that I'm thoroughly convinced of and explain how it is different from a given opposing view. I don't have to present all the other views of soteriology as options for the viewer. I'm not robbing the viewer of the chance to decide in that case; I can make a video about whatever I want. It's the same with _Is Genesis History?_ The filmmakers are not doing anything wrong by presenting their view as opposed to a common secular view. They don't have to present your view. You can make your own video and present your beliefs as additional options. And that's exactly what you've done. I'm not sure why you're disappointed in the movie.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. As a pastor and college professor, I've seen the negative impact YEC on many students, and it was part of my decision as a teen (many years ago) of why I decided to become an atheist for a while. This video, your video responding to Ken Ham, and your Noah's Flood video are all so helpful and needed. I've met pastors who know OEC is true, but do not have your courage. They refuse to say anything because they fear the negative pushback from many of their church members who have been convinced of YEC. Please keep speaking up.
I think many of your concerns with the movie have to do with the limitations of the format. They necessarily have to simplify and summarize to make a sharp, focused movie that holds the viewer's attention. If they present several alternative views and argue against them it may not work well in this format. And if they're going to keep it simple, doesn't it make sense to contrast the view they are promoting with its most prominent alternative, the one that we are continuously indoctrinated in by the prevailing secular culture? That may be frustrating if your own view is not discussed in the film, but what would happen if they added a third view? People who hold a fourth view would complain about the false trichotomy in the film. Unfortunately, I would agree that some of the statements made in the movie are oversimplified and perhaps could have been stated in a more careful way to avoid giving the wrong impression. Dr. Austin's statement sounds a bit surprising. Perhaps he means that among those geologists who are actively researching and publishing on the formation of the Grand Canyon, most of them are increasingly invoking catastrophic mechanisms in their explanations. That seems compatible with the context of his statement. But is it true? I have no idea, I don't read the geological literature. What research did you do to check his claim? Dr. Boyd's statement about Hebraists, if I recall, was in the context of an explanation of how the grammatical features of Genesis 1 are those of Hebrew narrative. Is it false that Hebraists identify those features in the text? In both of these cases I can see how someone might get the wrong impression, but the way you've presented their statements without context ironically may be misleading about how misleading their statements are. It shows how tricky it is to avoid these issues with concise summary videos. Regarding the concern about this being a stumbling block, this seems to be a concern for all views on Genesis. People from every viewpoint are making this claim about the other views, and they all have anecdotes to share. I don't know how to adjudicate these claims. It seems like whatever you say about Genesis, or even if you don't say anything at all, someone somewhere is going to find a way to stumble because of that. But I suppose most would say "if the truth makes you stumble, then so be it." So which stumbling is a concern depends on which view you think is true. If the truth makes people stumble, are we obligated to present a false view as an alternative? If the Trinity makes people stumble, do we present unitarianism just in case? If not, then what are we to do?
I think calling any view of Genesis a stumbling block is really only true if a given view is purported to be the one correct view and that one's salvation or faith hinges on it. Which, as we know, is not what Christianity hinges upon. And the difference with the Trinity is that it's a crucial Christian belief, but young vs. old earth creationism is not
beautifully worded. Even as a YEC I think there is a point to be made that YEC tend to be very dogmatic about beleiving in a young earth. It would be nice to see some more humility from both sides of the argument
False dichotomies are some of the worst forms of sloppy thinking - and even deception. I belong to a YEC church - they are lovely people who love Jesus and give their hearts to Christ - but I see this danger too: If they are exposed to other views, they either have to clamp down or will lose their faith. I love your distinction between being literal and being historical. I have heard YEC speakers mock and disparage Old Earther using false dichotomies and misrepresentations. Their clinging to textual interpreters who reinforce their viewpoint is perhaps their biggest weakness.
As a Biblical creationist apologist I can assure you that we are not unaware of the viewpoints of others. For example, William Lane Craig has called for the (metaphorical) extermination of YEC from the church. "The sooner the Christian community gets rid of young earth creationism the better. This is an embarrassment for the Christian faith that is creating enormous obstacles to Christian belief among scientifically-educated people. The universe is not, and the earth is not 6,000 years old and there's no reason biblically to think that it is and therefore we need to really shed ourselves of this as a Christian community." ua-cam.com/video/_oM8PCNdve0/v-deo.html So one wonders who is disparaging whom.
Great work Gavin! I grew up YEC and eventually changed once I understood genre analysis, myth as a genre, and literalistic vs literal readings. I love our YEC family and encourage them to at least understand that we're not "siding with the world" against the Bible or something, we simply have a genuinely different, and well attested, understanding of what the Bible is communicating.
Question. If Adam and Eve in Eden is not literally true, then how did sin enter the world? And why is Jesus the new Adam? Jesus also spoke about Adam and Eve “God created them male and female”. Do you only view the age of Earth differently or do you also think Adam and Eve in the garden is just myth or allegory?
@@tuckerchisholm1005 Friend, I'm going to assume you are asking in good faith. If that changes, I will not engage further. All due respect, you likely are not familiar with the categories I am using, and as a result, your first premise is untrue. The account of Adam and Eve is literally true, neither did I suggest anything to the contrary. I would suggest re-examining your understanding of some of the categories I alluded to: Myth is a genre of literature and is not (in the academic sense) defined as a "falsehood", quite the opposite in fact! (I'd suggest reading Tolkien's famous academic essay "On Fairy-Stories" as a good starting point for the genre), I reject the the dichotomy of Literal vs. Figurative as it tends to be reductive and unhelpful, Literal vs literalistic has proven to be far more helpful in these discussions (as my comment stated), I would strongly recommend looking up that disinction, otherwise I can elaborate further, and finally, allegory isn't particularly relevant to much of the Biblical text unless you meant to say Archetypal, in which case yes, most Biblical stories are overwhelmingly archetypal, but that's quite a different thing from allegory (it's a really beautiful topic to study btw, I'm going through it in my lectures at Bible study at church).
@@telleroftheonewe don't need to read Tolkien to understand the bible, and the fact that you even consider this as an option is very sad. I don't understand your position. So the world lied to you, you believed it, and it almost made you lose your faith, but you regained your faith by believing the lie. How many more lies have you accepted after believing that first one? How much of the bible can you turn into an allegory? Why not believe the inspired and inerrant word of God instead of the ramblings of a few white coats that profess to be wise but are complete fools that deny creation? Yes, you are siding with the world of lying men. You can repeat yourself the opposite all you want, but that's what you are doing. "But, my teacher told me... My science books tells me... That intelligent guy on television said... All of my friends mock me because I don't believe what the teacher, the books and the guy on tv said...Therefore it must be true and Genesis is either a lie or a great metaphor for evolution. I choose metaphor" Wrong, you should have chosen the third option, don't believe the lies of a bunch of bible deniers with letters before their names.
@@JesusProtects If you say you don't understand my position then why comment on it as if you do? You just assumed many things that aren't true. I never said the Bible is allegorical, in fact, I explicitly said that it isn't. I also never nearly lost my faith, in fact, that change happened during a high point of my faith walk that I have never come down from. I believe in some of the stranger elements of the faith that a lot of other believers are skeptical of (demons, supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc). I simply don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is particularly young, and I affirm all orthodox Christian doctrines. If you reply uncharitably again with no attempt to understand what I am communicating, then I will not be replying to you. Merry Christmas
This is a really important video. Like others in the comments, I've come across individuals who believe there are only 2 options (YEC vs naturalism) when it comes to this topic and they walk away from Christianity as a result. Thank you for this video Gavin. I pray your message reaches many who need to hear it!
From a biblical creationist view it is the teaching of evolution, and it's acceptance in the church that has turn many away from the church. OEC is a veiled admission of the veracity of evolution. Francis Collins, NT Wright has fully bought the whole evolutionary narrative and consequently deny a Adam (husband of Eve) and a Global flood.
Fifteen years ago I would have appreciated this. But then I learned enough molecular biology to understand that the notion that all life evolved from a microbe is mythology, unsupported by modern science. It's not a "false dichotomy" to categorize all views into two categories. The view that all life was created recently is _extremely_ different from all other views, which all hold that all life "evolved" from a mythical first life, regardless of how they may each differ in detail.
Agreed. I think OECs don't like being included in the same category as naturalists because it requires them to show their cognitive dissonance. I was in this camp for a really long time. If one only accepts naturalistic interpretations of scientific evidence even if claiming to be a Christian OEC, eventually the objectivity of God and his character/truth becomes arbitrary and something that itself can evolve. Thank goodness this is not the case: Hebrews 13:8.
@@stephengray1344 _"Gap"_ and _"Day-Age"_ seem to be ancillary to whether life was directly created or evolved. But they present a problem to creation. Does anyone who holds either of those views believe all life was designed and created by an intelligent agent over a brief period of time? If not, what else is there but evolution from a mythical first living organism?
@@KenJackson_US As far as i can tell, there's no justification in any camp (YEC, OEC, or TE) for saying that God designed any lifeform after he created time. Saying that he did would effectively be denying his omniscience. The Gap Theory agrees with the YEC camp that there were six 24-hour days of creation. Some variants of the theory have God creating a previous set of lifeforms and destroying them all before starting anew. Other variants simply use the gap as an explanation for things like radioactive rocks being millions of years old and have all the actual lifeforms created post-gap. The Day Age Theory says that the days of creation were long stretches of time, but that God directly created the various species, rather than having them evolve from each other. This only counts as evolution from a first living organism if you're going to insist that God counts as the first living organism. But if you do that then consistency demands that you consider YEC to be an extremely fast form of evolution from that first living organism.
I really love this video. I’m currently in the Theistic evolution frame but grew up with the YEC idea being almost a non-negotiable thing. I actually think this is one of the biggest issues in the modern church. Great content I’ve been watching for a few weeks and love this channel!
That's good to hear. Many Christians may call you a pantheist. Pantheism is often misunderstood & misrepresented as worshipping creation. The Universe is not a thing. It was not created, nor can it be destroyed. It is eternal & intelligent by eminent reason. Science has a way of leading to pan-atheism, by way apophatic theology. All is subtracted until no-thing is left [it's not non-theistic]. Meontology (the study of nothing) is meaningful. Pan-atheism = Pantheism, in the same way that, "The Empty Set" is the absolute complement of "The Universal Set", in set theory.
Hey Gavin, this comment isn’t specific to this video but what are the odds you would do a video on the Lordship/Free Grace Controversy? Most channels speak uncharitably and often turn to belittling each other. It would be nice to hear a gentle and charitable voice on the discussion that gives clarity like yours. Thanks for all the work you do!
Gavin, you do such a good job with this kind of work. Always sensible and based in the word but also in the context of issues. I've struggled with this issue for a while, more so from other believers acting as though this false dichotomy makes me less of a Christian. Kierkegaard and other historic figures like Augustine clearly would think that is irrelevant, but it still makes you feel like an outsider. I'd like to hear you talk about Dispensationalism at some point, your guidance and scriptural understanding would be a blessing because I feel it's a similar sort of issue.
Agreed Gavin. I believe a lot of people have unnecessarily stumbled away from faith over this issue. Praying that the future will hold a more generous posture for those who disagree on this issue and that its history will be fully considered.
I don’t think the movie ever says there aren’t other options apart from naturalistic evolution and YEC. It just presents them as two popular paradigms to contrast.
Not to be overly pedantic, but as an historian, my biggest gripe is the title itself. The title, “Is Genesis Truth?” would have been more fitting, as it makes the assumption that history (a process of inquiry and evidence-sifting) and truth are the same, which they are not. Anyway, thanks for the review; I’m really enjoying the channel so far!
I think YECs in general tend to always create this dichotomy though. That’s not unique to this video, which you seem to be implying. I grew up with belief in YEC and it was always taught to me as a dichotomy - either you believe in God or you believe in old earth evolution atheism. It was very much presented as an either/ or. In fact, I was in my 40’s before I ever ran across Christians who believed in OEC. I’m still working through what I actually believe, personally, for what it’s worth.
So when a YEC movie presents its case, it must go through all the other various views as well for them to not do harm? Since when do old earth creationists do this for young earth creationists? I’ve never seen Hugh Ross from “Reasons to Believe” make this effort.
I'm glad to see clarification on the importance of the age question in relation to the age of the earth, and pushback against those who try to claim a literal reading of genesis is essential to being Christian. I'm concerned however that there's a general dismissal of the scientific claims that YEC people make. If the issue on the YEC side is to dismiss the theological claims and reasoning of OEC supporters, then the OEC problem is a tendency to simply ignore or disdain YEC scientific evidence. As I continue studying to become an engineer, and strive to enhance my understanding of science and the natural world as a part of this, I continue to see more and more evidence amass in favor of a young earth. I'm concerned that the theological elitism of some YEC supporters which leads them to dismiss OEC people out of hand as having sided with the secular world is being mirrored by a scientific elitism among OEC supporters which leads them to dismiss all YEC supporters as being those who reject science and the evidences available. Both of these are problems that must be corrected for productive discourse to occur between us. I myself am a YEC supporter and I believe in this because of the combined weight of both the theological and scientific evidence. I do not however disdain or disown as brothers in Christ those who disagree with this position based on sound reason and Biblical principle.
It's not a young Earth or Universe, it's as old as we have determined but it was created that way, just as all the animals, plants and even Adam and Eve were created at a certain age. However, it was created thousands of years ago, at the age God determined they needed to be created.
I'd like to pose a question to OEC. Why is the flood included in along with the creation account as being non-literal? I understand the arguments, especial, with the creation week and agree there seems to be a lot of poetic language and symbolism, however i'd argue the flood seems very different. Even if you accepted Genesis 1-2 was figerative, why place the figurative nature of genesis all the way to chapter 11? Textually it seems arbitrary and i havn't heard a solid answer to this question
I had great difficulty with the flood story back when I believed Genesis 1-2 were metaphorical descriptions of spiritual events and that all life evolved from a microbe. The flood account seemed to include too many specific details to be metaphor. I just couldn't figure it out. But now that I've learned some biology and understand that life absolutely couldn't have evolved from one life, I've had no difficulty accepting the flood account as literal history. And the more I look around the more blindingly obvious evidence I see for it. How do we explain the continent-scale fossil-bearing miles-deep hydraulically-sorted layers of sediment that cover the whole earth if not from the worldwide flood? And how is it that the five millennia of human history fits so well with the Scriptural narrative?
@@KenJackson_US I'm YEC, but i do see how Genesis 1-2 could be read poetically and doesn't have to indicate a young earth, but i don't think any of the OEC views on the flood hold water. the phrasing is too consistant that all life ended and the whole earth flooded. I would like to hear OEC views on this
I'm also YEC, but as I understand it, a global flood as destructive as what is described in scripture would not only lay down its own record of fossils and sedimentary layers, but also completely erase any and all prior fossils and layers in the initial destruction. So while it's possible to believe in the OEC or even theistic evolutionary perspective and maintain belief in the great flood, that would mean that all the fossilized organisms and geological strata we have are still only several thousand years old at most. Which defeats the very reason to believe that the earth is that old in the first place.
I appreciate your heart in these things! My comment would be in my observation and experience in the scientific community at large there does seem to be hostility toward not just the historicity of Genesis but the idea that this universe is intelligently designed. So in my mind it's not unreasonable to at the very least ask the question of what presupposition are these scientists interpreting the data from? This in my mind seems to be what the "Is Genesis History and people?" at Answers in Genesis are combating. In your videos I haven't really heard you address that as being the case from the "other side." The Atheistic evolutionary scientists present sort of the same dichotomy. Overall though I agree with your heart and premise that there is room to for discussion and even disagreement on these things and still remain faithful to Christ! I wonder if it would be helpful to do a video or series of videos that talk about the views that are very problematic and ones that one can hold and still remain faithful to the text. Thanks for your heart and ministry!
I absolutely agree. We do not trust the secular and frequently anti-Christian school system to fairly teach its pupils sound morals, so why should be assume that when they draw conclusions about the origin of the universe - which are the underpinning for the naturalistic Darwinian worldview - that they arrived at these conclusions in a fair and unbiased manor.
Just a clarification, the "Is Genesis History" video (2017) was not from AIG but was an independent work, hosted by Del Tackett. As for allowing room for discussion, it seems like the anti-YEC camp within the church has become more aggressive. Dr. William Lane Craig has called for the expulsion of the YEC position from the church, as such is he likely to be willing to even discuss these issues? "The sooner the Christian community gets rid of young earth creationism the better. This is an embarrassment for the Christian faith that is creating enormous obstacles to Christian belief among scientifically-educated people. The universe is not, and the earth is not 6,000 years old and there's no reason biblically to think that it is and therefore we need to really shed ourselves of this as a Christian community." ua-cam.com/video/_oM8PCNdve0/v-deo.html
For those saying there’s no false dichotomy between YEC and atheistic naturalism: not all OEC hold to strict naturalistic evolution or even theistic evolution. The whole intelligent design movement (Stephen meyer, behe etc) hold to old earth creationism but disagree with evolution
Hey Gavin, I got locked out of my patreon account so can't get in to comment, but wanted to suggest that consider responding to "the cessationist" documentary that G3 put out. As someone who is cessationist by tradition, it would be really helpful to hear your voice on the topic!
It’s so sad that relationships have been destroyed because of this whole debate. As a Christian since 1983 and a Christ Follower who’s NEVER believed in a young Earth, I’ve had friends who are brothers in Christ who are no longer friends to me as a result. One telling me that in their eyes I’m no longer a Christian.
I’m a young earth creationist, but I agree with Gavin, we shouldn’t exclude the old earth creation positions and lead people to believe they don’t exist. I don’t think giving old earth creation as a safety net for Christians struggling in school is wise, but it should still be fairly represented and argued against.
Great analysis, Gavin! I began to watch “Is Genesis History?”, but I was bothered by some of the same things that you were. I see that many of the comments here are from Young Earth Creationists (with a few from Theistic Evolutionists). I’d place myself in the Progressive Creationist camp (Hugh Ross, et al).
My college experience was very similar to the one you mentioned. Although I never lost my faith, I went through a long period of doubt. In the end, my faith was strengthened, no thanks to the young earth creationists.
Hey Dr. Ortlund, could you make a video addressing the problem of evolutionary evils. Prior to me accepting theistic evolution, I remember this issue really being a stumbling block from YEC. Today, I’ve been exposed to a handful of reasonable theodicies, but I wonder what your thoughts are.
I've also seen the argument made about this not being Hebrew poetry and that may be the case, but that does not mean that it isn't poetry. I think there is evidence outside Israel in the greater Ancient Near East (ANE) that seem to qualify Genesis as part of the ANE creation myth genre. It also very clearly refutes the idolatry of all other ANE myths.
There’s also one part in the film where they’re talking about carbon dating and I can’t remember the numbers exactly so excuse me but the guy was saying that it can only date back to around 6,000. But when I went looking on my own other scientists were saying no it’s more like 60,000.
Love that Dr. Ortlund engages this topic. Very refreshing and gives me an opportunity to share this content with others who have questions or to ease doubts or anxiety
I'm a YEC and I really don't think we're being ignorant in the glaring gaps in evolution. There are serious issues that aren't addressed because it would lead to YEC and people aren't willing to accept that.
Gaps in evolutionary theory does not lead to YEC. No scientist would conclude that the earth was 6000 years old if they were not first influenced by fundamentalist Christianity.
I think that coming to a YEC conclusion by ones own conviction is different from accusing those who aren’t convinced of a YEC of being false Christians. I don’t think that you do that, just to clarify, but just that those like Ken Ham do not approach this type of issue with any charity at all. I don’t think this should be an issue withered either side mocks the other.
Sure - it's a fair thing to criticize areas of evolution where parts are lacking. It is certainly the case that the fossil record doesn't perfectly show a great line or trend from one species to another. However, one of the things we must be careful to examine, is whether or not we are selectively choosing our data to support our worldview, or if we are actually taking an honest look at the data. The problem that I have with a YEC model is that, given the evidence that we have in Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Archeology, and so many other fields, we wouldn't come to a conclusion that YEC is true *unless* we presuppose a *specific* interpretation of Genesis being true to reality. If, for some reason, God ordained that Genesis Chapter 1 was not to be written down, or hidden for some reason, do you think that *anyone* would come to the conclusion that the world was 6000 years old?
@@Narikku I agree the age of the earth seems very ellusive. There seems to be a lot of data suggesting an old earth. But i would come right back with how ellusive the data is for micro to macro evolution. it doesn't seem remotely possible based on the natural laws we see today
@@benjaminwatt2436 There is no mechanical difference between how micro-evolution and how macro-evolution operate. The only difference is the *amount* of changes.
Yes, it is, it is literal because anybody that reads it can see the writers of Genesis and other books, made clear distinctions of their intent, and what they intended to portray. In other words, the adjectives and time frames that were given were intentional therefore there is no ambiguity.
Gavin I appreciate your heart and willingness to approach these issues with nuance. That being said I am going to offer some push back. It is sad to hear you and many others use the "genre" argument to say the days of creation aren't literal 24 hour days. If you believe scripture to be inherent as you say then why don't you and others use the same argument to claim that the Sabbath is not a literal 24 hour day. Since the commandment in Exodus 29 specifically references the 6 days of creation and the 7th day God rested as the establishment of Sabbath how is this not God contradicting Himself? Further Christ references the days of creation when talking about Sabbath and He spoke of Adam as a literal person. The biggest problem with the genre argument is that other scripture refutes it. So you either have to say scripture isn't inherent or you have to argue that the Sabbath Commandments are not referring to a literal 24 hour day. Also I would challenge you to find believers who subscribed to any old earth creation before 1809.
IIRC there was a geologist named Glenn who had a site correcting YEC and later remove his work from the internet and said the only ones using his work seems to be atheist who attacking Christians. He rebuked OEC on a Christian forum as they always sided with the atheist against YEC. He wrote YEC are still his brothers and sisters and didn't have much use for atheism. He seem to agree with Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." I have a feeling your video will more likely just give atheist ammo against YEC and not much more. I believe God has a sense of humor and it would be funny if it turns out YEC were right all along.
@@TheBoredTheist This is the problem with Christians wanting to sound intellectual and pretend atheist are on equal ground when they don't have a foundation to stand on. Atheism is the ultimate form of idolatry making the universe the ultimate idol which can't see, hear, feel or reason.
Gavin, Where do you address the issues of using the word "literal"? Thanks! I had a massive crisis of faith over this issue in college due to the false dichotomy I was taught in church. It took about a decade to resolve (my faith problems) and now I am less dogmatic and armed with different options.
Exodus 20 clears up the issue. 1 Day was 1 Day, evening and morning, and in like manner the commandments follow God’s pattern of work for 6 days and rest the 7th
Hey Gavin, I appreciate your concerns, and when they're legitimate. I look forward to you also reviewing and critiqing the videos and literature produced by those presenting different points of view. Because I know you're not biased.
Dr. Nelson taught a summer session I once attended on evolutionary biology (which is the area where his philosophical experience lies). In my experience, he was a very open, honest, and fair thinker towards views different than his own...and that's coming from a person who holds different views than him on the subject of creationism. I am not surprized he distanced himself from some of the more misleading implications of the documentary.
Thank you so much, Gavin. When I first came back to Christ in May, I knew the gospels were true, but as someone who always found the dichotomy of YEC contentious through my teen years, I struggled with Genesis for about 2 months. Your channel and InspiringPhilosophy really helped me ground my faith and still help me to grow to this day. May God bless you!
Great video! I wish I could like it more than once. As a new theistic evolutionist, I think the one strength YEC has is the simplicity of explaining how sin entered the world and how Adam’s sin spread to all of humanity. I would love it if Dr. Ortlund (or anyone else) could make a video or direct me to one answering these questions: 1. If Adam and Eve weren’t the first humans, then how did their sin apply to all humanity? 2. When did all of humanity become “made in God’s image?” 3. Death entered the world through Adam’s sin, but Adam and all humans were created through death (natural selection). How does this work?
Well I think those questions illustrate the theological weakness of the Theistic Evolutionist position. I hold to YEC because it conforms to the majority of the theological and scientific evidence I see. Personally I see the Biblical/theological arguments for YEC as being very strong, and the scientific evidence for YEC vs OEC as being close to tied, but still in YEC's favor, thus I lean that way.
@@TrivialCoincidence IP's series is great and i'm a YEC. I do have problems with his views on the flood. He doesn't address any of the science YE scientist present for the evidence for the flood. in fact one of my biggist problems with OEC is i never hear them address YE arguments on the flood. they always discuss the flood as if all modern science has been completely proven on the issue
I know this would go against your theistic evolution view, but is it possible that humans were created more recently, out of nothing(or the dirt, as Genesis 2 says), while other creatures existed and evolved for millions of years before that? I don't know enough on the subject, and I know there is evidence in favor of human and ape common ancestry, but how solid is that? Isn't it possible to believe in evolution in general, but that God may perform acts of creation as well?
@@collin501 I once considered that belief... for about 2 minutes. If you accept evolutionary biology everywhere else, it seems somewhat ad-hoc to reject it for only humans.
Thanks for another video on this topic. I was very much the college freshman you described at the end. I reluctantly held a YEC view for several years because I was told unequivocally that if I didn’t, then I clearly rejected Jesus’ death as a literal event. 🙄🙄🙄 Once I studied more about the genres of the scriptures, I felt *literal* 😉 relief that I could abandon YEC and not lose my faith.
Thanks for asking. I believe God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that they were the first humans on Earth. I do not believe that the days of creation were 24 hour days. I have no guess or belief as to how long the “days” were. 200 years? 1 million years? I haven’t lost any sleep over it 😅 So when I say I abandoned YEC, I’m speaking to the literal 6, 24-hour days.
@@Whitney1202 So you believe in the Adam and Eve, who were parents of Cain, Abel and Seth, who was father of.... according to Genesis 5, placing them on earth about 6,000 years ago? Do you also agree that the earth has two times been covered in water or do you scoff at this idea per in 2 Peter 3:5- 6? It seems to me that you called yourself a YEC originally but really didn't understand what was involved biblically or scientifically. Would that be correct? I am asking because when someone says that they abandoned something, it is assumed they have come to believe something else, but often what the new belief is unstated.
This is great man. I go to a Christian high school where they teach me young Earth creationism, and I've been forced to watch this several times and the intellectual dishonesty and just the lack of thought for other positions Just really frustrates me.
Slandering other Christians is a serious charge. I know some of those scientists whom Gavin claims are harming the church and they are not being intellectually dishonest and are well aware of all the other positions out there. Gavin has made charges against the people in the video. I think it reasonable to listen to their rebuttal before casting aspersions on these fine Christian men.
Yes science and history and the Bible don’t go against each other I’m a Catholic Christian and we can believe in young earth or the Big Bang but both are from God not from nothing
@@annb9029 I don't think that is the main issue Ann. It isn't so much the age as the events recorded in Genesis. Those events tell us who God is, what steps He took in creation, what man is, what happened to man, the origin of death, and the need for a savior. Accepting the Big Bang (a theory in serious trouble if there ever was one) gives us a different sequence of events that cannot possibly be reconciled with the literal reading. A Big Bang gives an entirely different sequence of events. It changes who God is and what He did. Instead of creating ex nihilo (from nothing) did he really need billions of years to "create" the universe and life? The Big Bang also tells us that humans are the result of an incredibly long sequence of biological change, that, of necessity, required the birth and destruction of trillions of living things, with all the attendant suffering and death, for the sole reason for bringing mankind into existence, and then having the audacity to call it good? Even Charles Darwin found the idea of theistic evolution revolting. "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?" The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, with Original Omissions Restored, ed. Nora Barlow. London: Collins. The Bible tells us that God made everything perfect and good, and that it was Adam (representing mankind) the chose to rebel bringing death, disease and suffering. The Big Bang scenario would claim that it was God who set up the system of death and suffering over that vast period of time. Can we then really call God good? And if God himself set up this system of suffering and death, why would he send Jesus to die for the sins of humanity? Was Jesus to die for mankind's sins or for God's? I understand why people do not like the YEC position - it is embarrassing to our modern sensibilities, but if we abandon the events of Genesis for some vague Big Bang experience we are also undermining the Gospel. And that is the real problem.
@gusolsthoorn1002 there is genuine intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency. I am not seeking to slander anyone, but I've seen plenty of yec stuff and much of it is, in my opinion, harmful and dishonest.
Gavin, I have friends who left the church precisely because they accepted an OEC view. Over time, it led them to think they could pick and choose the rest of scripture too, even though the youth pastor explained why the OEC genre argument wasn't problematic (coming from a blank slate point-of-view. This church wasn't explicitly YEC). They naturally followed the practice of explicitly denying the meaning of the plain words which are universally translated "day" (even if they might not *bindingly mean* "day") which led them to realize they could do the same elsewhere. The incremental development resulted in them choosing to "just be a nice person, my way" without the church, since points of belief would be arbitrated on, even if the words were clear. It isn't "safer" for one to simply say "Don't bind consciences to 6-day creation because they're gonna get challenged" without acknowledging that these forces of challenge come for these people's faith regardless of what exactly they believe. *Any* historicity in the Christian faith is going to be challenged. Patching up a problem where there isn't one (thinking 6-day creation is an "extreme" view 4:19) is only preparing kids to abandon their faith through compromise instead of explaining why the philosophy of Christianity (doctrine & aseity of God with orderliness of His creation) is *best* held in continuity by acknowledging that he *did* create everything (cosmos, heavens, beings etc) in 6 days. Why would God enshrine in the 10 commandments a *1-1 comparison* of the creation *days* as the reason of the Sabbath *day* (Exodus 20:11. Heck, this is the crown of the ceremonial Law, which Jesus held to, acknowledging its explicit confession: 6 days of creation + 1 day of rest {He ignored the Pharisee's Sabbath accretions, which was a sin of theirs, but Sabbath itself was good; is now fulfilled})? Why are the Psalms littered with allusions to God created fiat? What is the need for accommodating Darwinian evolution into creation, a theory whose mythology no one has observed nor can (the past is the past), whose evidence doesn't speak objectively for itself and therefore can be interpreted differently & even in a non-Christian/non-Western ways, and whose principles have aged like spoiled milk as scientists attempt to patch up the growing number of holes in the theory in correlation with the continually-growing awareness of nature's complexity? The requirement to have *total* knowledge of every facet of nature in every field to decisively call Darwin dogma is like trying to collect the ocean with a shop vacuum. The more they test, the more they realize the task is impossible and they must conjure "just-so" stories to cover their failure to avoid admitting it. Rant aside, do Christians not believe that God is capable of creating fiat, and says He did so in 6 days through the direct establishment of the Sabbath Law, and embellishes this point with descriptions of His fiat creating in those 6 days in the Psalms? I agree that condemning people for not holding a strict scientific interpretation/understanding of 6-day creation is awful and wrong. But I also believe we should not deviate from what the text says in its plain & universal translation and shouldn't be ashamed to use the scientific method to seek understanding of the God-ordained/created Laws of nature under the premise & assumption of fiat 6-day creation, a global flood, and the like.
No one is saying Genesis is scientifically describing an event or even producing a scientifically referenceable document. It's a telling of real history through poetry, defining the world we live in. So one doesn't understand what a day is *from* Genesis, but he understands that Genesis *is* working in real days as anyone would understand them given how God entreats Genesis later in Scripture (but not *scientifically* interpolating time into Genesis either, taking the natural reading of the plain translation for what it means: a singular day in each reference of "day"). The rhetorical shield of "cosmology" you're employing is a pathetic deflection & demonstrates your philosophical illiteracy. While Genesis does describe creation using language that rebuts the Babylonian creation myth (especially when referencing the moon & sun), that doesn't suddenly render it a mystical & meaningless well-wishing sequence of introducing elements of nature on stage as if it was some jazz-induced theatre performance. Genesis presents God's aseity & characteristics up front through *how*, *what*, and *why* he creates. The orderliness of God is inherited in creation in a mechanic-to-mechanism way, reflecting this in the intuitive order/design one sees *everywhere* in the cosmos and even in human psychology. Our fleeting Christian culture, under the presumption of creation, has a category for each set of observed order/laws: Laws of nature and Laws of man (moral law), and natural law (for human biology etc) to name a few. This is a parallel orderliness that pervades all of nature and our role in nature, obviously implying a right way of living and wrong way of living. Even the Greek pagan philosophers noticed this, which is why they were able to reverse engineer the need for a cause of this order, yet were separated from the true source of this order (which Paul much later tells their disciples about in Acts 17). Their findings culminate in Socrates getting *executed* for trying to apply this order to the Athenian government of his day since the officials perceived he was undermining & exchanging the "peace" they had secured for an unproven set of moral standards that had no enforceable or provable focal point (which make sense given the incarnation hadn't happened yet and the incarnation was the arrival of the Creator: the "Logos", or embodied reason and truth from which creation originally flowed and the philosophers didn't know they were looking for, but deduced existed in some form). My point is, Genesis is discussing real history in the plain reading of the text. The means of creation itself has no bearing on what science will produce, only the *interpretation* of whatever it produces since science is only structured observation, not a speaker of truth. If you want to talk about cosmology masquerading as modern science, actually read the implications of many modern science papers, not just the abstract. Demonstrating how the Laws of nature work in extremely certain conditions today and then *projecting that into a hypothetical past whose conditions no one can observe* is a far worse excuse for science than a hypothetical experiment seeing if geological features contain a chemical make up that could only be formed in a flood event where we wouldn't expect one producing a scientific proof that is a small piece in a puzzle that *could* but doesn't dogmatically prove the *possibility* of events in early Genesis. In fact, there is *nothing* "unscientific" about the latter example, though proponents of either view are quick to call the scientists of the other side quacks etc no matter how legit the testing methodology is. I would continue on to how the identity claims of Jesus, his character, and his subsequent actions & miracles, all within the narrative context of the ceremonial law, are consistent with God's character in thee creation and precisely *how* God created which is consistent with *His* orderliness and the subsequent orderliness in His *creation*, but this comment is already waaaaay too long. "Genesis describes near east cosmology" is such a sad excuse for defenestrating the plain meaning of the text instead of understanding that the account contains near east cosmology *to defend* against the neighboring creation myths, subjugating their own elements within their own mythological literary structure to show their worship was silly while still maintaining the true creation story of what, how, and why God created everything, preserving the context of His actions & character in perfect connection with the rest of the Bible. This has the same vibes as naive Evangelicals saying "I read St Ignatius of Antioch and he used the word bishop. So now I have to be Roman Catholic. OoOoh NoOooes." Idk what you believe, but be strong and know the difference between what someone claims historical or scientific data means and what the data is, including the methodology used. Genesis isn't claimed to be a scientific document and does contain literary elements (near east cosmology) of the region the account was written in, though neither of these disprove whether it is real history told poetically or not. @@TheBoredTheist
My problem with your point is you are putting a strict understanding of near east cosmology upstream of Genesis, saying cultural practice/literary style context can be the only determiner of what is really communicated. Then at what point does real time start and at what point is creation, within this natural time, materialized? Based on Exodus 20:8-11 with its 1-1 day comparison, it clearly is not a “modern, 21st-century concern”. If Genesis deals strictly in cosmological days, primarily communicating that God created the earth/cosmos as His temple and man to manage His temple in “some” amount of time, then why is HE drawing literal days *directly* from Genesis, enshrining them into the confession of creation within the ceremonial Law? God is not inconsistent in His word and neither is his consistency/order broken in his creation, hence why he calls it good (obviously sin have corrupted the complete goodness of what he made entirely good). But Sin didn’t change the length of a day for God. My point is, claiming Genesis is strictly a “why” text due to literary style ignores God’s use of it as a “how” text later (not scientific “how”, but one indicating real time and space in Genesis. A cosmological Genesis day is defined by God as a natural day in Exodus 20:8-11. Saying otherwise is calling God a liar in Exodus 20 and assuming generic NEC was the *only* thing being communicated in Genesis. Nonsense, people throughout history have understood Genesis as dealing with real time using the [familiar for their time] framework of the temple inauguration. It’s where we get the basis of man being priest in God’s temple (temple = creation, man having dominion [management] over it) and thus why only men can be pastors: Adam was created to be priest in the temple while women was made, in equal essential worth, to be his helper. If Genesis didn’t have a real, natural connection to our world, neither the Israelites nor the early church would have had a problem having women serve as priests/pastors. Likewise, both ordered their days according to the 7 days of Genesis designating a day reflecting a cosmological & material reality. For the Israelites, Sabbath reflecting the day of rest God exampled for us. Then for the Christians, the Lord’s Day (moved to the first in the week) reflecting that Jesus was the first among all things and the first to rise in the resurrection of the dead , and reflecting the rest He gave us from sin. Both of these use 7 day paradigms to demonstrating a *natural* understand of the days paired with the cosmological “why”. It isn’t either/or and neither is it a “modern concern”. @@TheBoredTheist
...Response to your longer comment... I can't help but see that you basically threw every OT reference to the number 7 in a list out of the context of what the number 7 in this cosmology is used to communicate and then also included all verses with reference to Biblical cosmology without considering that this cosmology *doesn't then preclude* a natural reading of the text IN Genesis' cosmology. While 7 contains cosmological significance [perfection], it also carries a natural, measurable meaning. We do not know why God uses the NEC prioritization of this number to represent his perfection & goodness, but he does. Why say 7 can *only* be a mystical, cosmological thing when it is also a measurable thing, applied in measurable ways (i.e. every verse you listed above). Your disordered view (placing a strict NEC view over *why* and *where* God uses "7" to reflect His perfection) misses that when an observer is inquiring into measuring God's acts, both direct and through His people (but not God Himself), he may be looking for things counted in 7, but things that are still material and natural nonetheless since God directly interacts with the material in His creation, as seen throughout the Bible. We don't simply get an ordering cosmology and then assume life and matter come from nowhere sometime after that. Genesis is cosmology that includes a natural reading as God demonstrates in Exodus 20:8-11 like I mentioned before and you haven't yet addressed. I agree that not everything in the Bible is to be consumed scientifically, since its expressed purpose isn't science, but how we are to live in the true nature of this material world, while knowing there is more than this material world (God placed us *here*, not in heaven, but endowed creation with the complete expression of heaven's orderliness, the completeness of which we lost in the fall). But claiming *strict* cosmology for every mention of God's orderly, proper positioning to us & creation ignores the physicality of His interaction in His creation and that there is *a* material creation for Him to interact with to begin with. I know in theory we do not need an explicit scientific "recipe" for how God created the earth in order to know that He is our Lord. But when the account of creation includes cosmological explanations that establish both God's Lordship/"aboveness" over all things AND the real event of all material being made (since matter exists and Genesis immediately flows into historical narrative after the account), we *cannot pretend that Genesis is then ONLY establishing a cosmology* and not also a record that God created fiat. Declaring that God is above all things (the source of order, reason), but then allowing the interpretation that He let the creation create itself via its own atomized lordship (aka chaos) goes against the entire principle of God being above all things & installing his perfection, his goodness into it in the first place. It is incoherent nonsense to claim that goodness is nothingness using entropy to create order, just to fall prey to the entropy that allegedly created it. Order (goodness) falling prey to entropy (beginning in the breaking of the moral law in Gen 3) affects all the laws/orders of nature given at least that it affects the priests of God's "temple", that is, humanity within His creation. This is one reason why Jesus being our High Priest connects perfectly with Genesis: He lived perfectly according to the created moral law, introducing a correcting example to our sinfulness aka lawlessness. AND He did the necessary work of returning us to this priestly vocation in God's creation (loving God & our neighbors etc) by dying on the cross to remove the curse of death from us while equally taking the judgement we deserved for originally violating the created orderliness of God, ensuring that those who trust that Jesus *has* done this will be made perfectly able to follow the moral law after death and continue doing so eternally, in God's presence, up to and after our bodies are resurrected from the dead and rejoined to our souls. --- Long story short: Genesis unequivocally implies by its literary structure *alone* a cosmology where God creates all things from & for Him, as good/orderly (infusing His goodness), *by fiat* (but not necessarily in 6 days). However, it is illogical and cosmologically inconsistent for *fiat* creation to involve more time than the enumerated 7 days (cosmological or natural) since this fiat creation entails original goodness & perfect orderliness, as is communicated both in the use of 7 days for creation and the verbal affirmation of its goodness/orderliness after each day. Additionally, the existence of designed matter at all and God's consistent call, *within this material creation*, to remember HIS perfection and that He created perfectly, by fiat, *by commanding the Israelites to use the #7 in the counting of natural days (Exodus 20:8-11), of natural months, of material things, and other non-cosmological things* universally points back to not just confessing a cosmological truth, but living in a materially evident truth from that cosmology. Taking the cosmological & natural narratives together is the only joint reading that generates a world that accommodates the events & practices in the OT and NT, many of which archeology has uncontroversially proved happened (not saying all of it has been archeologically proven, but that several major events & cultures only recounted in the Bible have been shown to be true proving it isn't "just a cosmological book") and that doesn't perforate God's demonstrated and stated character & attributes throughout the rest of the Bible. @TheBoredTheist
@@TheBoredTheist Stonewalling on Exodus 20:8-11 doesn't prove you're right. God, explaining *from* the Genesis account, how to treat natural things (time, days) reflects the account of Genesis has a natural reading. You haven't addressed this and you haven't produced any evidence that rules out these rituals imitating creation; that the Genesis account isn't *upstream* of them. Whether God created is obviously not up for debate (assuming you're at least a theist as your username implies). A singular record of creation accounting for both cosmology and material is not controversial given both are affirmed downstream in the rest of scripture. This affirmation of the Genesis cosmology & natural creation later in scripture relays strong evidence that it can and should be read like this. *This is not a "21st century" understanding of the text.* That rhetorical quip is a tired and meaningless given that most people throughout church history alone have read it like this and, by implication of the Sabbath, all the faithful Israelites, post Exodus through the AD 70 temple destruction. If you take rest of the Bible seriously in *any* way, how the Israelites internalized & applied their understanding of creation is not up for an interpretation excluding 6-day creation. Claiming NEC "context", Michael Heiser style, while not being able to prove that the NEC context was *not* influenced by the events the text accounts, fails to disprove anything. Instead, it highlights your likely discomfort with taking the Bible at its word (not literal word for word, but communicating real truths, cosmological & material through different literary styles) *before* seeking historical & cultural context to understand the communicated meaning of these real events or cosmological truths. Regarding your last sentence: do you believe Moses compiled the Torah/Pentateuch? Idk if you're a theist or a Christian. If you believe Jesus is God, His confession of Genesis including a material reading by affirming the validity of the Sabbath Law as being made *for* man is an enforcement that God created the material & the cosmological from the one account in Genesis. That is the reality of what Jesus is confessing by following the ceremonial Law.
@@TheBoredTheist Again, you are assuming the creation account is entirely downstream of this ritual and the ANEC context generally. *Cosmologies don't come from nowhere.* Why did these ceremonies use 7 days? Why was 7 important anyway? Parallels to surrounding cultures disproves nothing about what I'm saying. Cosmologies are a reflection of something real, which humans use cultural literary devices to communicate more robustly. There is no reason the assume that these parallels disprove anything and, rather, that they have a familiar source of something upstream. Which one is right? Which account has it's extension of God's nature at the beginning affirmed by real events later in Scripture? Is not most of the OT a fight & jockeying over which expression of the ANEC is right, not even to mention that what that "right" expression believes flows perfectly in the person of Jesus? The ANEC context is not the theologically binding thing. So don't pretend like it is the only lens for understanding the entire OT rather than a context for ordering real events into history that the cultures around the Israelites also evidently placed into their man centered world views. ***No one is saying you should read all of the Bible like a scientific document.*** You have exclusively read the ANEC cultural context into the Genesis account despite the ANEC context being downstream of real creation (since matter exists before ANEC) and that other uncontroversially true, historical events of the Bible show that God's existence and interaction with the Israelites is real. The ANEC context is not a full, binding package that you either take entirely scientifically or entirely mythologically. *THAT is a false dichotomy!* After all, doesn't God let Adam name all the animals? Why would God not let Adam, and all humanity through him, expand this practice and build a framework of the natural world from his point of view that respects God's genuine position in this natural world? *God alone* knows His creation entirely and doesn't have to explain scientifically how each and every facet works for us to take His word on how He said He made it. He merely states how he made everything and then lets man label how he thinks everything works relative to God since he knows God created it. Why would the ANEC context not be partially influence by a real event? God isn't communicating a comprehensive understanding of matter to man: only that He created it the way He said He did, and the Israelites will live by the ceremonial Law to confess the *tangible* truths about God, His work, and His relationship to humanity: pointing to the promise of a messiah. A few examples of natural, tangible implications of Genesis including a natural reading: God's creation of humans in Genesis makes Him father to all people: Deut 32:6, Malachi 2:10 The purpose & outline of the Sabbath is explained using a natural reading of Genesis: Exodus 20:8-11 The Bible attributes the creation of *everything* (people and nature) to God: Isa 40:26; 41:20; 42:5; 43:7; 45:7-8, 12, 18; Ps 148:5; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16 The *material* creation in Genesis is good, orderly, and *tangible*: Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 1 Tim 4:4
Hey Gavin, thanks for the vid. The discussion between Mohler and Collins was helpful. Would love to hear you address Mohler’s concern that Christians actually gain nothing in accepting the old earth science. The same science/scientists that points to an old earth (not an issue of orthodoxy), also points to man not being the result of Gods immediate creation, and all men descending from 2 parents (issue of orthodoxy). What would a person gain? When does a person stop going “along with the science”?
I really appreciate this video. I almost feel afraid to let other Bible believing Christians know I that I believe in an Old Earth because that is seen as nearly heretical. However, as I have done some lay reading on astronomy and cosmology, I see a beauty in the processes that appear to be in place which would require long lengths of time to complete. There is an elegant beauty in the systems God built into the Universe that allow for the creation of stars, the fusion of hydrogen and helium into heavy metals, and the development of new star systems, and many other long-term processes.
Regarding the Grand Canyon, there are two important things: (1) It *could* plausibly have formed catastrophically and (2) There are mainstream geologists who believe this, so it is not kooky to suppose it did. I think everyone knows that mainstream geologists all also believe in millions of years, so I'm not sure that is misleading. As for your geologist friends, I used to be a research physicist and there are MANY things that I don't know especially if they were current after my undergraduate time when I was studying physics most broadly. And I am constantly learning about new things that there just wasn't time to cover at the time, and much of that is through youtube creators! I have also learned many little-known facts via YEC people. For example, did you know that warmer oceans would cause the interior antarctic icesheets to grow due to much increased precipitation? To a physicist this is obvious once the idea is presented, but the mainstream has never discussed this; the mainstream always only ever states the facts and hypotheses that might cause us to catastrophize over global climate change.
Fourfold causality is a helpful framework for understanding how things can be interrelated without reduction to linear cause and effect. Fundamentalists operate within a reductionistic frame.
All the world best Hebrew scholars agree on the grammatical laws on the use of a number and yom, and they all agree the use of tov, the fact that some dogmatically then jettison the rule they all assert to accommodate naturalistic worldviews does not change that fact.
I truly appreciate your level of knowledge but not only that but rather HOW you approach these topics. You’re very well spoken, even keeled and well thought out. Thanks for these videos.
Yes, Exodus 31:17 is litteral. God was not using it figuratively saying, "in 6 epochs thou shall work and on the 7th epoch thou shall rest......." Talk about a long work week 😅
Yes those faithful theologians had a different view do to their info at that time but we now have the science and many actual doctors in this field to show more clearly the facts.
As a YEC, I don't care much for the documentary, but for different reasons. Your logic is valid when it can be established that a 3rd option is possible. But there are many YEC who don't believe there *is* a 3rd option, and they have a right by conscience to hold to it. If Gen 1 is literal, then accepting alternative interpretations would be problematic. Your argument is strengthened only if OEC is truly possible, and the point of the documentary is to argue there is no 3rd (or 4th) option. Is the documentary wrong? I think some of the argumentation is poorly conceived for sure, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. I love reading Spurgeon, Warfield, and CS Lewis, but as you know, there are many fine theologians who disagree as there are those who agree. I know this kind of discussion can get stressful, but I have to say, I'm willing to push back and say a literal 24 hour interpretation is correct, and that there is no other option. What remains is how well a literal view can be communicated, which I don't think the documentary does very well. BTW - I'm not concerned if Paul Nelson walked back - it's not up to him!
Thank you for talking about this! I have the same concerns as you…especially raising kids in the homeschool community. I’ve been long awaiting the videos on Adam and Eve and the flood!
Regardless of one's interpretation of genesis 1 and 2 it is at the very least inexcusable to use incorrect evidence or statistics to support one's claim.
I appreciate the work you do here. Liked your book about Knowing which hills to die on. I am a YEC and both my pastors are theistic evolutionists. I struggled to know if I could submit to them if we varied so much on this issue. I came to the conclusion my dividing line would be if someone didn't believe in a historical and literal Adam, Eve and fall. I'm pretty sure both my pastors affirm this, so I feel I'm supposed to stay there. It may be like pulling teeth to you, but I think you should watch the more in depth videos of "Is Genesis History". They go into a lot more nuance and detail. That being said, I believe it is a fault in many YECs that we can be all or nothing. Many YECs denigrate their fellow Christians because they don't hold to their same position (I know I did, sometimes I have to remind myself not to). On the flip side, I think it can be a self licking lolly pop to try and fit the Bible into whatever the current trend is regarding science, history or morality. Also, if the first 11 chapters of Genesis become exalted poetry, or a grand spiritual analogy (I know, in your video you say you believe Genesis is history, but shouldn't necessarily be taken literally, but YECs and old earthers and theistic evolutionists tend to use different words for history here) what is to keep the rest of Scripture from becoming similarly spiritualized? I am grateful for the non YECs who are faithful Christians who trust the Scriptures, although I disagree with them on this subject. BTW you have a pleasant face for video.
I'm most interested in your critique of the misleading appeals. I agree with your critique of Austin's statement about the Grand Canyon. But I disagree that there is a problem with Boyd's statement. Boyd stated, "First of all, it's not poetry, the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm this is a narrative." In no way does Boyd claim, as you take him, that all of them believe in 24 hour 6 day creation. Many of the world's greatest Hebraists don't believe in the inspiration of that narrative, so they obviously don't hold to a 24 hour/6 day creation. Nonetheless, does this statement serve the creationist perspective? Yes. But only as it addresses the debate about the genre of the creation text. So when you say "It's not at all true that the world's greatest Hebraists all hold to 24 hour days", you really aren't addressing what Boyd was saying. Boyd is an expert on Hebrew. And not only that, he is an expert on who the world's greatest Hebraists are, have been, and what their views are. He knows they don't all hold to 24 hour days; but he does know, as he states, that they hold to Genesis 1 being narrative, which is all he states here.
thanks for the comment. to clarify, I said his claim was misleading because of the question he was answering, and because of the conflation of "narrative" and "history" and "literal" throughout the discussion. I think that is true, so far as I can tell.
For some reason, I can't see the answer I wrote to this. Sorry if it gets reposted a bunch. But here's my answer: To be clear, Tackett's question was "Is that what you're referring to, that someone has a different paradigm and then therefore trying to read the text into that paradigm?" Boyd answered "Yeah, and as a result they also say -- I mean Old Earth evangelicals -- what they'll say is that this text is poetic. It's a mythical text that teaches truth but it's not ... it does not represent what it appears to be representing. And what I'm saying as a Hebraist, and I'm not saying I'm the world's greatest Hebraist in any sense, but the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm that this is a narrative." Tackett's basically asking Boyd if he's saying that people with an Old Earth paradigm read Genesis 1 as poetic because of a bias. Boyd's saying that they do that, though they view it as a truth, by saying it's poetic even though the greatest Hebraists agree it's narrative. I'm not seeing what's misleading about the question or the answer. I am sure some Old Earth proponents might disagree; but I think the fact that the greatest Hebraists agree it is narrative is very significant. And if an Old Earth proponent suggests Genesis 1 is poetic, I would suspect that they are reading the text through an Old Earth lens, rather than letting the text have its own natural genre.
@@davidrobinson5180 it sounds like you are referring to a different moment in the film than I am (and which I included in my video). I am referring to what is at 19:25 of the youtube version of the film. There Tackett introduced an entirely different question than the one you reference, and the answer was "it's not poetry: the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm this is narrative." The question had juxtaposed poetry with 24 hour days. Hence the misleading appeal to "the world's greatest Hebraists." Sounds like you are thinking of a different scene; let me know if I'm missing something here.
Glad you showed the timeline. I think the issue might be, in part, that what the movie showed was a shorter version of the interview here: m.ua-cam.com/video/84BqOxVae70/v-deo.html&pp=ygUWQm95ZCB0YWNrZXR0IGhlYnJhaXN0cw%3D%3D. The 15 minute mark has the extended part that seems to be abbreviated in the movie. Perhaps the issue wasn’t the question or the answer, but the editing of the film taking away too much context from the discussion.
The reason Creation has taken on the role it has so recently is due to the theory of evolution. The church figured they could take and use geological long ages, sure insert a gap between "The world was formless and void". But then this opened the door for the theory of evolution which makes death a natural part of God's "Very good" creation which negates the significance of sin and Jesus's death on the cross. The foundation of our salvation. That's why creationists have become so utterly staunch on the subject. Opening the door to compromise with the world has only compromised the church.
I would highly encourage anybody struggling with which side to take to watch "Seven days that divide the world" by John Lennox. For me, this lecture helped me to determine the importance and meaning of the Genesis account.
I'm open to different answers as to how to read Genesis, but I'm confused on some things. If we assume science isn't wrong in its assumptions(the old earth view has persuasive evidence but also relies on lots of assumptions), here are some questions for me in understanding Genesis. 1. I take it Adam and Eve are one man and woman. When did they live? If 6000 to 8000 years ago, did... A. Animals exist for millions of years before them? B. How do you understand Genesis 2 which says plants, trees, and animals, come shortly after Adam? Is this local vs global? Is it on the 6th day/time period? C. Were there any human-like creatures before Adam and Eve? 2. If Adam and Eve existed tens of thousands of years ago, or more, how do you understand the table of nations passages in gen 5 and 11? 3. Was the flood local or global?
I think of all the problems in this old vs. young earth debate, the most prevalent and dangerous, is the consistent painting of this as black and white - as this false dichotomy. It takes on all sorts of forms: "Man's word, vs. God's Word" "Creation vs. Evolution" "Genesis as literal/scientific history, or literary history" "Accept Biblical Authority, vs. reject Biblical authority" (biblical authority itself a complex topic that is almost never define, or is also painted in extremes Accept or Reject) For anyone who really digs into this issue, I think you will quickly find that this extreme "A of B only" portrayal is both false and dangerous. Rather than debate the age of the earth, evolution, legalism, etc - the first and primary thing that must be address is this false premise. The Bible and Christianity are not that fragile. What if differing views on Genesis don't undermine anything? What if they actually greatly strengthen the case of Creation (e.g. the big bang). What do you mean by Biblical Authority? What if the conflict between evolution and God is made up? What if we are smuggling in modern concepts into something ancient authors had no concept of?
I think everyone would agree that Genesis 2:24 (and they become one flesh) obviously cannot be taken as literally and scientifically true. But yet, it paints a vivid picture of a very true concept in our minds - which is the point.
Thank you. Like you, I am concerned that Christian “fence-sitters” may view these movies, and other similar information, and decide against Christianity because the views in these movies present only two choices.
Authors intent: Well what did the ancient Hebrews believe? ““Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” So the Israelites needed to interpret what day meant? They didn’t take that as literal days? No, that’s exactly how they took it.
I appreciate Walton’s functional reading of Genesis 1. It puts all the focus on God ordering the world, setting up his temple, and his continuing rule and involvement in everything. It is worth a serious read even if you think he is a heretic. It tries to help you understand that the Bible doesn’t answer every modern day question you want to answered.
I would say that I'm a YEC, but I do agree that they should have at least presented the other views on Genesis 1 and how they would respond to them, rather than just being silent about it. Also, I do believe that certain proponents of YEC (like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind) could be more charitable to Christians who believe in OEC, as we are brothers and sisters in the Lord, in spite of our disagreements on this issue. I believe it's an important issue for sure, but it's not an essential one.
I don't think the earth's age is a hill to die on. There is no Bible passage where the writer's intent was to tell the audience the earth's age. Jesus and the apostles never preached the earth's age. Since it's not in the Bible therefore my conclusion is that it's not fundamental to the Gospel.
Dr Gavin - those who believe old earth creationism from the past that you mentioned, was there a general belief/ notion during that time that the universe is millions + years old?
I think the Documentary is fair, so far as what it purports to do. Young Earth Creationism is the view of those who produced the Documentary, and they are bringing that conviction to bear, not against the plethora of other views held among Christians as well as naturalism, but simply against naturalism. I don't see this as anymore imbalanced than should a theistic evolutionist produce a documentary that contends with naturalism. He doesn't necessarily have to interact with other views, like Young Earth Creationism. So, I guess I'm just curious to know why the creator of the documentary is under obligation to broaden the scope of his project?
Gavin, thank you for making this video. You described my journey from being raised as a Christian, getting a doctorate and turning towards atheism, to turning back to Christianity after I got deeper into apologetics and having my own spiritual experiences.
I have been reading the comments on this video and many are misinterpreting your message.
Your argument is not to convert YEC to OEC.
Your argument is to deflect against the pull of atheism among those that cannot genuinely accept a young earth philosophy.
To accept the claims of Christian theism is a big leap. You must have had some interesting spiritual experiences.
@@thomasrutledge5941 Indeed. Have you had your own experiences or are you still searching?
@@iGotMySniperSticky Studiously following 1 Peter 3;15 ejected me from Christianity. I am now heavily involved in paranormal phenomena & spirit communication.
Christianity is VERY ACCURATE when it comes to ontological matters.
1. The spirit world exists.
2. There is an afterlife.
3. Human & non-human spirits exist & interact with people on a regular basis.
4. All manner of paranormal phenomena are real.
I am a YEC, and I think you are spot on. While I believe that YEC is the correct view, we YECs should present other views fairly, but to be fair, OEC nor Theistic Evolutionists rarely, if ever, give this kind of fairness to YEC. I wish we could all do better in this area.
Thank you for this video, and God bless.
Proverbs 9:7-9
He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you;
Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
It can be very frustrating from a YEC perspective because i'll hear arguments and no one addresses them. I'll listen to naturalist or OEC and they either say nothing at all about YE science or that jsut make a passing joke. So i'd say OEC needs to do a better job communicating
Let me try to improve then. I am a theistic evolutionist. And I used to be a creationist.
My problem with creationism, be it old earth or young earth, is that even if I were to accept either view, I logically come back to accepting Darwinian biological evolution.
The issue with creation is that it logically contradicts itself.
This is seen especially in. It's a denial of 'macro evolution', but its insistence of microevolution.
@@benjaminwatt2436 I think that the issue with people accepting Young Earth science as a legitimate discipline is that it appears to force or ignore the interpretation of our observable universe rather than allow observers to draw conclusions from the data.
@@thepalegalileanSo you’re against Sola Scriptura?
@@TheChristianNationalist8692
I am. But that is for reasons besides creationism.
I almost broke up with my now husband when we were courting and he brought up that he was not a YEC. I was so convinced that a person could not be a Bible believing, Scripture loving, faithful Christian and believe anything else. My two greatest problems with anything other than an YEC view: I could not accept death and decay being present on earth before the Fall, and I could not get over terminology that indicated 24 hour days (day and night) or a worldwide flood (repeated emphasis on flooding over the WHOLE world). But discovering Hough Ross as well as meeting sincere Christians that I respected and saw loving God’s word who did not have a YEC view helped me widen my acceptance of other viewpoints and wanting to help other Christians in my age range who might deconstruct over this issue. Needless to say, I am glad that I did not break up with my now husband over this issue. I also feel badly that the YEC view is treated as the only view a consistent, fully devoted follower of Christ can have.
Were birds created on day 5? How long was day 5? Is the repeated singular morning and evening able to be coherently understood within normal experience if it really means an undetermined amount of extreme lengths of time? Evolutionary models don't follow the order or Creation in Genesis.
Happy to hear that!
I would be happy to always talk with an OEC person on it regarding the importance and cruciality of the literal creation account, but not reject them over such things. It's not a salvation issue but it is something that can mislead people or drive them away once they start to accept worldly teachings and fit them into the bible to appeal to the current popular view.
I sincerely believe that Christian Narcissism is engulfing a great number of "Christians" in this very topic. The mere suggestion that YEC is the only valid viewpoint and if you don't believe it your believing in the rest of scripture is doubtful is a huge evidence for Christian Narcissism. Also the hidden accusation and blasphemy behind thoughts like ( if death was before Adam sinned then there is no use for Jesus death/ Christianity looses it's sense/ God's character is questionable etc is definitely a troublesome thought driven by huge Narcissism, meaning a spirit not Christian but camouflaged as Christian. These people profess to follow Christ but enjoy the abuse and dispersion/ quarrels that ensure in these topics. There are diverse creation sites on FB with this very spirit of Christian Narcissism obviously delighting in huge arguments to the extend of open hatred amongst "Christians". You will notice that the admins of such groups delight in these discussions which is best evidence that they are Christian Narcissists.
I rarely comment on videos in general, but your short summary is spot on necessary to help avoid a faith crisis for some younger likely Christians. I believe in an old earth. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the gospel.
Dr. Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe Ministry has given me peace in his gentle but precise scientific joining with the inerrancy of scripture. I am going to be 81 shortly but my mind is not gone quite yet. I am offended by the Ken Hamm heavy handed interpretation of scripture and the harm it can cause to some Christians caught in the trap. I have found that I will be joining my grandchildren on a trip to the ARK this winter. I found it necessary to have a teaching session with them to explain the controversy to them and not allow it to have an effect on their faith in the love and truth of Jesus in our lives. Your presentation is probably too deep for them to absorb at their age, but grateful for your consise summary of the errors in the movie
I appreciate your comment as I, too, take offensive at KH’s “all or nothing” approach. Many of our friends have visited the Ark Encounter and while I’m sure it’s impressive, I cannot bring myself to take that trip. I hope you have a wonderful experience with your grandchildren!
I hope you keep an open mind on your trip to the Ark! We're never done learning!
Thank you for speaking into this topic Gavin! I work in college ministry and just yesterday met with a guy who had serious doubts because he had been shown he HAS to interpret Genesis 1 as literal and didnt know how to reconcile that with the science classes he is taking. I have a science degree and am an OEC myself, and hearing the love and thoughtfulness in your arguments is extremely helpful! Bless you for doing Gods work to help bridge this gap culture is trying to create
It doesn’t help when people like Ham put forth the idea that God wrote the Genesis account and meant it literally so if you disagree, you’re of the devil. People like Ham get any political power and OEC people will end up on crosses.
I have heard many people claiming this topic to be one of the reasons they left the faith/doubted the church. I find it ridiculous Young earth creationism has become so prevalent that it has skewed the reality that church history has been open to, and embraced multiple views as to the interpretation of these texts. Its ridiculous because it has nothing to do with the gospel.
thanks for the encouraging feedback! God bless you in your ministry.
Agreed, i think Christians on all sides need to make it clear that how God created the universe is not vital to the Gospel massage. Unfortunately our society pushes the narrative that you have to either beleive in science or God. It would be helpful for Christians to offer useful explainations either YEC or OEC but emphasize the gospel
@@ricoparadiso that’s their choice. Who do you suppose was behind the thought to leave? The enemy whispers and people fall prey
Thank you Gavin. As a Christian who is also a scientist, I find it frustrating how the scientific data is often misinterpreted by young earth creationists. It is also frustrating how often some of these same people insist it is science vs religion and that I have been indoctrinated by science or that I’m compromising on my reading of scripture. I take scripture very seriously and have spent years thinking about this issue. I find the forced dichotomies nonproductive. Thank you for being respectful and desiring to see Christians unite in our love of the gospel.
I'm a YEC, and I agree that the group can be overly dogmatic, and I apologize for anyone that has struggled with their faith because of it. But if I may say something in our defense, it does often feel like we're often standing alone against the rest of the world. Even other Christians often treat us like the black-sheep of the faith, lumping us together with flat-earthers and geocentrists. I appreciate how you don't ostracize us for our different opinion and I ask that you forgive us if we tend to be oversensitive, we've been picked on a lot over the years and we generally feel backed into a corner. Its made us overly defensive and quick to lash out.
Were Adam and Eve overly dogmatic in Eden?
@@heather602 I don't understand what you're trying to say.
@@HSuper_Lee What might have happened if Adam and Eve had simply taken God at his word?
@@heather602 Oh, I see what your getting at now. All I'm going to point out is that people will disagree on the interpretation of instructions for assembling a cabinet. The Bible is much more complicated than that. I believe that the creation account given in Genesis is meant to be taken literally, but I'm not going to question someone's salvation if they struggle to agree with that.
@@HSuper_Lee I don't focus on the bible being complicated because it's not me who understands it by myself. The Holy Spirit guides me into all truth just as Jesus promised he would.
Honestly, God is pretty straightforward as He says there is simplicity in Christ.
It's people who complicate things due to sin, the flesh and listening to satan, who is the author of confusion.
Jesus's closest companions were fishermen and a tax collector. People the world would see as foolish to understand, let alone teach, spiritual things.
Jesus praised the Father for revealing things unto babes.
Gavin, first, I appreciate your willingness to challenge certain views knowing many in your audience might not like it. That authenticity is greatly valued.
On your first point, while I would also appreciate a recognition of the middle ground that the movie neglected, all variations apart from YEC do in fact borrow heavily from the conventional (naturalistic) paradigm. Speaking of clarification, when you clarify YEC has taken a big role in American culture only fairly recently, you didn't clarify that our culture has also accused YEC of being invented only recently (which is false). I appreciate the fact your video has only certain points you want to address, but so does the movie you are critiquing.
Second, no one in the movie claimed a literal (or literalistic) take of the creation account equates to thinking EVERYTHING in the bible is meant to be taken as literal. This is a false equivalency, and a very common, though false, accusation. The YEC I've researched freely recognize differing genres of writing in scripture (I know of no credentialed speaker/author/teacher in YEC who thinks the parables of Jesus are meant to be taken literally, for example). The genre of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is also highly disputed, so the non-literalistic interpretations also need to be justified. Many people claim they know the genre (such as the contested "mytho-history" genre) but because there are so many differing interpretations (a lot of middle ground) let us be careful to recognize all sides need to make a good case. I think you recognize that, but it's worth reiterating.
Third, you made a good clarification on the Grand Canyon. However, mainstream science (and many Old Earthers) present a false authority (pretending to have it all figured out) as a matter of standard practice in all scientific matters. This is in fact one of the things this movie is reacting against. On the Hebraist matter, while Dr. Boyd does indeed believe the days of creation are literal 24 hour days, you'll notice did not put those words in anyone else's mouth. He did not claim all the Hebrew experts argue the Genesis creation account teaches 24 hour days - he said they all argue Genesis is written in narrative form; a literalistic reading of the nature of the creation days is a separate matter. You've made a false equivalence here, akin to the same problems you highlight in this video.
Lastly, when you explain how you feel this movie might prove a stumbling block to some, you actually deferred to the false authority of mainstream science, making no distinction between the data and interpretation of data (a major distinction and one constantly pointed out by YEC). The creation narrative is not the only thing at stake; the reliability of scripture is also on the table, and the creation account is only one area where people struggle to accept the biblical description. Astrophysics teaches blind, unguided nature created the universe and thus there is no need to appeal to a supreme being to explain it; I doubt you would defer to the scientific consensus and challenge the notion God created the universe. You would likely distinguish between the data and mainstream interpretations of that data. If mainstream science returns to an eternal universe model (and once again deny the universe was created at all) would you accept that claim and reinterpret the biblical teaching that God is the creator? A similar problem applies to the exodus out of Egypt, where the mainstream evidence seems to contradict (as a matter of interpretation) the biblical claims. That is the battle YEC fights - separating interpretation from the evidence. We should also recognize the stumbling block created by claiming certain miracles, such as the virgin birth, or resurrection from the dead, or talking plants or animals. A lot of believers (perhaps not you personally) prefer to explain way the supernatural aspect of much of what scripture describes.
I hope this comment contributes more to "iron sharpening iron", as I believe your video is also intended to do.
This is an excellent response, especially the latter half when you touch on evidence and interpretation of evidence.
Thank you for being a consistent, peaceful, challenging and encouraging voice on this topic.
This channel is such a good resource for people struggling with issues like this.
I highly recommend Creation Ministries international
Listening to InspiringPhilosophy actually helped me to see that old earth is not necessarily outside of possibility or even orthodoxy. Then I stumbled upon your videos which are also very helpful. I am still kind of working through it right now.
IP video on YEC if full of errors, misrepresentation and weak logic. Gavin's critiques are weak also. His previous videos on Ken Ham is not much better. Gavin would do well to talk the creationists rather than assume he knows everything on this topic.
Inspiring philosophy is a heretic. He thinks Jesus lied.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 Could you provide evidence for these claims?
@@EmberBright2077 His arguments against Ken Ham focused on literal versus historical but missed the important discussion about which Adam actually existed. An Adam 6,000 years ago is hardly an Adam from 130,000 years ago. He also said that YEC were harmful, as does WLC, so it is not simply about having different views but that one side hurts the church, the very thing he claims Ken Ham is doing. He claims the church fathers weren't literal 6/24 adherents and that somehow gives license to accept billions of years, when none of them did. Rather poor logic. Gavin's anti-YEC bias is clear.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 Ken Ham maintains a sickeningly condescending attitude towards anyone who isn't YEC. But that's besides the point here.
**An Adam 6,000 years ago is hardly an Adam from 130,000 years ago.**
Why not?
As for YEC being harmful, it definitely is. What keeps happening is people convince themselves that you either have to believe in YEC, or become an atheist. Then eventually that person can no longer ignore the evidence for evolution or Old Earth. So they abandon the faith, because they assume Christianity has been proven false.
Regarding the Church Fathers, how does a precedent for a non-literal reading of Genesis mean we do not have license to read Genesis non-literally?
I was almost one of those guys who lost their faith over having to view it as literal. This channel has been one of the most helpful resources with strengthening my faith. Thanks!
Its great to hear the gospel prevailed. God is good even when we don't understand everything He does
@@benjaminwatt2436 Amen!
I don't understand your position. So the world lied to you, you believed it, and it almost made you lose your faith, but you regained your faith by believing the lie.
How many more lies have you accepted after believing that first one? How much of the bible can you turn into an allegory? Why not believe the inspired and inerrant word of God instead of the ramblings of a few white coats that profess to be wise but are complete fools that deny creation?
Gavin and Trent Horn are great on this topic it’s not a either or
@@JesusProtectsthe oldest traditions such as Orthodox and Catholic do not take a dogmatic position on the age of earth. Early Church Fathers would say there are 3 levels of reading scripture. First is literal plain reading, 2nd is where Jesus is found all throughout and the 3rd is a deeper level of pattern recognition and deep symbolism.
Would you consider doing a video of some exegetical unpacking/teaching on Genesis 1:1-2:3? I think it would really serve people to see an older earth position clearly expounded from the text!
ua-cam.com/video/THC5KMgdgdc/v-deo.html
A young man I now mentor left the faith because he was raised to believe this false dichotomy. Please keep preaching on this.
Are you teaching him that all life evolved from a microbe?
Hope it is going well.
This modernist approach to reading a historical document is greatly regressive, mixing the book of nature with the book of the Faith and it is a pitiful intellectual display and layered with deceit.
May he return to the Lord's warm embrace and Wisdom be manifest in his heart and the Holy Spirit draw closer to fill his home once again and forever more.
So what does he now believe?
You are saying YE is false. How would u know? And leaving your faith based on that makes no sense. And who said the rest of the world is right? there are some things that made be hard to understand but that don’t mean u lose your faith over it. one still needs Christ to go to heaven. Christianity is not a lie. They should consider Christ’s words first.
@@staal2691 Because you have to operate on basic evidential foundations to properly believe that Christianity is true - unless you just picked up a Bible one day and decided arbitrarily to believe everything it says. So if the evidence can show that Christianity is true, you can't then just abandon evidence when it doesn't suit you.
I was under the impression that all theologically orthodox Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox) before the 19th century believed that the universe was created around 4000 to 5500 B.C.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case considering that contemporary science had no evidence of the earth being older than a few thousand years. Since there was no evidence prior to certain advances in Geology, there was no reason to posit that the Earth was significantly older than recorded history.
I'm pretty sure that's not true as some like Aquinas believe creation was an eternal act of God and thought the universe itself was eternal.
See( Inspiring Philosophy)video on Genesis and how the hyper literalist interpretations started with the 19th century SDA church (false) prophetess Helen G. White!
While that's largely true, we have plenty of precedent for a non-literal reading of the Days of Creation (St Irenaeus, St Augustine, St Justin Martyr, St Clement of Alexandria, St Athanasius, Origen, and others). As someone else recommended, check out InspiringPhilosophy's *The Origins of Young Earth Creationism*.
Helpful and clarifying review. Thanks, Gavin!
I'd like to see you have a dialogue between you and some prominent young earth creationists.
I agree. Gavin is preaching to those in his corner.
Unfortunately they tend to be very cultish like flat-earthers because they assign a moral and theological imperative to believing their interpretation
Here's where we differ: If I make a video presenting what I firmly believe, while also responding to a particular viewpoint, I don't have to go into all the other "options".
For instance, if I make a video on soteriology, I can present my view that I'm thoroughly convinced of and explain how it is different from a given opposing view. I don't have to present all the other views of soteriology as options for the viewer. I'm not robbing the viewer of the chance to decide in that case; I can make a video about whatever I want.
It's the same with _Is Genesis History?_ The filmmakers are not doing anything wrong by presenting their view as opposed to a common secular view. They don't have to present your view. You can make your own video and present your beliefs as additional options. And that's exactly what you've done. I'm not sure why you're disappointed in the movie.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. As a pastor and college professor, I've seen the negative impact YEC on many students, and it was part of my decision as a teen (many years ago) of why I decided to become an atheist for a while. This video, your video responding to Ken Ham, and your Noah's Flood video are all so helpful and needed. I've met pastors who know OEC is true, but do not have your courage. They refuse to say anything because they fear the negative pushback from many of their church members who have been convinced of YEC. Please keep speaking up.
Q: What is one of Dr. Ortlund's super-powers?
A: He's highly intelligent, but it can be 'divinely hidden' behind his country bumpkin personality.
I think many of your concerns with the movie have to do with the limitations of the format. They necessarily have to simplify and summarize to make a sharp, focused movie that holds the viewer's attention. If they present several alternative views and argue against them it may not work well in this format. And if they're going to keep it simple, doesn't it make sense to contrast the view they are promoting with its most prominent alternative, the one that we are continuously indoctrinated in by the prevailing secular culture? That may be frustrating if your own view is not discussed in the film, but what would happen if they added a third view? People who hold a fourth view would complain about the false trichotomy in the film.
Unfortunately, I would agree that some of the statements made in the movie are oversimplified and perhaps could have been stated in a more careful way to avoid giving the wrong impression. Dr. Austin's statement sounds a bit surprising. Perhaps he means that among those geologists who are actively researching and publishing on the formation of the Grand Canyon, most of them are increasingly invoking catastrophic mechanisms in their explanations. That seems compatible with the context of his statement. But is it true? I have no idea, I don't read the geological literature. What research did you do to check his claim? Dr. Boyd's statement about Hebraists, if I recall, was in the context of an explanation of how the grammatical features of Genesis 1 are those of Hebrew narrative. Is it false that Hebraists identify those features in the text? In both of these cases I can see how someone might get the wrong impression, but the way you've presented their statements without context ironically may be misleading about how misleading their statements are. It shows how tricky it is to avoid these issues with concise summary videos.
Regarding the concern about this being a stumbling block, this seems to be a concern for all views on Genesis. People from every viewpoint are making this claim about the other views, and they all have anecdotes to share. I don't know how to adjudicate these claims. It seems like whatever you say about Genesis, or even if you don't say anything at all, someone somewhere is going to find a way to stumble because of that. But I suppose most would say "if the truth makes you stumble, then so be it." So which stumbling is a concern depends on which view you think is true. If the truth makes people stumble, are we obligated to present a false view as an alternative? If the Trinity makes people stumble, do we present unitarianism just in case? If not, then what are we to do?
I think calling any view of Genesis a stumbling block is really only true if a given view is purported to be the one correct view and that one's salvation or faith hinges on it. Which, as we know, is not what Christianity hinges upon. And the difference with the Trinity is that it's a crucial Christian belief, but young vs. old earth creationism is not
beautifully worded. Even as a YEC I think there is a point to be made that YEC tend to be very dogmatic about beleiving in a young earth. It would be nice to see some more humility from both sides of the argument
False dichotomies are some of the worst forms of sloppy thinking - and even deception. I belong to a YEC church - they are lovely people who love Jesus and give their hearts to Christ - but I see this danger too: If they are exposed to other views, they either have to clamp down or will lose their faith. I love your distinction between being literal and being historical. I have heard YEC speakers mock and disparage Old Earther using false dichotomies and misrepresentations. Their clinging to textual interpreters who reinforce their viewpoint is perhaps their biggest weakness.
As a Biblical creationist apologist I can assure you that we are not unaware of the viewpoints of others. For example, William Lane Craig has called for the (metaphorical) extermination of YEC from the church.
"The sooner the Christian community gets rid of young earth creationism the better. This is an embarrassment for the Christian faith that is creating enormous obstacles to Christian belief among scientifically-educated people. The universe is not, and the earth is not 6,000 years old and there's no reason biblically to think that it is and therefore we need to really shed ourselves of this as a Christian community."
ua-cam.com/video/_oM8PCNdve0/v-deo.html
So one wonders who is disparaging whom.
Earth is not young
Great work Gavin! I grew up YEC and eventually changed once I understood genre analysis, myth as a genre, and literalistic vs literal readings.
I love our YEC family and encourage them to at least understand that we're not "siding with the world" against the Bible or something, we simply have a genuinely different, and well attested, understanding of what the Bible is communicating.
Question. If Adam and Eve in Eden is not literally true, then how did sin enter the world? And why is Jesus the new Adam? Jesus also spoke about Adam and Eve “God created them male and female”. Do you only view the age of Earth differently or do you also think Adam and Eve in the garden is just myth or allegory?
@@tuckerchisholm1005 Friend, I'm going to assume you are asking in good faith. If that changes, I will not engage further.
All due respect, you likely are not familiar with the categories I am using, and as a result, your first premise is untrue. The account of Adam and Eve is literally true, neither did I suggest anything to the contrary.
I would suggest re-examining your understanding of some of the categories I alluded to: Myth is a genre of literature and is not (in the academic sense) defined as a "falsehood", quite the opposite in fact! (I'd suggest reading Tolkien's famous academic essay "On Fairy-Stories" as a good starting point for the genre), I reject the the dichotomy of Literal vs. Figurative as it tends to be reductive and unhelpful, Literal vs literalistic has proven to be far more helpful in these discussions (as my comment stated), I would strongly recommend looking up that disinction, otherwise I can elaborate further, and finally, allegory isn't particularly relevant to much of the Biblical text unless you meant to say Archetypal, in which case yes, most Biblical stories are overwhelmingly archetypal, but that's quite a different thing from allegory (it's a really beautiful topic to study btw, I'm going through it in my lectures at Bible study at church).
@@telleroftheonewe don't need to read Tolkien to understand the bible, and the fact that you even consider this as an option is very sad.
I don't understand your position. So the world lied to you, you believed it, and it almost made you lose your faith, but you regained your faith by believing the lie.
How many more lies have you accepted after believing that first one? How much of the bible can you turn into an allegory? Why not believe the inspired and inerrant word of God instead of the ramblings of a few white coats that profess to be wise but are complete fools that deny creation?
Yes, you are siding with the world of lying men. You can repeat yourself the opposite all you want, but that's what you are doing.
"But, my teacher told me... My science books tells me... That intelligent guy on television said... All of my friends mock me because I don't believe what the teacher, the books and the guy on tv said...Therefore it must be true and Genesis is either a lie or a great metaphor for evolution. I choose metaphor"
Wrong, you should have chosen the third option, don't believe the lies of a bunch of bible deniers with letters before their names.
@@JesusProtects If you say you don't understand my position then why comment on it as if you do?
You just assumed many things that aren't true. I never said the Bible is allegorical, in fact, I explicitly said that it isn't.
I also never nearly lost my faith, in fact, that change happened during a high point of my faith walk that I have never come down from.
I believe in some of the stranger elements of the faith that a lot of other believers are skeptical of (demons, supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc).
I simply don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is particularly young, and I affirm all orthodox Christian doctrines.
If you reply uncharitably again with no attempt to understand what I am communicating, then I will not be replying to you.
Merry Christmas
@@telleroftheoneYour tone is appreciated and refreshing.
This is a really important video. Like others in the comments, I've come across individuals who believe there are only 2 options (YEC vs naturalism) when it comes to this topic and they walk away from Christianity as a result. Thank you for this video Gavin. I pray your message reaches many who need to hear it!
From a biblical creationist view it is the teaching of evolution, and it's acceptance in the church that has turn many away from the church. OEC is a veiled admission of the veracity of evolution. Francis Collins, NT Wright has fully bought the whole evolutionary narrative and consequently deny a Adam (husband of Eve) and a Global flood.
First John 2 19
I believe it will. It's the norm amongst non-evangelicals, as it has been since the Church was started.
Fifteen years ago I would have appreciated this. But then I learned enough molecular biology to understand that the notion that all life evolved from a microbe is mythology, unsupported by modern science. It's not a "false dichotomy" to categorize all views into two categories. The view that all life was created recently is _extremely_ different from all other views, which all hold that all life "evolved" from a mythical first life, regardless of how they may each differ in detail.
Agreed. I think OECs don't like being included in the same category as naturalists because it requires them to show their cognitive dissonance. I was in this camp for a really long time. If one only accepts naturalistic interpretations of scientific evidence even if claiming to be a Christian OEC, eventually the objectivity of God and his character/truth becomes arbitrary and something that itself can evolve. Thank goodness this is not the case: Hebrews 13:8.
How does the Gap Theory or the Day-Age theory hold that all life "evolved" from a mythical first life?
@@stephengray1344 _"Gap"_ and _"Day-Age"_ seem to be ancillary to whether life was directly created or evolved. But they present a problem to creation.
Does anyone who holds either of those views believe all life was designed and created by an intelligent agent over a brief period of time? If not, what else is there but evolution from a mythical first living organism?
@@KenJackson_US As far as i can tell, there's no justification in any camp (YEC, OEC, or TE) for saying that God designed any lifeform after he created time. Saying that he did would effectively be denying his omniscience.
The Gap Theory agrees with the YEC camp that there were six 24-hour days of creation. Some variants of the theory have God creating a previous set of lifeforms and destroying them all before starting anew. Other variants simply use the gap as an explanation for things like radioactive rocks being millions of years old and have all the actual lifeforms created post-gap.
The Day Age Theory says that the days of creation were long stretches of time, but that God directly created the various species, rather than having them evolve from each other. This only counts as evolution from a first living organism if you're going to insist that God counts as the first living organism. But if you do that then consistency demands that you consider YEC to be an extremely fast form of evolution from that first living organism.
If you have evidence for this, I would be interested in hearing about it.
I really love this video. I’m currently in the Theistic evolution frame but grew up with the YEC idea being almost a non-negotiable thing. I actually think this is one of the biggest issues in the modern church. Great content I’ve been watching for a few weeks and love this channel!
What in the Bible led you to theistic evolution?
That's good to hear. Many Christians may call you a pantheist. Pantheism is often misunderstood & misrepresented as worshipping creation. The Universe is not a thing. It was not created, nor can it be destroyed. It is eternal & intelligent by eminent reason.
Science has a way of leading to pan-atheism, by way apophatic theology. All is subtracted until no-thing is left [it's not non-theistic]. Meontology (the study of nothing) is meaningful.
Pan-atheism = Pantheism, in the same way that, "The Empty Set" is the absolute complement of "The Universal Set", in set theory.
Answer: nothing@@TheSaintFrenzy
Hey Gavin, this comment isn’t specific to this video but what are the odds you would do a video on the Lordship/Free Grace Controversy? Most channels speak uncharitably and often turn to belittling each other. It would be nice to hear a gentle and charitable voice on the discussion that gives clarity like yours. Thanks for all the work you do!
Hey Gavin, have you read any of John Walton's work on Genesis? I'd be curious to hear your take.
Gavin, you do such a good job with this kind of work. Always sensible and based in the word but also in the context of issues. I've struggled with this issue for a while, more so from other believers acting as though this false dichotomy makes me less of a Christian. Kierkegaard and other historic figures like Augustine clearly would think that is irrelevant, but it still makes you feel like an outsider. I'd like to hear you talk about Dispensationalism at some point, your guidance and scriptural understanding would be a blessing because I feel it's a similar sort of issue.
Agreed Gavin. I believe a lot of people have unnecessarily stumbled away from faith over this issue. Praying that the future will hold a more generous posture for those who disagree on this issue and that its history will be fully considered.
I don’t think the movie ever says there aren’t other options apart from naturalistic evolution and YEC. It just presents them as two popular paradigms to contrast.
It’s encouraging to hear your take. I’ve been trying to give this same understanding regarding the false choice a voice for many years. Thank you
Can't wait to be able to share
Not to be overly pedantic, but as an historian, my biggest gripe is the title itself. The title, “Is Genesis Truth?” would have been more fitting, as it makes the assumption that history (a process of inquiry and evidence-sifting) and truth are the same, which they are not. Anyway, thanks for the review; I’m really enjoying the channel so far!
glad you're enjoying, thanks for the comment!
Wonderful topic that deserves so much more attention. Thanks Gavin for another great video!
So helpful as usual. Very much appreciate your patient and clear response.
I think YECs in general tend to always create this dichotomy though. That’s not unique to this video, which you seem to be implying. I grew up with belief in YEC and it was always taught to me as a dichotomy - either you believe in God or you believe in old earth evolution atheism. It was very much presented as an either/ or.
In fact, I was in my 40’s before I ever ran across Christians who believed in OEC. I’m still working through what I actually believe, personally, for what it’s worth.
ua-cam.com/video/THC5KMgdgdc/v-deo.html@@TheBoredTheist
So when a YEC movie presents its case, it must go through all the other various views as well for them to not do harm? Since when do old earth creationists do this for young earth creationists? I’ve never seen Hugh Ross from “Reasons to Believe” make this effort.
I'm glad to see clarification on the importance of the age question in relation to the age of the earth, and pushback against those who try to claim a literal reading of genesis is essential to being Christian. I'm concerned however that there's a general dismissal of the scientific claims that YEC people make. If the issue on the YEC side is to dismiss the theological claims and reasoning of OEC supporters, then the OEC problem is a tendency to simply ignore or disdain YEC scientific evidence.
As I continue studying to become an engineer, and strive to enhance my understanding of science and the natural world as a part of this, I continue to see more and more evidence amass in favor of a young earth. I'm concerned that the theological elitism of some YEC supporters which leads them to dismiss OEC people out of hand as having sided with the secular world is being mirrored by a scientific elitism among OEC supporters which leads them to dismiss all YEC supporters as being those who reject science and the evidences available. Both of these are problems that must be corrected for productive discourse to occur between us.
I myself am a YEC supporter and I believe in this because of the combined weight of both the theological and scientific evidence. I do not however disdain or disown as brothers in Christ those who disagree with this position based on sound reason and Biblical principle.
It's not a young Earth or Universe, it's as old as we have determined but it was created that way, just as all the animals, plants and even Adam and Eve were created at a certain age. However, it was created thousands of years ago, at the age God determined they needed to be created.
But why would God deceive in such a manner.
I'd like to pose a question to OEC. Why is the flood included in along with the creation account as being non-literal? I understand the arguments, especial, with the creation week and agree there seems to be a lot of poetic language and symbolism, however i'd argue the flood seems very different.
Even if you accepted Genesis 1-2 was figerative, why place the figurative nature of genesis all the way to chapter 11? Textually it seems arbitrary and i havn't heard a solid answer to this question
I had great difficulty with the flood story back when I believed Genesis 1-2 were metaphorical descriptions of spiritual events and that all life evolved from a microbe. The flood account seemed to include too many specific details to be metaphor. I just couldn't figure it out.
But now that I've learned some biology and understand that life absolutely couldn't have evolved from one life, I've had no difficulty accepting the flood account as literal history. And the more I look around the more blindingly obvious evidence I see for it. How do we explain the continent-scale fossil-bearing miles-deep hydraulically-sorted layers of sediment that cover the whole earth if not from the worldwide flood? And how is it that the five millennia of human history fits so well with the Scriptural narrative?
@@KenJackson_US I'm YEC, but i do see how Genesis 1-2 could be read poetically and doesn't have to indicate a young earth, but i don't think any of the OEC views on the flood hold water. the phrasing is too consistant that all life ended and the whole earth flooded. I would like to hear OEC views on this
I'm also YEC, but as I understand it, a global flood as destructive as what is described in scripture would not only lay down its own record of fossils and sedimentary layers, but also completely erase any and all prior fossils and layers in the initial destruction. So while it's possible to believe in the OEC or even theistic evolutionary perspective and maintain belief in the great flood, that would mean that all the fossilized organisms and geological strata we have are still only several thousand years old at most. Which defeats the very reason to believe that the earth is that old in the first place.
Gavin, do you have any opinions about John Walton’s view on creation? I read his book a long time ago but I remember it being very compelling.
I appreciate your heart in these things! My comment would be in my observation and experience in the scientific community at large there does seem to be hostility toward not just the historicity of Genesis but the idea that this universe is intelligently designed. So in my mind it's not unreasonable to at the very least ask the question of what presupposition are these scientists interpreting the data from? This in my mind seems to be what the "Is Genesis History and people?" at Answers in Genesis are combating. In your videos I haven't really heard you address that as being the case from the "other side." The Atheistic evolutionary scientists present sort of the same dichotomy. Overall though I agree with your heart and premise that there is room to for discussion and even disagreement on these things and still remain faithful to Christ! I wonder if it would be helpful to do a video or series of videos that talk about the views that are very problematic and ones that one can hold and still remain faithful to the text. Thanks for your heart and ministry!
Agreed, much of the combative nature of YEC comes from a dogmatic secular science that exludes God from any scientific discussion
I absolutely agree. We do not trust the secular and frequently anti-Christian school system to fairly teach its pupils sound morals, so why should be assume that when they draw conclusions about the origin of the universe - which are the underpinning for the naturalistic Darwinian worldview - that they arrived at these conclusions in a fair and unbiased manor.
Just a clarification, the "Is Genesis History" video (2017) was not from AIG but was an independent work, hosted by Del Tackett.
As for allowing room for discussion, it seems like the anti-YEC camp within the church has become more aggressive. Dr. William Lane Craig has called for the expulsion of the YEC position from the church, as such is he likely to be willing to even discuss these issues?
"The sooner the Christian community gets rid of young earth creationism the better. This is an embarrassment for the Christian faith that is creating enormous obstacles to Christian belief among scientifically-educated people. The universe is not, and the earth is not 6,000 years old and there's no reason biblically to think that it is and therefore we need to really shed ourselves of this as a Christian community."
ua-cam.com/video/_oM8PCNdve0/v-deo.html
@@gusolsthoorn1002 oh wow I had no idea it was that extreme.
For those saying there’s no false dichotomy between YEC and atheistic naturalism: not all OEC hold to strict naturalistic evolution or even theistic evolution. The whole intelligent design movement (Stephen meyer, behe etc) hold to old earth creationism but disagree with evolution
Great work Gavin, a well made video as always! Content such as this is not only informative and edifying but also incredibly fascinating. God bless
Hey Gavin, I got locked out of my patreon account so can't get in to comment, but wanted to suggest that consider responding to "the cessationist" documentary that G3 put out. As someone who is cessationist by tradition, it would be really helpful to hear your voice on the topic!
It’s so sad that relationships have been destroyed because of this whole debate.
As a Christian since 1983 and a Christ Follower who’s NEVER believed in a young Earth, I’ve had friends who are brothers in Christ who are no longer friends to me as a result. One telling me that in their eyes I’m no longer a Christian.
I’m a young earth creationist, but I agree with Gavin, we shouldn’t exclude the old earth creation positions and lead people to believe they don’t exist. I don’t think giving old earth creation as a safety net for Christians struggling in school is wise, but it should still be fairly represented and argued against.
Great analysis, Gavin! I began to watch “Is Genesis History?”, but I was bothered by some of the same things that you were. I see that many of the comments here are from Young Earth Creationists (with a few from Theistic Evolutionists). I’d place myself in the Progressive Creationist camp (Hugh Ross, et al).
My college experience was very similar to the one you mentioned. Although I never lost my faith, I went through a long period of doubt. In the end, my faith was strengthened, no thanks to the young earth creationists.
Hey Dr. Ortlund, could you make a video addressing the problem of evolutionary evils. Prior to me accepting theistic evolution, I remember this issue really being a stumbling block from YEC. Today, I’ve been exposed to a handful of reasonable theodicies, but I wonder what your thoughts are.
I've also seen the argument made about this not being Hebrew poetry and that may be the case, but that does not mean that it isn't poetry. I think there is evidence outside Israel in the greater Ancient Near East (ANE) that seem to qualify Genesis as part of the ANE creation myth genre. It also very clearly refutes the idolatry of all other ANE myths.
There’s also one part in the film where they’re talking about carbon dating and I can’t remember the numbers exactly so excuse me but the guy was saying that it can only date back to around 6,000.
But when I went looking on my own other scientists were saying no it’s more like 60,000.
Love that Dr. Ortlund engages this topic. Very refreshing and gives me an opportunity to share this content with others who have questions or to ease doubts or anxiety
I'm a YEC and I really don't think we're being ignorant in the glaring gaps in evolution. There are serious issues that aren't addressed because it would lead to YEC and people aren't willing to accept that.
Gaps in evolutionary theory does not lead to YEC. No scientist would conclude that the earth was 6000 years old if they were not first influenced by fundamentalist Christianity.
I think that coming to a YEC conclusion by ones own conviction is different from accusing those who aren’t convinced of a YEC of being false Christians. I don’t think that you do that, just to clarify, but just that those like Ken Ham do not approach this type of issue with any charity at all. I don’t think this should be an issue withered either side mocks the other.
Sure - it's a fair thing to criticize areas of evolution where parts are lacking. It is certainly the case that the fossil record doesn't perfectly show a great line or trend from one species to another.
However, one of the things we must be careful to examine, is whether or not we are selectively choosing our data to support our worldview, or if we are actually taking an honest look at the data.
The problem that I have with a YEC model is that, given the evidence that we have in Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Archeology, and so many other fields, we wouldn't come to a conclusion that YEC is true *unless* we presuppose a *specific* interpretation of Genesis being true to reality.
If, for some reason, God ordained that Genesis Chapter 1 was not to be written down, or hidden for some reason, do you think that *anyone* would come to the conclusion that the world was 6000 years old?
@@Narikku I agree the age of the earth seems very ellusive. There seems to be a lot of data suggesting an old earth. But i would come right back with how ellusive the data is for micro to macro evolution. it doesn't seem remotely possible based on the natural laws we see today
@@benjaminwatt2436 There is no mechanical difference between how micro-evolution and how macro-evolution operate. The only difference is the *amount* of changes.
Yes, it is, it is literal because anybody that reads it can see the writers of Genesis and other books, made clear distinctions of their intent, and what they intended to portray. In other words, the adjectives and time frames that were given were intentional therefore there is no ambiguity.
I personally am a young earth creationist, for various reasons, but I really appreciate the points you brought up. Love your channel!
What are those reasons?
Gavin I appreciate your heart and willingness to approach these issues with nuance. That being said I am going to offer some push back. It is sad to hear you and many others use the "genre" argument to say the days of creation aren't literal 24 hour days. If you believe scripture to be inherent as you say then why don't you and others use the same argument to claim that the Sabbath is not a literal 24 hour day. Since the commandment in Exodus 29 specifically references the 6 days of creation and the 7th day God rested as the establishment of Sabbath how is this not God contradicting Himself? Further Christ references the days of creation when talking about Sabbath and He spoke of Adam as a literal person. The biggest problem with the genre argument is that other scripture refutes it. So you either have to say scripture isn't inherent or you have to argue that the Sabbath Commandments are not referring to a literal 24 hour day. Also I would challenge you to find believers who subscribed to any old earth creation before 1809.
IIRC there was a geologist named Glenn who had a site correcting YEC and later remove his work from the internet and said the only ones using his work seems to be atheist who attacking Christians. He rebuked OEC on a Christian forum as they always sided with the atheist against YEC.
He wrote YEC are still his brothers and sisters and didn't have much use for atheism. He seem to agree with Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
I have a feeling your video will more likely just give atheist ammo against YEC and not much more.
I believe God has a sense of humor and it would be funny if it turns out YEC were right all along.
@@TheBoredTheist This is the problem with Christians wanting to sound intellectual and pretend atheist are on equal ground when they don't have a foundation to stand on.
Atheism is the ultimate form of idolatry making the universe the ultimate idol which can't see, hear, feel or reason.
Gavin, Where do you address the issues of using the word "literal"? Thanks!
I had a massive crisis of faith over this issue in college due to the false dichotomy I was taught in church. It took about a decade to resolve (my faith problems) and now I am less dogmatic and armed with different options.
Exodus 20 clears up the issue. 1 Day was 1 Day, evening and morning, and in like manner the commandments follow God’s pattern of work for 6 days and rest the 7th
Thanks for all your hard work, Gavin
We appreciate you more than you know
Hey Gavin, I appreciate your concerns, and when they're legitimate. I look forward to you also reviewing and critiqing the videos and literature produced by those presenting different points of view. Because I know you're not biased.
Dr. Nelson taught a summer session I once attended on evolutionary biology (which is the area where his philosophical experience lies). In my experience, he was a very open, honest, and fair thinker towards views different than his own...and that's coming from a person who holds different views than him on the subject of creationism. I am not surprized he distanced himself from some of the more misleading implications of the documentary.
Thank you so much, Gavin. When I first came back to Christ in May, I knew the gospels were true, but as someone who always found the dichotomy of YEC contentious through my teen years, I struggled with Genesis for about 2 months. Your channel and InspiringPhilosophy really helped me ground my faith and still help me to grow to this day. May God bless you!
Great video! I wish I could like it more than once. As a new theistic evolutionist, I think the one strength YEC has is the simplicity of explaining how sin entered the world and how Adam’s sin spread to all of humanity. I would love it if Dr. Ortlund (or anyone else) could make a video or direct me to one answering these questions:
1. If Adam and Eve weren’t the first humans, then how did their sin apply to all humanity?
2. When did all of humanity become “made in God’s image?”
3. Death entered the world through Adam’s sin, but Adam and all humans were created through death (natural selection). How does this work?
Well I think those questions illustrate the theological weakness of the Theistic Evolutionist position. I hold to YEC because it conforms to the majority of the theological and scientific evidence I see. Personally I see the Biblical/theological arguments for YEC as being very strong, and the scientific evidence for YEC vs OEC as being close to tied, but still in YEC's favor, thus I lean that way.
You could watch InspiringPhilosophy's Genesis 1-11 series. He lays out the view of Dr John Walton, and answers these questions.
@@TrivialCoincidence IP's series is great and i'm a YEC. I do have problems with his views on the flood. He doesn't address any of the science YE scientist present for the evidence for the flood. in fact one of my biggist problems with OEC is i never hear them address YE arguments on the flood. they always discuss the flood as if all modern science has been completely proven on the issue
I know this would go against your theistic evolution view, but is it possible that humans were created more recently, out of nothing(or the dirt, as Genesis 2 says), while other creatures existed and evolved for millions of years before that? I don't know enough on the subject, and I know there is evidence in favor of human and ape common ancestry, but how solid is that? Isn't it possible to believe in evolution in general, but that God may perform acts of creation as well?
@@collin501 I once considered that belief... for about 2 minutes. If you accept evolutionary biology everywhere else, it seems somewhat ad-hoc to reject it for only humans.
Thankyou Dr. Ortlund, your videos introduced me to the other options that are our their on interpretation of Genesis.
Thanks for another video on this topic. I was very much the college freshman you described at the end. I reluctantly held a YEC view for several years because I was told unequivocally that if I didn’t, then I clearly rejected Jesus’ death as a literal event. 🙄🙄🙄 Once I studied more about the genres of the scriptures, I felt *literal* 😉 relief that I could abandon YEC and not lose my faith.
When you say you abandoned YEC what did you come to believe?
Thanks for asking. I believe God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that they were the first humans on Earth.
I do not believe that the days of creation were 24 hour days. I have no guess or belief as to how long the “days” were. 200 years? 1 million years? I haven’t lost any sleep over it 😅
So when I say I abandoned YEC, I’m speaking to the literal 6, 24-hour days.
@@Whitney1202 So you believe in the Adam and Eve, who were parents of Cain, Abel and Seth, who was father of.... according to Genesis 5, placing them on earth about 6,000 years ago?
Do you also agree that the earth has two times been covered in water or do you scoff at this idea per in 2 Peter 3:5- 6?
It seems to me that you called yourself a YEC originally but really didn't understand what was involved biblically or scientifically. Would that be correct?
I am asking because when someone says that they abandoned something, it is assumed they have come to believe something else, but often what the new belief is unstated.
@@Whitney1202so do u think God/Jesus doesn’t have the power to create in 6 literal days???
@@staal2691 😂😂 of course He does. Get over yourself. Nothing in my comments have indicated anything to the contrary and you know it.
This is great man. I go to a Christian high school where they teach me young Earth creationism, and I've been forced to watch this several times and the intellectual dishonesty and just the lack of thought for other positions Just really frustrates me.
Slandering other Christians is a serious charge. I know some of those scientists whom Gavin claims are harming the church and they are not being intellectually dishonest and are well aware of all the other positions out there. Gavin has made charges against the people in the video. I think it reasonable to listen to their rebuttal before casting aspersions on these fine Christian men.
Yes science and history and the Bible don’t go against each other I’m a Catholic Christian and we can believe in young earth or the Big Bang but both are from God not from nothing
@@annb9029 I don't think that is the main issue Ann. It isn't so much the age as the events recorded in Genesis. Those events tell us who God is, what steps He took in creation, what man is, what happened to man, the origin of death, and the need for a savior. Accepting the Big Bang (a theory in serious trouble if there ever was one) gives us a different sequence of events that cannot possibly be reconciled with the literal reading. A Big Bang gives an entirely different sequence of events. It changes who God is and what He did. Instead of creating ex nihilo (from nothing) did he really need billions of years to "create" the universe and life? The Big Bang also tells us that humans are the result of an incredibly long sequence of biological change, that, of necessity, required the birth and destruction of trillions of living things, with all the attendant suffering and death, for the sole reason for bringing mankind into existence, and then having the audacity to call it good?
Even Charles Darwin found the idea of theistic evolution revolting. "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?" The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, with Original Omissions Restored, ed. Nora Barlow. London: Collins.
The Bible tells us that God made everything perfect and good, and that it was Adam (representing mankind) the chose to rebel bringing death, disease and suffering. The Big Bang scenario would claim that it was God who set up the system of death and suffering over that vast period of time. Can we then really call God good?
And if God himself set up this system of suffering and death, why would he send Jesus to die for the sins of humanity? Was Jesus to die for mankind's sins or for God's?
I understand why people do not like the YEC position - it is embarrassing to our modern sensibilities, but if we abandon the events of Genesis for some vague Big Bang experience we are also undermining the Gospel. And that is the real problem.
@gusolsthoorn1002 there is genuine intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency. I am not seeking to slander anyone, but I've seen plenty of yec stuff and much of it is, in my opinion, harmful and dishonest.
@annb9029 yeah! I looked into the cultural context and ancient cosmology and I found that I don't think young earth is correct.
Gavin, I have friends who left the church precisely because they accepted an OEC view. Over time, it led them to think they could pick and choose the rest of scripture too, even though the youth pastor explained why the OEC genre argument wasn't problematic (coming from a blank slate point-of-view. This church wasn't explicitly YEC). They naturally followed the practice of explicitly denying the meaning of the plain words which are universally translated "day" (even if they might not *bindingly mean* "day") which led them to realize they could do the same elsewhere. The incremental development resulted in them choosing to "just be a nice person, my way" without the church, since points of belief would be arbitrated on, even if the words were clear. It isn't "safer" for one to simply say "Don't bind consciences to 6-day creation because they're gonna get challenged" without acknowledging that these forces of challenge come for these people's faith regardless of what exactly they believe. *Any* historicity in the Christian faith is going to be challenged. Patching up a problem where there isn't one (thinking 6-day creation is an "extreme" view 4:19) is only preparing kids to abandon their faith through compromise instead of explaining why the philosophy of Christianity (doctrine & aseity of God with orderliness of His creation) is *best* held in continuity by acknowledging that he *did* create everything (cosmos, heavens, beings etc) in 6 days. Why would God enshrine in the 10 commandments a *1-1 comparison* of the creation *days* as the reason of the Sabbath *day* (Exodus 20:11. Heck, this is the crown of the ceremonial Law, which Jesus held to, acknowledging its explicit confession: 6 days of creation + 1 day of rest {He ignored the Pharisee's Sabbath accretions, which was a sin of theirs, but Sabbath itself was good; is now fulfilled})? Why are the Psalms littered with allusions to God created fiat? What is the need for accommodating Darwinian evolution into creation, a theory whose mythology no one has observed nor can (the past is the past), whose evidence doesn't speak objectively for itself and therefore can be interpreted differently & even in a non-Christian/non-Western ways, and whose principles have aged like spoiled milk as scientists attempt to patch up the growing number of holes in the theory in correlation with the continually-growing awareness of nature's complexity? The requirement to have *total* knowledge of every facet of nature in every field to decisively call Darwin dogma is like trying to collect the ocean with a shop vacuum. The more they test, the more they realize the task is impossible and they must conjure "just-so" stories to cover their failure to avoid admitting it. Rant aside, do Christians not believe that God is capable of creating fiat, and says He did so in 6 days through the direct establishment of the Sabbath Law, and embellishes this point with descriptions of His fiat creating in those 6 days in the Psalms? I agree that condemning people for not holding a strict scientific interpretation/understanding of 6-day creation is awful and wrong. But I also believe we should not deviate from what the text says in its plain & universal translation and shouldn't be ashamed to use the scientific method to seek understanding of the God-ordained/created Laws of nature under the premise & assumption of fiat 6-day creation, a global flood, and the like.
No one is saying Genesis is scientifically describing an event or even producing a scientifically referenceable document. It's a telling of real history through poetry, defining the world we live in. So one doesn't understand what a day is *from* Genesis, but he understands that Genesis *is* working in real days as anyone would understand them given how God entreats Genesis later in Scripture (but not *scientifically* interpolating time into Genesis either, taking the natural reading of the plain translation for what it means: a singular day in each reference of "day"). The rhetorical shield of "cosmology" you're employing is a pathetic deflection & demonstrates your philosophical illiteracy. While Genesis does describe creation using language that rebuts the Babylonian creation myth (especially when referencing the moon & sun), that doesn't suddenly render it a mystical & meaningless well-wishing sequence of introducing elements of nature on stage as if it was some jazz-induced theatre performance. Genesis presents God's aseity & characteristics up front through *how*, *what*, and *why* he creates. The orderliness of God is inherited in creation in a mechanic-to-mechanism way, reflecting this in the intuitive order/design one sees *everywhere* in the cosmos and even in human psychology. Our fleeting Christian culture, under the presumption of creation, has a category for each set of observed order/laws: Laws of nature and Laws of man (moral law), and natural law (for human biology etc) to name a few. This is a parallel orderliness that pervades all of nature and our role in nature, obviously implying a right way of living and wrong way of living. Even the Greek pagan philosophers noticed this, which is why they were able to reverse engineer the need for a cause of this order, yet were separated from the true source of this order (which Paul much later tells their disciples about in Acts 17). Their findings culminate in Socrates getting *executed* for trying to apply this order to the Athenian government of his day since the officials perceived he was undermining & exchanging the "peace" they had secured for an unproven set of moral standards that had no enforceable or provable focal point (which make sense given the incarnation hadn't happened yet and the incarnation was the arrival of the Creator: the "Logos", or embodied reason and truth from which creation originally flowed and the philosophers didn't know they were looking for, but deduced existed in some form).
My point is, Genesis is discussing real history in the plain reading of the text. The means of creation itself has no bearing on what science will produce, only the *interpretation* of whatever it produces since science is only structured observation, not a speaker of truth. If you want to talk about cosmology masquerading as modern science, actually read the implications of many modern science papers, not just the abstract. Demonstrating how the Laws of nature work in extremely certain conditions today and then *projecting that into a hypothetical past whose conditions no one can observe* is a far worse excuse for science than a hypothetical experiment seeing if geological features contain a chemical make up that could only be formed in a flood event where we wouldn't expect one producing a scientific proof that is a small piece in a puzzle that *could* but doesn't dogmatically prove the *possibility* of events in early Genesis. In fact, there is *nothing* "unscientific" about the latter example, though proponents of either view are quick to call the scientists of the other side quacks etc no matter how legit the testing methodology is. I would continue on to how the identity claims of Jesus, his character, and his subsequent actions & miracles, all within the narrative context of the ceremonial law, are consistent with God's character in thee creation and precisely *how* God created which is consistent with *His* orderliness and the subsequent orderliness in His *creation*, but this comment is already waaaaay too long.
"Genesis describes near east cosmology" is such a sad excuse for defenestrating the plain meaning of the text instead of understanding that the account contains near east cosmology *to defend* against the neighboring creation myths, subjugating their own elements within their own mythological literary structure to show their worship was silly while still maintaining the true creation story of what, how, and why God created everything, preserving the context of His actions & character in perfect connection with the rest of the Bible. This has the same vibes as naive Evangelicals saying "I read St Ignatius of Antioch and he used the word bishop. So now I have to be Roman Catholic. OoOoh NoOooes." Idk what you believe, but be strong and know the difference between what someone claims historical or scientific data means and what the data is, including the methodology used. Genesis isn't claimed to be a scientific document and does contain literary elements (near east cosmology) of the region the account was written in, though neither of these disprove whether it is real history told poetically or not.
@@TheBoredTheist
My problem with your point is you are putting a strict understanding of near east cosmology upstream of Genesis, saying cultural practice/literary style context can be the only determiner of what is really communicated. Then at what point does real time start and at what point is creation, within this natural time, materialized? Based on Exodus 20:8-11 with its 1-1 day comparison, it clearly is not a “modern, 21st-century concern”. If Genesis deals strictly in cosmological days, primarily communicating that God created the earth/cosmos as His temple and man to manage His temple in “some” amount of time, then why is HE drawing literal days *directly* from Genesis, enshrining them into the confession of creation within the ceremonial Law? God is not inconsistent in His word and neither is his consistency/order broken in his creation, hence why he calls it good (obviously sin have corrupted the complete goodness of what he made entirely good). But Sin didn’t change the length of a day for God. My point is, claiming Genesis is strictly a “why” text due to literary style ignores God’s use of it as a “how” text later (not scientific “how”, but one indicating real time and space in Genesis. A cosmological Genesis day is defined by God as a natural day in Exodus 20:8-11. Saying otherwise is calling God a liar in Exodus 20 and assuming generic NEC was the *only* thing being communicated in Genesis.
Nonsense, people throughout history have understood Genesis as dealing with real time using the [familiar for their time] framework of the temple inauguration. It’s where we get the basis of man being priest in God’s temple (temple = creation, man having dominion [management] over it) and thus why only men can be pastors: Adam was created to be priest in the temple while women was made, in equal essential worth, to be his helper. If Genesis didn’t have a real, natural connection to our world, neither the Israelites nor the early church would have had a problem having women serve as priests/pastors. Likewise, both ordered their days according to the 7 days of Genesis designating a day reflecting a cosmological & material reality. For the Israelites, Sabbath reflecting the day of rest God exampled for us. Then for the Christians, the Lord’s Day (moved to the first in the week) reflecting that Jesus was the first among all things and the first to rise in the resurrection of the dead , and reflecting the rest He gave us from sin. Both of these use 7 day paradigms to demonstrating a *natural* understand of the days paired with the cosmological “why”. It isn’t either/or and neither is it a “modern concern”.
@@TheBoredTheist
...Response to your longer comment...
I can't help but see that you basically threw every OT reference to the number 7 in a list out of the context of what the number 7 in this cosmology is used to communicate and then also included all verses with reference to Biblical cosmology without considering that this cosmology *doesn't then preclude* a natural reading of the text IN Genesis' cosmology. While 7 contains cosmological significance [perfection], it also carries a natural, measurable meaning. We do not know why God uses the NEC prioritization of this number to represent his perfection & goodness, but he does. Why say 7 can *only* be a mystical, cosmological thing when it is also a measurable thing, applied in measurable ways (i.e. every verse you listed above). Your disordered view (placing a strict NEC view over *why* and *where* God uses "7" to reflect His perfection) misses that when an observer is inquiring into measuring God's acts, both direct and through His people (but not God Himself), he may be looking for things counted in 7, but things that are still material and natural nonetheless since God directly interacts with the material in His creation, as seen throughout the Bible. We don't simply get an ordering cosmology and then assume life and matter come from nowhere sometime after that. Genesis is cosmology that includes a natural reading as God demonstrates in Exodus 20:8-11 like I mentioned before and you haven't yet addressed.
I agree that not everything in the Bible is to be consumed scientifically, since its expressed purpose isn't science, but how we are to live in the true nature of this material world, while knowing there is more than this material world (God placed us *here*, not in heaven, but endowed creation with the complete expression of heaven's orderliness, the completeness of which we lost in the fall). But claiming *strict* cosmology for every mention of God's orderly, proper positioning to us & creation ignores the physicality of His interaction in His creation and that there is *a* material creation for Him to interact with to begin with. I know in theory we do not need an explicit scientific "recipe" for how God created the earth in order to know that He is our Lord. But when the account of creation includes cosmological explanations that establish both God's Lordship/"aboveness" over all things AND the real event of all material being made (since matter exists and Genesis immediately flows into historical narrative after the account), we *cannot pretend that Genesis is then ONLY establishing a cosmology* and not also a record that God created fiat.
Declaring that God is above all things (the source of order, reason), but then allowing the interpretation that He let the creation create itself via its own atomized lordship (aka chaos) goes against the entire principle of God being above all things & installing his perfection, his goodness into it in the first place. It is incoherent nonsense to claim that goodness is nothingness using entropy to create order, just to fall prey to the entropy that allegedly created it. Order (goodness) falling prey to entropy (beginning in the breaking of the moral law in Gen 3) affects all the laws/orders of nature given at least that it affects the priests of God's "temple", that is, humanity within His creation.
This is one reason why Jesus being our High Priest connects perfectly with Genesis: He lived perfectly according to the created moral law, introducing a correcting example to our sinfulness aka lawlessness. AND He did the necessary work of returning us to this priestly vocation in God's creation (loving God & our neighbors etc) by dying on the cross to remove the curse of death from us while equally taking the judgement we deserved for originally violating the created orderliness of God, ensuring that those who trust that Jesus *has* done this will be made perfectly able to follow the moral law after death and continue doing so eternally, in God's presence, up to and after our bodies are resurrected from the dead and rejoined to our souls.
---
Long story short: Genesis unequivocally implies by its literary structure *alone* a cosmology where God creates all things from & for Him, as good/orderly (infusing His goodness), *by fiat* (but not necessarily in 6 days). However, it is illogical and cosmologically inconsistent for *fiat* creation to involve more time than the enumerated 7 days (cosmological or natural) since this fiat creation entails original goodness & perfect orderliness, as is communicated both in the use of 7 days for creation and the verbal affirmation of its goodness/orderliness after each day. Additionally, the existence of designed matter at all and God's consistent call, *within this material creation*, to remember HIS perfection and that He created perfectly, by fiat, *by commanding the Israelites to use the #7 in the counting of natural days (Exodus 20:8-11), of natural months, of material things, and other non-cosmological things* universally points back to not just confessing a cosmological truth, but living in a materially evident truth from that cosmology. Taking the cosmological & natural narratives together is the only joint reading that generates a world that accommodates the events & practices in the OT and NT, many of which archeology has uncontroversially proved happened (not saying all of it has been archeologically proven, but that several major events & cultures only recounted in the Bible have been shown to be true proving it isn't "just a cosmological book") and that doesn't perforate God's demonstrated and stated character & attributes throughout the rest of the Bible.
@TheBoredTheist
@@TheBoredTheist Stonewalling on Exodus 20:8-11 doesn't prove you're right. God, explaining *from* the Genesis account, how to treat natural things (time, days) reflects the account of Genesis has a natural reading. You haven't addressed this and you haven't produced any evidence that rules out these rituals imitating creation; that the Genesis account isn't *upstream* of them. Whether God created is obviously not up for debate (assuming you're at least a theist as your username implies). A singular record of creation accounting for both cosmology and material is not controversial given both are affirmed downstream in the rest of scripture. This affirmation of the Genesis cosmology & natural creation later in scripture relays strong evidence that it can and should be read like this.
*This is not a "21st century" understanding of the text.* That rhetorical quip is a tired and meaningless given that most people throughout church history alone have read it like this and, by implication of the Sabbath, all the faithful Israelites, post Exodus through the AD 70 temple destruction. If you take rest of the Bible seriously in *any* way, how the Israelites internalized & applied their understanding of creation is not up for an interpretation excluding 6-day creation. Claiming NEC "context", Michael Heiser style, while not being able to prove that the NEC context was *not* influenced by the events the text accounts, fails to disprove anything. Instead, it highlights your likely discomfort with taking the Bible at its word (not literal word for word, but communicating real truths, cosmological & material through different literary styles) *before* seeking historical & cultural context to understand the communicated meaning of these real events or cosmological truths. Regarding your last sentence: do you believe Moses compiled the Torah/Pentateuch?
Idk if you're a theist or a Christian. If you believe Jesus is God, His confession of Genesis including a material reading by affirming the validity of the Sabbath Law as being made *for* man is an enforcement that God created the material & the cosmological from the one account in Genesis. That is the reality of what Jesus is confessing by following the ceremonial Law.
@@TheBoredTheist
Again, you are assuming the creation account is entirely downstream of this ritual and the ANEC context generally. *Cosmologies don't come from nowhere.* Why did these ceremonies use 7 days? Why was 7 important anyway? Parallels to surrounding cultures disproves nothing about what I'm saying. Cosmologies are a reflection of something real, which humans use cultural literary devices to communicate more robustly. There is no reason the assume that these parallels disprove anything and, rather, that they have a familiar source of something upstream. Which one is right? Which account has it's extension of God's nature at the beginning affirmed by real events later in Scripture? Is not most of the OT a fight & jockeying over which expression of the ANEC is right, not even to mention that what that "right" expression believes flows perfectly in the person of Jesus? The ANEC context is not the theologically binding thing. So don't pretend like it is the only lens for understanding the entire OT rather than a context for ordering real events into history that the cultures around the Israelites also evidently placed into their man centered world views.
***No one is saying you should read all of the Bible like a scientific document.*** You have exclusively read the ANEC cultural context into the Genesis account despite the ANEC context being downstream of real creation (since matter exists before ANEC) and that other uncontroversially true, historical events of the Bible show that God's existence and interaction with the Israelites is real. The ANEC context is not a full, binding package that you either take entirely scientifically or entirely mythologically. *THAT is a false dichotomy!* After all, doesn't God let Adam name all the animals? Why would God not let Adam, and all humanity through him, expand this practice and build a framework of the natural world from his point of view that respects God's genuine position in this natural world? *God alone* knows His creation entirely and doesn't have to explain scientifically how each and every facet works for us to take His word on how He said He made it. He merely states how he made everything and then lets man label how he thinks everything works relative to God since he knows God created it. Why would the ANEC context not be partially influence by a real event? God isn't communicating a comprehensive understanding of matter to man: only that He created it the way He said He did, and the Israelites will live by the ceremonial Law to confess the *tangible* truths about God, His work, and His relationship to humanity: pointing to the promise of a messiah.
A few examples of natural, tangible implications of Genesis including a natural reading:
God's creation of humans in Genesis makes Him father to all people:
Deut 32:6, Malachi 2:10
The purpose & outline of the Sabbath is explained using a natural reading of Genesis:
Exodus 20:8-11
The Bible attributes the creation of *everything* (people and nature) to God:
Isa 40:26; 41:20; 42:5; 43:7; 45:7-8, 12, 18; Ps 148:5; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16
The *material* creation in Genesis is good, orderly, and *tangible*:
Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 1 Tim 4:4
Hey Gavin, thanks for the vid. The discussion between Mohler and Collins was helpful. Would love to hear you address Mohler’s concern that Christians actually gain nothing in accepting the old earth science. The same science/scientists that points to an old earth (not an issue of orthodoxy), also points to man not being the result of Gods immediate creation, and all men descending from 2 parents (issue of orthodoxy). What would a person gain? When does a person stop going “along with the science”?
Thanks Gavin. Much needed. Long time Dr. Hugh Ross adherent here. Plus he exhibits much fruit of the Spirit in his communication. Keep it up.
I really appreciate this video. I almost feel afraid to let other Bible believing Christians know I that I believe in an Old Earth because that is seen as nearly heretical. However, as I have done some lay reading on astronomy and cosmology, I see a beauty in the processes that appear to be in place which would require long lengths of time to complete. There is an elegant beauty in the systems God built into the Universe that allow for the creation of stars, the fusion of hydrogen and helium into heavy metals, and the development of new star systems, and many other long-term processes.
Regarding the Grand Canyon, there are two important things: (1) It *could* plausibly have formed catastrophically and (2) There are mainstream geologists who believe this, so it is not kooky to suppose it did. I think everyone knows that mainstream geologists all also believe in millions of years, so I'm not sure that is misleading. As for your geologist friends, I used to be a research physicist and there are MANY things that I don't know especially if they were current after my undergraduate time when I was studying physics most broadly. And I am constantly learning about new things that there just wasn't time to cover at the time, and much of that is through youtube creators! I have also learned many little-known facts via YEC people. For example, did you know that warmer oceans would cause the interior antarctic icesheets to grow due to much increased precipitation? To a physicist this is obvious once the idea is presented, but the mainstream has never discussed this; the mainstream always only ever states the facts and hypotheses that might cause us to catastrophize over global climate change.
Fourfold causality is a helpful framework for understanding how things can be interrelated without reduction to linear cause and effect. Fundamentalists operate within a reductionistic frame.
All the world best Hebrew scholars agree on the grammatical laws on the use of a number and yom, and they all agree the use of tov, the fact that some dogmatically then jettison the rule they all assert to accommodate naturalistic worldviews does not change that fact.
This is so helpful. Thanks for reminding us about the importance of discerning the literary genre of the books.
I truly appreciate your level of knowledge but not only that but rather HOW you approach these topics. You’re very well spoken, even keeled and well thought out. Thanks for these videos.
Is that intro new? It’s nice 🔥
Yes, Exodus 31:17 is litteral. God was not using it figuratively saying, "in 6 epochs thou shall work and on the 7th epoch thou shall rest......."
Talk about a long work week 😅
Yes those faithful theologians had a different view do to their info at that time but we now have the science and many actual doctors in this field to show more clearly the facts.
In other words, we can demonstrate now that there was in fact a worldwide flood .
As a YEC, I don't care much for the documentary, but for different reasons.
Your logic is valid when it can be established that a 3rd option is possible. But there are many YEC who don't believe there *is* a 3rd option, and they have a right by conscience to hold to it.
If Gen 1 is literal, then accepting alternative interpretations would be problematic. Your argument is strengthened only if OEC is truly possible, and the point of the documentary is to argue there is no 3rd (or 4th) option.
Is the documentary wrong? I think some of the argumentation is poorly conceived for sure, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong.
I love reading Spurgeon, Warfield, and CS Lewis, but as you know, there are many fine theologians who disagree as there are those who agree.
I know this kind of discussion can get stressful, but I have to say, I'm willing to push back and say a literal 24 hour interpretation is correct, and that there is no other option.
What remains is how well a literal view can be communicated, which I don't think the documentary does very well.
BTW - I'm not concerned if Paul Nelson walked back - it's not up to him!
Thank you for talking about this! I have the same concerns as you…especially raising kids in the homeschool community.
I’ve been long awaiting the videos on Adam and Eve and the flood!
Regardless of one's interpretation of genesis 1 and 2 it is at the very least inexcusable to use incorrect evidence or statistics to support one's claim.
I appreciate the work you do here. Liked your book about Knowing which hills to die on. I am a YEC and both my pastors are theistic evolutionists. I struggled to know if I could submit to them if we varied so much on this issue. I came to the conclusion my dividing line would be if someone didn't believe in a historical and literal Adam, Eve and fall. I'm pretty sure both my pastors affirm this, so I feel I'm supposed to stay there.
It may be like pulling teeth to you, but I think you should watch the more in depth videos of "Is Genesis History". They go into a lot more nuance and detail.
That being said, I believe it is a fault in many YECs that we can be all or nothing. Many YECs denigrate their fellow Christians because they don't hold to their same position (I know I did, sometimes I have to remind myself not to).
On the flip side, I think it can be a self licking lolly pop to try and fit the Bible into whatever the current trend is regarding science, history or morality. Also, if the first 11 chapters of Genesis become exalted poetry, or a grand spiritual analogy (I know, in your video you say you believe Genesis is history, but shouldn't necessarily be taken literally, but YECs and old earthers and theistic evolutionists tend to use different words for history here) what is to keep the rest of Scripture from becoming similarly spiritualized?
I am grateful for the non YECs who are faithful Christians who trust the Scriptures, although I disagree with them on this subject.
BTW you have a pleasant face for video.
I'm most interested in your critique of the misleading appeals. I agree with your critique of Austin's statement about the Grand Canyon. But I disagree that there is a problem with Boyd's statement. Boyd stated, "First of all, it's not poetry, the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm this is a narrative." In no way does Boyd claim, as you take him, that all of them believe in 24 hour 6 day creation. Many of the world's greatest Hebraists don't believe in the inspiration of that narrative, so they obviously don't hold to a 24 hour/6 day creation. Nonetheless, does this statement serve the creationist perspective? Yes. But only as it addresses the debate about the genre of the creation text.
So when you say "It's not at all true that the world's greatest Hebraists all hold to 24 hour days", you really aren't addressing what Boyd was saying. Boyd is an expert on Hebrew. And not only that, he is an expert on who the world's greatest Hebraists are, have been, and what their views are. He knows they don't all hold to 24 hour days; but he does know, as he states, that they hold to Genesis 1 being narrative, which is all he states here.
thanks for the comment. to clarify, I said his claim was misleading because of the question he was answering, and because of the conflation of "narrative" and "history" and "literal" throughout the discussion. I think that is true, so far as I can tell.
For some reason, I can't see the answer I wrote to this. Sorry if it gets reposted a bunch. But here's my answer:
To be clear, Tackett's question was "Is that what you're referring to, that someone has a different paradigm and then therefore trying to read the text into that paradigm?" Boyd answered "Yeah, and as a result they also say -- I mean Old Earth evangelicals -- what they'll say is that this text is poetic. It's a mythical text that teaches truth but it's not ... it does not represent what it appears to be representing. And what I'm saying as a Hebraist, and I'm not saying I'm the world's greatest Hebraist in any sense, but the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm that this is a narrative."
Tackett's basically asking Boyd if he's saying that people with an Old Earth paradigm read Genesis 1 as poetic because of a bias. Boyd's saying that they do that, though they view it as a truth, by saying it's poetic even though the greatest Hebraists agree it's narrative.
I'm not seeing what's misleading about the question or the answer. I am sure some Old Earth proponents might disagree; but I think the fact that the greatest Hebraists agree it is narrative is very significant. And if an Old Earth proponent suggests Genesis 1 is poetic, I would suspect that they are reading the text through an Old Earth lens, rather than letting the text have its own natural genre.
@@davidrobinson5180 it sounds like you are referring to a different moment in the film than I am (and which I included in my video). I am referring to what is at 19:25 of the youtube version of the film. There Tackett introduced an entirely different question than the one you reference, and the answer was "it's not poetry: the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm this is narrative." The question had juxtaposed poetry with 24 hour days. Hence the misleading appeal to "the world's greatest Hebraists." Sounds like you are thinking of a different scene; let me know if I'm missing something here.
Glad you showed the timeline. I think the issue might be, in part, that what the movie showed was a shorter version of the interview here: m.ua-cam.com/video/84BqOxVae70/v-deo.html&pp=ygUWQm95ZCB0YWNrZXR0IGhlYnJhaXN0cw%3D%3D. The 15 minute mark has the extended part that seems to be abbreviated in the movie. Perhaps the issue wasn’t the question or the answer, but the editing of the film taking away too much context from the discussion.
The reason Creation has taken on the role it has so recently is due to the theory of evolution. The church figured they could take and use geological long ages, sure insert a gap between "The world was formless and void". But then this opened the door for the theory of evolution which makes death a natural part of God's "Very good" creation which negates the significance of sin and Jesus's death on the cross. The foundation of our salvation.
That's why creationists have become so utterly staunch on the subject. Opening the door to compromise with the world has only compromised the church.
Amen.
This is so important. Thank you!
I would highly encourage anybody struggling with which side to take to watch "Seven days that divide the world" by John Lennox. For me, this lecture helped me to determine the importance and meaning of the Genesis account.
I'm open to different answers as to how to read Genesis, but I'm confused on some things. If we assume science isn't wrong in its assumptions(the old earth view has persuasive evidence but also relies on lots of assumptions), here are some questions for me in understanding Genesis.
1. I take it Adam and Eve are one man and woman. When did they live? If 6000 to 8000 years ago, did...
A. Animals exist for millions of years before them?
B. How do you understand Genesis 2 which says plants, trees, and animals, come shortly after Adam? Is this local vs global? Is it on the 6th day/time period?
C. Were there any human-like creatures before Adam and Eve?
2. If Adam and Eve existed tens of thousands of years ago, or more, how do you understand the table of nations passages in gen 5 and 11?
3. Was the flood local or global?
Thank you 🎉❤. God bless you
I think of all the problems in this old vs. young earth debate, the most prevalent and dangerous, is the consistent painting of this as black and white - as this false dichotomy. It takes on all sorts of forms:
"Man's word, vs. God's Word"
"Creation vs. Evolution"
"Genesis as literal/scientific history, or literary history"
"Accept Biblical Authority, vs. reject Biblical authority" (biblical authority itself a complex topic that is almost never define, or is also painted in extremes Accept or Reject)
For anyone who really digs into this issue, I think you will quickly find that this extreme "A of B only" portrayal is both false and dangerous. Rather than debate the age of the earth, evolution, legalism, etc - the first and primary thing that must be address is this false premise. The Bible and Christianity are not that fragile.
What if differing views on Genesis don't undermine anything? What if they actually greatly strengthen the case of Creation (e.g. the big bang).
What do you mean by Biblical Authority?
What if the conflict between evolution and God is made up?
What if we are smuggling in modern concepts into something ancient authors had no concept of?
I think everyone would agree that Genesis 2:24 (and they become one flesh) obviously cannot be taken as literally and scientifically true. But yet, it paints a vivid picture of a very true concept in our minds - which is the point.
Any book recommendations to learn about the basic evolutionary theory or should I read origin of species?
You might like books by Neil Shubin.
Thank you. Like you, I am concerned that Christian “fence-sitters” may view these movies, and other similar information, and decide against Christianity because the views in these movies present only two choices.
Authors intent: Well what did the ancient Hebrews believe?
““Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” So the Israelites needed to interpret what day meant? They didn’t take that as literal days? No, that’s exactly how they took it.
I appreciate Walton’s functional reading of Genesis 1. It puts all the focus on God ordering the world, setting up his temple, and his continuing rule and involvement in everything. It is worth a serious read even if you think he is a heretic. It tries to help you understand that the Bible doesn’t answer every modern day question you want to answered.
8:58 note to self to look up Deborah and Barak - 2 versions
I would say that I'm a YEC, but I do agree that they should have at least presented the other views on Genesis 1 and how they would respond to them, rather than just being silent about it. Also, I do believe that certain proponents of YEC (like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind) could be more charitable to Christians who believe in OEC, as we are brothers and sisters in the Lord, in spite of our disagreements on this issue. I believe it's an important issue for sure, but it's not an essential one.
I don't think the earth's age is a hill to die on. There is no Bible passage where the writer's intent was to tell the audience the earth's age. Jesus and the apostles never preached the earth's age. Since it's not in the Bible therefore my conclusion is that it's not fundamental to the Gospel.
Dr Gavin - those who believe old earth creationism from the past that you mentioned, was there a general belief/ notion during that time that the universe is millions + years old?
I think the Documentary is fair, so far as what it purports to do. Young Earth Creationism is the view of those who produced the Documentary, and they are bringing that conviction to bear, not against the plethora of other views held among Christians as well as naturalism, but simply against naturalism. I don't see this as anymore imbalanced than should a theistic evolutionist produce a documentary that contends with naturalism. He doesn't necessarily have to interact with other views, like Young Earth Creationism. So, I guess I'm just curious to know why the creator of the documentary is under obligation to broaden the scope of his project?
My thoughts exactly. If "my specific view wasn't explicitly included" is his primary gripe, why not patronize and direct his own movie?