What Ken Ham Misses About Creation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- In this video I respond to Ken Ham's claim that young-earth creationism is only denied for unbiblical reasons like the pressure of modern science.
Get the book The Augustine Way here: bit.ly/41Kn6xn
See the original interview on Allie Beth Stuckey's channel here: • Did Dinosaurs Exist? |...
Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 Introduction
01:03 About Truth Unites
02:08 My Main Concern
03:02 Ken Ham's Claim
04:49 Book Recommendation
06:29 1) Pre-modern Interpretation of Genesis 1
15:49 2) Modern Interpretations of Genesis 1
21:40 Final Implications - Розваги
I'm so thankful for my upbringing in South Africa where I was taught from a young age that the Bible is not a science textbook, and that it doesn't teach us How God made the earth, but That he made the earth.
Gen 1 goes to great lengths to explain the "hows". I count over 19 action verbs in Genesis 1.
Why would you say that the Bible doesn't teach us how God made the earth?
“The gospel is that I am so sinful that Jesus had to die for me, yet so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. I can’t feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone.”
- Tim Keller
Personally, I feel morally superior to the god of the Bible, because I have never commanded anyone to "kill every man, woman and child".
@@davepugh2519 Maybe those people were Nephilim? Read Genesis 6. That is why the 2nd flood occurred.
@@davepugh2519are you an atheist?
Please not Tim Keller.
@@davepugh2519 Since you are not qualified to make a judgment like that, your feeling has no significance. What should affect your feelings is the fact that as a sinner, God has provided His own dear Son as your personal Savior... which you dearly need!
You are correct at the end of your video when you say that it can lead to a crisis of faith. It did lead to a crisis for me when I began studying anthropology in college. For two years I struggled, at times felt agnostic, especially because spiritual leaders that I asked my questions to again reaffirmed my greatest fears. That because I found evolution convincing, I had to leave my faith (my only hope in this world). I kept on researching, and it was William Lane Craig's book that helped me the most. I am so happy to see you making this video, because it will help so many people like me. My faith is stronger than ever now!
You found evolution ‘convincing’? How is that when there is not one strand of evidence to confirm it? I am not a believer in a young Earth, I see in Scripture that God created the heavens and the earth and ‘then’ he started to form the Earth - which was ‘without form and void’ in a period of six days as a home for mankind. I certainly do not believe in evolution as most so-called scientist try to portray it, but I am sure there is plenty of scope for interbreeding and selection due to natural forces and conditions etc. Science does not have all the answers, in fact it has very few compared to the complexity of the world. Having said that, I am a firm supporter of true science, but not speculation and mere assertion as many ‘scientists’ practice.
God bless you, Gavin. I can’t even express to you how grateful I am for your videos. I am a newer Christian who is ravenously curious but also, admittedly, kind of gullible. I have gotten sucked into just about every single-issue sub sect of Christian internet culture over the last year and I have been in prayer about all of it. I believe God has heard my prayers and recognized my sincere confusion and has therefore led me to you. Your videos are so comforting and balanced. They always seem to ground me. You are also such a great example of how to disagree with grace. Thank you 🙏
I am so glad my videos have been useful to you! May the Lord continue to guide you and direct you.
The Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit will help you discern truth from lies. The lies are deep and many come from the church.
Thank you @@jannaswanson271 ! I read scripture every day and pray for discernment but there is still a prideful and sinful part of me that has biases that definitely come into play when I study the Bible. We all have different spiritual gifts according to scripture and we can use those gifts to support and edify one another. I love listening to Christians with teaching gifts because they can illuminate the scripture that I struggle to comprehend.
Not sure there are many better guides than Gavin. The internet is an internet distribution network. Obviously. That means it will distribute all information, but it has no discernment. It is disembodied, and does not respect the whole human person. It tears us limb from limb. People are reduced to their passions, to slivers of their opinions, to disconnected words. To learn patiently from a wise teacher, even at one remove, is, on the other hand, humanizing.
@@LemonLimeJuiceBarrell I do know what you mean but I have not found one YT preacher that agrees with Scripture 100%.
When it comes to the Scripture I simply believe God. If I don't understand I ask for Him to teach me and I wait. Once you understand the depth and breadth of the lies we are taught You will have a hard time standing. Believe God, believe scripture.
Hey Gavin, I am someone who really struggles with this issue, and historically have felt firm in both camps. I am currently undecided. I feel a real pull in both ways. I am grateful for your voice in the conversation. I have a baby boy coming this next month and I have no idea what I'm going to tell him about dinosaurs! "They lived... a long time ago." :D
I understand your concern as a Father but instill creationism and that we are not an accident and are special that puts things into focus rather than simply a dinosaurs age. God created us all because without that everything else is futile.
Anything that does not align with the Word is a lie. The Big Bang, evolution, dinosaurs, the Ice Age, Climate Change- all lies.
Yes dinosaurs did exist but now science is saying they may not have evolved into birds, may not be reptilian, etc. Also carbon dating is limited. How do scientists know what millions or billions of years look like? How can they possibly measure it? I do believe in a young earth.
Read the text. Do you trust man or God in this?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA its not a trust issue. its an interpretation issue. Did God intend for Genesis creation account to be read as literal history. I would answer yes, but once you change the argument to say the opposition is trusting man and against God, you are misunderstanding the issue and making unnecessary accusations.
I am a YEC guy and have never even come close to being persuaded otherwise, but I completely agree with your points here Gavin. Thanks for the video. Keep up the good work, brother!
Same, really fun to learn Augustine's interpretation.
@@lucarich8711 it was based on Greek doctrines not Gods Augustine was a catholic
@tonyfrederickson6692 unironically being a strict literalist is the antithesis of what Christ preached.
Being a literalist is profane and always has been.
It's this simple minded reactionary condemnation from people who don't know what they don't know that really amazes me.
You argue from ignorance and use it as a pedestal. Smh
@@tonyfrederickson6692 What would he be in his day besides a catholic?
@@tonyfrederickson6692 Amen. Stand in truth, brother. The war on Genesis is a violent one.
This is a fascinating conversation. I’ve always been more convinced by YEC personally, but I do like hearing other ideas about it. I hadn’t heard those things from Augustine before, but they’re very fascinating and make very good points. I think you’re right that this whole topic is a way more complicated subject that we often give it credit for.
I believe in YEC not only because of the Bible but because of science. Lots of scientific fact justifies a YEC. The one that is most convincing for me are Dimonds. Science states diamonds take millions of years to form. Science also says that C14 has a half-life of 5,700 years, which means Diamonds should have zero traces of C14. What do you know, diamonds have C14. The half-life of diamonds also correlates to the earth's age; what a coincidence!
The Bible is the word of God, a history book, a book of genealogy, a book of prayers, a book of revelations, a book of poetry, a book of wisdom, and a moral guide. It is an encyclopedia.
I am a biochemist with a PhD. I am a scientist and a creationist who believes that God created the universe. However, I do believe that our creation debate has gone wrong and I do believe that Augustine’s view, as highlighted in Dr.Ortlund’s book, is a significant help in working through the the issue.
Is there a uni-verse? I believe it means something we have not yet understood. There is only the earth and the fulness thereof.
Augustine perspective is good in the sense that it brings awareness that the struggle with the text is not new, however, Gen 1 has to be interpreted in its ancient near East context. Look into that.
@@Solideogloria00- The struggle of 'Yeah, hath God really said?' began in fact a lot earlier than with Augustine.
Augustine was a fallible man who was not a font of pure doctrine. The Bible is sufficient to enlighten us about the flood. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
The only issue concerning the Flood is we have Christians who do not want to believe the Word of God.
@@scottb4579
Very well put bro!!
“WE” think God needs our help!!
Honestly, I don’t comment much on UA-cam channels but you have been a tremendous blessing to my faith. I pray that God continues to allow you time, space, and opportunity to continue on this platform and I pray that the Spirit continues to give you wisdom and direction.
So glad its been a blessing to you!
Gavin, I'm firmly in the YEC camp, but I'm grateful for your voice in YT.
One of the reasons I subscribe to you is because you push into impartiality, and reject being put into a box.
Thank you. Let's kill modernism, liberalism, and idolatry but not each other.
One might say that we should be partial to what the Bible clearly says.
@@SevenStarBibleQuest including being personally partial to biblical impartiality
@@georgeluke6382 You'll have to decode that for me. What is "biblical impartiality"?
I don't have to big an issue with the exact age of the earth, although I do believe it to be far younger than is alleged by Materialist Cosmology which fraudulently tries to pass itself on as science. My concern is however that people started believing this Cosmology and then started 'picking' sides there. And those people do not realize that the Materialist Cosmology with those long ages does have serious problems to begin with. They work with assumptions they can't proof, which however look plausible to the ignorant. Well, it's still assumptions aka 'faith' they have to put in this. There is good reasons to dismiss the long age dating methods, which are virtually all extrapolations from present day observations into the past and accept that that what is dated is actually younger.
Is ok to call out a heresy. You don't need to praise Gavin in every single video he makes. Correction is a good thing, and even consider the idea that Genesis is metaphorical can lead to multiple heresies. If you love Gavin you should correct him. For his own good and for anyone who sees this video.
As a Protestant myself, one of the biggest pet-peeves I have is that other Protestants are so unwilling to read anything that disagrees with the Reformers and are so quick to call something heresy while demonstrating that they are way over their head on specific subjects but act like they are experts. What I so appreciate about Gavin is that he analyzes both sides of the debate and speaks on topics after studying what both sides say about the matter. Unfortunately, there are so many so-called Theologians on YT who almost seem like they’ve never read a single theological book on any topic they disagree with.
“As a Protestant myself, one of the biggest pet-peeves I have is that other Protestants are so unwilling to read anything that disagrees with the Reformers and are so quick to call something heresy while demonstrating that they are way over their head on specific subjects but act like they are experts.”
Mind if I use this quote? It’s golden.
@@TitusCastiglione1503Yes, definitely. Please use as you wish. Sorry, I didn’t see your comment earlier.
@@J.F.331 most excellent! Thank you
I am so thankful for this video. I too was taught YEC in high school and almost broke up with my boyfriend (now husband) because of his different views on the age of the earth and Genesis.
My question now, is how do I help my children understand these issues in opposition to what they are being taught in their Christian school?
First, I'd ask them what they really think about the age of the Earth? Let them know that science observes a very different story than the superimposed 6,000 year theory. Show them how Hebrew is a very word limited language (6,700) and much of it's meaning is contextual and not scientific.
Show them that "Yom" the term translated as day has many more meanings and basically only refers to time.
I was brought up secularly agnostic, no religion whatsoever. In school, we were taught that monkeys evolved into men. Thats what we had to say in school. But outside school, looking at nature, the way things work and what little we knew about ourselves, we said "No way that humans came from monkeys, there has to be a God, although we don't know him". Sometimes kids are smarter than you think.
If your kids are not presented with a logical and consistent option, and they go on to embrace YEC, they will have a huge problem learning sciences, especially geology and history.
I’m a YEC, but I love Gavin’s humility, something believers on BOTH sides should take note of. Would love if he and Ham could sit down and have a conversation.
you not a christain,yall wear that YEC like a badge of honor,they worship creation rather than creator
@@tonyfrederickson6692tony, God hasn't assigned you to judge. Read the epistle to Corinthians. Be like Paul who entrusted judgements upon God.
Im so grateful God led me to your channel, a lot of the time I've been feeling overwhelmed, exhausted and confused by all the unresolved questions I have. You have encouraged me to keep pursuing God through the questions. Thankyou for all you're doing!
I get really uncomfortable arguing either side on this. Ken Ham absolutely drives me crazy with this though and I think it’s good that you are addressing it.
me too, i'm YEC and I feel Ken Ham really needs to be humbled, because he can be vicious
@@benjaminwatt2436Ham is passionate. Maybe he should be more gentle in his approach.
@@staal2691 Gentle, sure i agree, but also humble. He has come against many strong Christian academics who are defenders of the faith. One example being William Lane Craig, who defends all the basic Christian doctrines, Diety of Christ, Inspiration of the scriptures, Virgin Birth, and above all is the most elegant defender of the resurrection in our times.
@@benjaminwatt2436I could be biased but I don't think it's coming from a bad place. I have a similar attitude, I feel like non-YEC Christians are far more often compromising on Scripture because of the consensus of mainstream science. I think it's a possibility, but I really don't think most deny YEC for purely Scriptural reasons. That is to say, I think many of these people re-interpret Scripture based on what they think is "unquestionable scientific fact". That mentality is a big problem.
@@TONyjustRoCks Unfortunately, Christians that believe in YEC sound like rubes and atheists and secularists shut right down when they hear it. Evidence for dinosaurs and fossils is sound. A day is as a thousand years w/ the Lord. It doesn't have to undermine anything about our faith, or how much we love and trust the bible to understand the earth is not a mere 6000 years old.
I cannot tell you how much I loved this video. I tire of how many times Ken Ham gets to attack and destroy anyone who disagrees with him on the age of the earth. I do believe that there is room for disagreement on this issue. I am a pastor with the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference. I have been so blessed to be a part of a denominational fellowship that emphasizes unity on the essentials while lovingly disagreeing on non-essentials. I also have your book, "Finding the Right Hills To Die On." It should be required reading for every church. Please continue what you are doing. It is wonderful. I am now going to purchase your book, The Augustine Way. Blessings.
one world gov. you mean
There is no room for disagreement on the issue because the Bible teaches a definite position. It's like saying there is room for disagreement about whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Show me a pastor that says something like this, and i'll show you a pastor that is illiterate.
Hey Gavin, just wanted to let you know that I have been working through some major health issues and along the way I’ve had some serious doubts about my faith, honestly, you and Sean McDowell have been the biggest influences on me, staying in the faith and developing a rational understanding of the Christian faith. Your videos on creation, and the trustworthiness of scripture have been so helpful to me, I also love your heart for people and your heart for unity. Keep up the great work.
I am listening to evidence that demands a verdict right now and I am blown away by rigorous amount of evidence There is for the Christian faith, whether or not the evidence is valid, I’ll have to analyze it, and come to a conclusion. But I am very satisfied so far with reading through it.
May the Lord continue to guide and direct you, and also bring you to complete healing!
@@TruthUnitesthanks Gavin!
@@deion312I've been taught - when you take one step towards God, he takes two towards you.
God loves yo bro. He will be with you. Three book reccomendations for you: read On Guard and the Son Rises by William Lane Craig and The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright. Those were really helpful to me in my journey.
@@marlonfrometabarreto888 thankyou
I really like when you provide book recommendations. Please continue to provide them in your videos! Thank you for this one. I grew up in conservative Christian circles who would triage this issue exactly as Ken Ham does. I agree with you but I don't think I could have articulated my gut feeling about it without your video.
"I really like IT when you provide ...."
You have to have an "IT" after "like", otherwise it's not English.
Thank you for this, Gavin. Growing up amongst a super vocal, conservative, literal 6/24-creation, purity-culture extended family, my sons, now in their 30s, were mocked and criticized by their cousins and "corrected" by their aunts and uncles for believing whst my husband and I taught them. We believed then and now that our God's creation is vast and ancient, and that the "book" of Creation serves to confirm the truths God meant to convey in the Book of Genesis and beyond. This is one of your best. I am impressed by your generosity of spirit as well as your depth of intellect. They CAN go together -- who knew??!!!
It's actually pretty obviously literal days. And I don't see why that should be a problem anyway.
To call it a book of creation is a misnomer and a fallacy, creation is not a book.
@@coloradodutch7480 "Book of Nature" was figuratively spoken. It's not a printed book. But it got something like text (information and data) nevertheless. Also an issue with the interpretation there.
Mother Mary will bless you
We also taught our sons that the world was ancient and that Genesis was also literal! Literal Adam and Eve! It's been difficult to convey to our many YEC friends how the OEC works. I am doubtful that anything less that a several hour presentation/discussion will be adequate to cover the verse by verse examination that would be needed. And also throw in why neo Darwinian evolution is an impossibility from a Biblical and Scientific point of view. We are convinced, though, that the Truth will prevail eventually!
I rejected young Earth creationism primarily due to reading the text. The more I studied, the less it seemed plausible that it was meant to be literalistic history, but rather was telling the story of our first ancestors in such a way as to generate the themes of redemption for the rest of the biblical story.
Gavin, I really appreciate this video. In the past, I was taught 24 hour days as an essential of the faith but I have recently concluded that I don’t know how long it took, and I’m OK with that uncertainty. By focusing on the days, we miss the important points. I like to read Genesis 1 with the 2nd commandment in mind. The pagans worshipped the sun, moon and stars, the creatures above the earth, on the earth and below (in the water). The 2d C tells us not to worship those things and Gen 1 tells us why - because God made them. Genesis 1 is a slap in the face of pagan religion, showing how God is supreme and that none of the pagan gods would even exist apart from God’s choice to create. It may be that Gen 1 is written in a way to group creation into these categories (things above the earth, on the earth and below). And days and times could have been different before the flood, with people living hundreds of years. The point is that there is some mystery here, and we err when we try to pin everything down and end up speculating in the process. I wonder what you think about that. On the other hand, I think it’s necessary to have Adam specially created or else Romans 5 doesn’t make sense. Please keep up the good work.
I agree with everything you said William Lane Craig has a book on the historical Adam that I really want to get and thought I would mention to you.
Is it mysterious about evening and morning and then day immediately following? Under a non-24 hour day Adam is standing on the bones of dead creatures and God is saying it is very good? No, something is broken in that logic.
Why are you allowing the serpent to get you to question God's word?
Yeah, very timely brother!! God bless you. My brother is an atheist and when we would clash he would distory me and the last several months had been rough. You, inspiringPhilosophy and Jimmy akin really have been a guard rail against sever depression and anxiety. Thank you brother!!
The trifecta! 😎👉🏻👉🏻
When I stand before my Lord that question will be the farthest thing in my mind
I'd probably tap the brakes on that one. Recall that Jesus' #2 most repeated line was "Have you not read...?"
Every Bible author that comments on it directly or indirectly treats Gen 1-11 as literal history, with 6 literal days for creation. They take it as plain history,
If we're not taking it as such, we'd better have a good reason for departing from Moses and what is written.
God is quite capable of saying that Creation took billions of years. That He never once bothered to do so should tell us something.
If this is "yea, hath God said..?" territory, then we'll have to answer on Judgment Day.
@@timfoster5043Yom is translated as millions or billions of years. Specifically, as Epoc or undetermined amount of time. The Hebrew is understood contextually with only 6,700 words which are repeated with different meanings. The full range of Yom definition was not considered or known in 1604 when the scholars under King James made their translation. They used the single word "day".
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus You should consult a Hebrew scholar when you get a chance. You have many strange ideas in dire need correction. I studied under a Hebrew scholar for several years - a professor who was commissioned to do translation work on a portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But if you don't have a scholar you can consult, here's Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries
H3117 יוֹם yowm (yome) n-m.
1. a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb)
In other words 'day' in Hebrew means the same 'day' in English, German, French and even Swahili. It *usually* means a 24-hour day, but on occasion, can refer to an unspecified time period. Just like in English, when we say "back in the day...", and we don't mean a 24-hour span of time. This is nothing new to Hebrew - or any other language for that matter.
But the problem is not 'yom' or 'day'.
Old Earthers need to explain וַֽיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹקֶר ("evening and morning"). In the Bible, that phrase always refers to the passing of a 24-hr day. That's why so many old earthers skip it and focus on 'yom' ..as if we didn't already know what 'yom' means.
I fall in the YEC/anti-evolution camp bc of a mix of biblical, scientific, and philosophical reasons. However, the vitriolic, anti-Christlike nature of many popular YECs is really disturbing and makes me want to distance from the movement. Thank you for always approaching these topics with a genuine spirit of curiosity, grace, and humility.
Messiah came to bring a sword, satan is disguised as an angel of light.
You have to be aggressive when confronting evolution or they will walk all over you and laugh. You cant maintain silence in the face of these lies or nonbelievers will remain isolated in their echo chamber of confirmation bias,,
but you are correct, there is a line you shouldn't cross in discussion and that is allowing your feelings/ego to get hurt.
Find common ground with atheists, persuade them with demonstrable truths and if they refuse good reasoning, you have at least provided an opportunity for them to hear it.
Keep fishing for men!
@@jacobostapowicz8188 I agree, absolutely. These are lies from the pit of hell, propounded by Phds whom God laughs at. The most used weapon in Satan´s arsenal is ridicule.
Common ground with atheists?
I get it but OLCs can be pretty darn arrogant and snarky themselves.
@@carolbarlow8896 The "OLCs" are a coalition of satan sowing doubt in young or weak believers minds. Their primary MO is ridicule of "the non-intellect" of Christians, who have much more than "intellect", we have the mind of Christ.
Another excellent video, Gavin! I thank God for the work you are doing on this channel. Your levelheaded, charitable, and thoughtful approach is like a breath of fresh air in a world full of smog. May the Lord guide you and bless you with wisdom as you continue to work for His Kingdom! 😊
I grew up watching Ken Ham and believing every word of what he said. I used to think that being a YEC was the only way to go. I still believe YEC is the correct interpretation but your videos and my own searching have helped me to see there are other reasonable interpretations. In that way, your mission for this channel has been a success!
I LOVE all the Book suggestions you’ve been giving! Thank you for your work!
Thanks for this video, Gavin. Many young people leave the faith when they leave the Young Earth echochamber and hear good arguments for an Old Earth outside their church, especially when it has been tied to being an issue of salvation - this grieves my heart. Glad to see you focus on Scripture and Church history.
I think you should give Ken Ham a good listen then as he explicitly argues this point in particular.
The problem isn't that kids are taught YEC, it's that they aren't. They're told God made the world in 6 days (As Exodus 20 plainly states) and no further elaboration is given, no further teaching or guidence. Questions are palmed off as 'Trust in Jesus!" and not taken seriously.
Ken Ham and his ministry labor to provide rigorous evidences for Young Earth but he ALWAYS points to the scripture as authority and presents the challenge that we either accept God's word, or Man's word.
In general, it is a problem that young Christians are not taught apologetics. Sent into the battlefield that is the world without armor or a shield.
In general, the problem is that anyone at all is taught YEC because it's clearly a false teaching. If you teach your children YEC, they will leave the church when they discover the church is teaching them falsehoods. Simple as that.
@@TheBlinkyImp
Do you disagree with the Earth being created in 6 days and the global flood?
@@The_Bored_Theist I would recommend understanding Genesis was given by the Holy Spirit to Moses. If you believe NE cosmology influenced Moses in his writings, you don't believe in divine inspiration of the Word of God. Bringing NE cosmology to the discussion is giving the devil and invitation to our table.
You need to read and understand 2 Peter 1:20-21. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
@@kriegjaegerThere are literally people in the comment sections under this video saying that if young earth creationism is false then God does not exist. So if you were to show them that yec is false what would they do? Arguing that they haven't really been taught YEC is just disingenuous, I've personally attended churches who utilize AIG materials in their Sunday schools and youth groups. The fact of the matter is the scenario laid out in the video and by others here in this thread is by far more likely, and is borne out by observation again and again. I'm fine with anyone wanting to be a YEC, but when you elevate it to salvific levels of importance, it's not surprising that when it's shown to be false people will then abandon the faith.
LOVE this. Very well put together, Gavin. Also, very respectful, as always.
The respect and love should be hallmarks of every Christian!
Even if people attack a Christian, if they are of good character most people will not agree with the attack which can result in more people witnessing the truth of God's word. Historically anyhow, this seems to be the age of scoffers.
@@kriegjaeger I very much appreciate the grace Gavin shows toward his fellow Christian. I thik all of us could learn to speak kindly to one another and fulfil Christ words of "they will know you by the fruit"
i really appreciate this video. I felt that Ken incorrectly represented old earth believers in the arguments that he made, and it bugged me. So, thank you for being more balanced.
I grew up Evangelical Protestant but was confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church 7 years ago. And I regularly connect with both a lot of Catholics and Protestants and am committed to Catholic/Protestant dialogue, partnership etc. And I greatly appreciate the spirit in which Gavin makes his points. It's very much in the spirit of humility and unity. He advocates for his position without making everybody who disagrees feel like you're either in or out. I love that. I know he deeply disagrees with the Roman Catholic position on a number of issues, but I feel like he'd be willing to have a good conversation about it if we sat next to each other on a plane or something :)
Roman Catholicism is not Christianity - in fact it is the opposite of that! It is a distortion of the truth. It encourages faith in the ‘church’ rather than Christ, it is a religion of works rather than of faith through God’s grace. It has multiple errors regarding the ‘priesthood’ and ‘saints’ etc. Biblically all true believers are saints, and priests, our great High Priest being the Lord Jesus Christ. The Papacy is built on totally false foundations and has an appalling history of violence and corruption. Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit faith to deceive people.
I would encourage you to get to know some faithful Catholics and become friends with them and then learn what they believe both from their lives and also form the things Catholics actually teach and believe. It may be that some day you realize that even though you disagree with them, you realize they're your spiritual brothers, or at least to respond in a way that comes across as you caring for them, rather than just making accusations.
I used to think kind similar to you, and it took a lot of travail and learning to realize my attitude was misinformed and jurgmental. And by way I do think there is a place to confront falsehood. It's just that I think the way way you're seeking to go about it likely just makes people dig in their heels and get defensive.
@@thirdparsonage
I know a very great deal about Catholics and Catholicism, as many of my family were catholic - sadly passed on now. I am not saying that catholics cannot be Christians, only God knows who His children are, but that ‘Catholicism’ in itself is not Christianity, it is a distortion and a perversion of the true biblical faith. Anyone with the slightest understand of the Apostolic faith and teaching found in Scripture would concur with me.
Great summary Gavin. Really like you providing summary of different beliefs. You and the remnant radio guys are needed! 👍 Let's have grace for different views that are within biblical orthodox Christianity. God will bless your approach, so keep going.
This is spot on, especially the point made at 23:24. I spent the first 34 years of my life immersed in and deeply committed to YEC for all the reasons referenced by Ken Ham. We were supporters and consumers of Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research.
When working on my undergrad at Liberty University, I wrote a paper, part of which referenced the physical impact of the fall. I confidently wrote about the world wide flood as evidenced by the Grand Canyon, Badlands etc, only to go after in search of citable sources. I had hints before that, but my search pulled up several peer reviewed articles, ALL debunking the idea in question. I never lost my faith, but it did suffer a crisis starting with the realization the earth might be older than 6,000 years.
Your book Finding the Right Hills to Die On, which I was required to read for Village Institute prompted me to dig deeper in the topic. Your Augustine book, and Francis Collins book Language of God helped me reestablish what had been broken. In looking closer at the text, past the "science" I have found theological depth I never imagined before.
There's a lot more I could say on this topic, suffice to say thank you for your unifying efforts. I'll be looking forward to the follow-up videos on this.
That's such a strange way to claim to lose faith on, first off peer review doesn't mean anything, to trust it like that is consensus fallacy (cause all it confirms is agreement among the consensus which are majorly Anti-Christ influenced to say the least, Satan is a conspiracy against God after all and he has even much of the churches in his hand) but even that aside why does the Grand Canyon, Badlands, ect. have to be evidence for a Global Flood? God's Word says it all, man's words are irrelevant, you should've actually read the Psalms and Proverbs before anything, why do you put any trust in the words and beliefs of man, there is nothing reliable in anything they say, they are liars, they are thieves, they are robbers, yet you trust the slaves of Satan to be right? Even among those who claim to be of Christ, they are still enslaved to Satan because they bow the knee not to God's Word but to man's. Its not different then pinching the incense to Caesar and saying "Caesar is Lord", it services the same god. If one does not build their theology on the rock but instead upon the sand, he will be shaken and eventually destroyed. The Scripture is clear about this warning, why does no one ever listen? Well I know why, but it is a wonder that everyone claims to walk away based on evidences that were devised by man deliberately to destroy God, for they are His enemy, why would you trust the enemies of truth who have no honesty on their side?
Yes, the YECs make their level of worldly interpretation of Genesis The interpretation.
@@michaelbabbitt3837 "Worldly interpretation"- Now that's a weird description! Since when was the young earth teaching equated with the idea of being worldly????
@@wesleygordon1645You might find the history of YEC interesting. It’s only been extant in its current form since the early/mid 1900s. Before that, scientists felt little to no need to mash together their science and their Christian beliefs.
@@irenafarm > , scientists felt little to no need to mash together their science and their Christian beliefs.
That wouldn't be the best way to phrase it since the age of modern science didn't rise to the fore of Western thought until ~18th century anyways. And the thought leaders in science assumed that science was the means by which we understand God and His creation.
Phrasing it as "little to no need to mash together" makes is sound like science and theology originated in separate schools of thought. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the scientists of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were devoutly religious. (Most people don't know that Newton wrote more about theology than science)
It's really interesting that your pushback against Ham saying that Old Earth is a position that is imposed on the text because of influences by secular science is to argue that church fathers were willing to adjust their views because of what we'd now call science...
Then you use Augustine, saying that his argument is from the text, while you've acknowledged in previous videos that Augustine originally thought the text taught something different and because of that he wandered from the faith.
Unless Augustine found an interpretation of the text conformed to ideas he had outside the text, he wasnt willing to follow the text.
I think it's clear that Ken Ham oversells the unanimity of church History on the subject, and I don't think he's charitable enough to those who disagree with him, but when he makes he point that views other than 24 hour days come from outside the text he's absolutely right.
Now, if you want to argue for a different relationship between natural theology and reveletory theology than what Ken Ham holds to, fine, but he's absolutely right about the methodology being used to get to other interpretations on this issue.
When I was in grad school, a philosophy professor told me that Calvinists had Biblical interpretation on their side, but non Calvinists had the "philosophy" on their side and therefore the Bible needed to be interpreted based on antecedent philosophical conclusions. Not only do I disagree with the philosophy but the theological methodology is dangerous.
I really dont see any difference between that methodoloy and what you're promoting here, which is odd to me because you don't promote this sort of methodology in other areas.
I get a ton out if your channel, and I appreciate your work. I think there are ways to push back on the tone that Ham takes, but it's very confusing when you push back on his comments about methodology and then go and defend the exact methodology that he's arguing against. It's not convincing.
hi Zach. Thanks for the thoughtful interaction. To clarify, I am not arguing that Augustine adjusted his view of Genesis 1 based on science. Rather, I mentioned three specific features of the text that influenced him (the light before luminaries, dischronology, and divine rest). Similar textual concerns were involved in the many premodern interpreters who went this route (Didymus, Athanasius, Clement, Origen, numerous medieval interpreters, etc.). So I'd respectfully disagree that "views other than 24 hour days come from outside the text." It was primarily the text itself that generated different views among premodern Christians. Again, I appreciate your comments and am just trying to clarify.
@@TruthUnites I'm not suggesting that Augustine didn't find a textual argument to make but chronologically he did so after essentially leaving the faith because he couldn't accept what he thought the Scripture taught on this issue.
So his beliefs about the earth pushed him away from the faith, and then he came back to the faith only after he adjusted his reading of the text to fit the beliefs he already had exterior to the text.
How is this any different, from a _methodology_ standpoint, (big big emphasis on methodology) from what someone does who says 'I can't accept what the Bible teaches about homosexuality' and then in the deconstruction process decides to read the passages relevant to that topic in light of the belief they already hold outside Scripture?
To me, this is the correlary between old earth views and liberal views that Ham sees, but doesn't articulate very well. Someone like Jason Lisle does a much better job, in my opinion, of getting at the methodology question.
Ham conflates the severity of the error (as he sees it) of OEC with the error of modern liberal theology, and I think he's badly mistaken there, but he's on to something about the epistemological similarities between approaches to Scripture.
@@pastorzhhicks Thanks for the follow up -- it sounds like we will disagree about the chronology and nature of Augustine's views, but leaving him aside, I would be curious what you would see as the extra-textual influences on Athanasius, Didymus, Clement, Origen, and so many medieval interpreters in this same direction? For instance, did Athanasius, in rejecting a literalistic reading of Genesis 1, have the same methodology as someone who says "I can't accept what the Bible teaches about homosexuality?"
@@TruthUnites It's very interesting that you mention Origen, whose commitment to middle Platonism was so strong that he didn't even see creation as contingent. Seems to be a very very clear example of beliefs from outside of Scripture guiding and negatively impacting a doctrine of creation, and it also, I think, is part of why he was such a subordinationist.
Athanasius' philosophical pre commitments were more neo-platonic, but again we see how this extra Biblical belief impacts his doctrine of creation because it gives him and essence/powers distinction in the Logos that directly impacts things like his interpretation of God taking a day of rest.
If Athanasius' philosophical pre commitments were ethical instead of metaphysical, and his methodology is such that he is letting his pre commitments drive his interpretation of Scripture, what keeps him from reading passages about sexual morality through a lens that reflects his pre commitments?
Again, the issue here is the methodology. I don't think it's really necessary to go thinker by thinker and root out each and every one of their beliefs they are committing to prior to the Scriptural text to show there is an issue worth digging into, here.
It's an issue that is avoided if we let Scripture shape our approach to science and metaphysics in a way that Augustine, Athanasius, and Origen did not, and along the way may also find that this improved methodology keeps us from the other errors in theology that you and I as Baptists would agree these men made.
PS. Unlike Ken Ham or Jason Lisle (and Dr Lisle is taking a lot of his cues from Greg Bahnsen, I believe), I don't think taking the higher view of the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture necessitates one single view of creation, but I do think it eliminates some possibilities and avoids the pitfalls that many of the more aggressive Old Earth groups fall into.
@@pastorzhhicks thanks for sharing your take!
As someone who's suffered under abusive Christian fundamentalism, and have seen the damage it can do, I'm far less patient with people like Ken Ham. Not because we disagree, but because of how he frames his argument - it's not a matter of theological triage, as you put it, but an essential doctrine necessary for relationship w/God. People who disagree with Ham are not just wrong, they are heretics, unbelievers, and do not possess saving faith. He has put his own agenda above that of unity in Christ, sound hermeneutics, and the weight of historic Christian theology. I'm grateful for the graciousness and magnanimity in which you've presented your side of things.
I admit, I’ve become a lot less talent of the more rabid YEC like Ham as well. Theological argumentation is one thing; straight up denying established scientific fact to uphold a tertiary theological doctrine is a little less classy.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 Glad I'm not the only one. I have to check my anger sometimes.
I'm being raised fundamentalist, and arguing isn't possible when your opponent practically says, "Nuh uh!"
@@thatskinnylandonkid when fundies come to mind, I’m reminded of a quote from Father Brown: “You attacked reason; it’s bad theology.”
Excellent video! As a conservative evangelical pastor, I heartily appreciate both the truth and tone of Gavin's perspective on this.
I found Hugh Ross's writings on the topic extremely helpful.
Then you found one man's poorly thought out error to be helpful.
@@scottb4579 In what sense was it "poorly thought out"?
@@bowrudder899 Hugh Ross put faith in the Bible being God's word, because, in his words, it agreed with scientific theory. Namely, Big Bang.
So in other words, Ross placed scientific theory above the Bible in regards to authority. Science is his measuring stick for how he is going to interpret the Word of God. This is backwards.
Secondly, Ross arrives at a tortured understanding of the events of the 4th day by ignoring proper hermeneutics. We just can't say on days 1-3, and 5-6 what is mentioned as being created on those days is actually created on those days, then say, buuuuut, the things created on day 4 were actually created on day 1.
Ross inserts his imagination into the events of day 4 in order to have it harmonize with Big Bang. Hebrew scholars will tell you the sun and other stars were created on day 1, but Ross insists "his" Hebrew scholars will allow for the sun being created on day 1 where there is no mention of it.
I could say more, but I'll stop here. Sorry for the late reply, YT just informed me you responded.
@@scottb4579I haven't read or seen anything of Hugh Ross yet. What are his logical fallacies I should be on the lookout for? Thanks.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Hugh Ross has a Ph.d in astronomy. He believes Big Bang comports with Genesis. This has the problem of explaining how the sun could be created before the Earth when the stars were created on Day 4, and Earth on Day 1. He solves this by violating good hermeneutic principles and mangling the Hebrew.
To his credit, he doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, which he says violates the scriptures.
You can watch a good interplay between Hugh and Dr.Jason Lisle who has a Ph.d in astrophysics and is a young earth christian here on UA-cam. Just type Jason Lisle vs Hugh Ross into the search. I really appreciate Dr. Lisle and his reasoning and logic.
There's also a debate on the John Ankerberg show here on YT from years ago with Ken Ham and Jason Lisle on one side for YEC and Dr Walter Kaiser, a Biblical Hebrew scholar and Dr Ross on the other side for OEC. It's worth viewing and seeing how Kaiser, though an OEC on Ross's side, destroys Ross's position on Day 4 during the debate without realizing what he did.
Ken Ham won't care about this. He's already in conflict with other YEC's as well.
Gavin, it’s great that you do videos for your audience, but Ken can’t think on this level.
As always, very peaceful approach to this issue. While I don’t agree with Gavin on creation, I do appreciate what he brings to the conversation as a brother!
Is not ok to be peaceful with straight up heresy. We christians really need to abandon the "Ned Flanders" approach to life, is embarrassing and does nothing good for the faith.
When people start believing genesis is a metaphor it can indeed lead to a lot of other heresies. If you can't see this and you don't care there's a problem here.
@@JesusProtects I do think arguing for an older Earth opens up other cans of worms (like how we got from "Point A" to "Point B"), but I don't think Gavin is necessarily arguing for evolution. Augustine's view is interesting, and I might start leaning towards his view, because it would leave room for both interpretations of old or young earth. Ultimately the creation account itself is what really matters, and that we were created by God instead of through naturalistic processes. It's just a lot more complicated than "Creation vs. Evolution".
Hello, mate. Do you believe in the order of creation though because the evolution theory has that upside down too?
@@JesusProtectsit's not heresy. You can literally observe nominal evolution which is embedded in the genetic makeup each kind of creature.
But that really doesn't matter to someone who is a strict literalist, something that betrays the parables that make up the Bible.
Literalism is at best surface level, in reality it's metaphysically profane. Parables will go right over your head, as they did to so many in Christ's time.
@@joshsimpson10 But hang on, you're charging him with hyperliteralism when all he is doing is reading a part of the Bible that appears to be a history, a literal genre. After all, what's the allegorical interpretation of Genesis 5?
Just because he reads Genesis literally doesn't make him some sort of idiot that thinks Jesus was telling people how to encourage bird life on mustard bushes or thinks the Psalms should be read with the same hermeneutic as Romans.
as a YEC i fond it very shameful that many of my fellow Christians are so unchariatble. I have seen how YEC christians tend to be demeaning, angry, rude and confrontational. All of these attitudes are not Christian. I would love to see other YEC be willing to admit there is flexibility in interpretation and be more humble in responding to fellow Christians we disagree with
As a young earth creationist, I can give you an answer to why that is. I myself and every single person on my team for that matter, were raised by atheists and were atheists. We were the type that laughed and mocked Christians and only recently have we converted to become Christians ourselves and unfortunately we still bear that Ike flesh. It’s hard to just change who you are instantly. So yes, we have this aggressive attitude still sometimes and I find that we fight fire with fire. Over time we will change but you will notice it is the atheists we target, not believers of any denomination
We should always be charitable. But in Ken Ham's defense (and other YEC apologists like myself) we can be so angry because millions of youth have left the faith because of false science and corrupted biblical history....and its horrifying.
@@jeremystrand7095oh, yes. So true. Many people lost their faith because of bad theology, human made theories about the gospels and their reliability, etc.
Therefore when I found Christ I read about 30 books before starting to study theology, to steelman my own faith as best I could against the liberal theology I might encounter. Worked pretty well 😊. And I always had good grades because of all that reading.
Thank you for this. Mr. Hamm's position--and the way he argues it--has always troubled me. A little too triumphalist for my taste. Your defense of a *traditional* view of non-24 hour creation day, based on scripture and church history, is excellent.
as a YEC i've always found Ken Hams dogma far too narrow. i'm ok with "days" being more flexible and Genesis being at least somewhat poetic. it seems too obtuse to be so wooden on the issue
I lean towards young earth, but agree with you. I don’t like the triumphalist tone, as in “I’m right and everyone else is ab-solutely wrong”. It’s like, if you are not a YEC you destroyed Christianity all together, so don’t even bother be a Christian.
Thank you so much for this video. This is a topic that has weighed heavily on me of late, and you laid this out better than I ever could.
As per modern Creationism, Scripture is not Science. It’s Ancient literature teaching Theology. It’s a simple matter of genre. Ancient hearers would not have modern questions. Imposing our categories onto the text is a major problem w Creationists hermenuetics.
Whether or not things are literal, they can still be metaphorical.
Surely we're not supposed to believe the ancients didn't understand Genesis 1-3? That's preposterous!! They would have understood it to be a historical retelling of exactly what took place.
They would have summed it up like this:
[+] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exod 20:11)
[+] It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Exod 31:17)
Does any of that sound metaphorical? Does any of that suggest categories common to 21st century pleebs, but foreign to ancient minds?
Respectfully - don't flatter yourself.
Moses had no problem communicating exactly what he meant (just as he did for the next 100 chapters of the Pentateuch). He could have said differently about creation if he wanted to. After all, the ancient Egyptians (who trained him for 40 years) believed the earth was millions of years old. Those categories of thought were not at all foreign to him.
Yet Moses went out of his way to repeatedly communicate a 6-day creation.
You should too.
@@timfoster5043Here is a question. What does traditional Jewish rabbinical study say? We’re building a new road right in parallel to a very old one.
@@steveOCalley > What does traditional Jewish rabbinical study say?
That's an interesting question. Is Moses undecipherable to you that you need to appeal to an authority to interpret him?
If these rabbis were right about everything, I would pay close attention to them. But they got Jesus wrong, didn't they? And Jesus said they didn't believe Moses (Jn 5). Are you sure you want to get on their ship?
Just a thought.
@@steveOCalley Earlier, I quoted Moses (in Exodus) to summarize his own writings in Genesis 1-2. I'm not sure why that's not enough to convince us what Moses meant.
However - I suppose there is the oddball chance that Moses somehow meant something mystical and undecipherable in Gen 1-11, and yet something coherent for the rest of Genesis, Exodus, Lev and Deut. It could be helpful to pull in a different Jewish reader, from a century other than our own.
To that end, here's Flavius Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian, writing 1400 years after Moses, telling us what he thinks of Moses' writings about Creation.
"On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. **Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations**; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue."
- Antiquities. Book 1, Ch 2
From where I sit, Joseph reads and comprehends Genesis 1 exactly like any unbiased 21st century reader would.
Thanks.
Personally I'm an OEC but I could see YEC as well. It seems like most of the outrage towards this comes from the YEC side, but unfortunately I have seen some OEC belittle YEC believers as well. Even when I was a YEC I never saw this as some sort of compromise issue.
I disagree, academia is entirely against YEC. Ken Ham is the most outspoken YEC, but the last person other than Kent Hovind I would ever look to for YEC views. He is not a good example of a rational YEC. He attacks everyone who doesn’t think what he thinks in a fallacious way…he doesn’t represent YEC he represents Ken Ham.
@@truthovertea
Agreed, Answers in Genesis Ministry produces a lot but delivers it with scoffing, mockery and advertisement of their products.
Creation Ministries International has a lovely magazine and regular youtube discussions that more focus on the glory of God's creation and evidence of his work in the world than scoffing or belittling darwinists.
As for outrage it is understandable (though not condonable) given that Christian liberalists, Acadamia, atheists and probably a few others I'm forgetting are all arrayed against those who follow plain reading of scripture and the ages God gave us through the generational timeline for the age of the world. Sadly, Ken Ham replies to the vitriol with equal vitriol. I do agree with him on many things, just not his delivery and treatment of others.
Well, the truly glorious part of this debate is the "outrage", in and of itself. I had been hopeful that science would ultimately condemn the historical grammatical hermeneutic, and hence Sola Scriptura, and hence Protestantism altogether. For better or worse, though, it appears there are even Baptists such as Ortlund who accept Evolution. C'est la vie, Darwin failed to defeat Protestantism in one fell swoop, but at least he managed to further fragment it, so that folks like Ken Ham anathematize folks like Ortlund. In other words, Darwin managed to "infuse" condemnation into Protestantism, which will lead to the "process" of Protestantism's death, which will be further actualized each time the sacrament of in-house debate is partaken, and the walls of the edifice suffer the attrition of outrage
@@wayned803what the heck are you even saying, dude. You need to take your pills
I’m sorry to disappoint, but despite the outrage, Christians are knit together by the mutual Spirit that lives in us, so the end result will be greater unity, not less. Also, not all old earthers believe in macro evolution.
Thank you so much for your approach on this issue. It's been a very important problem for my own life and it's amazing to see someone be very faithful in how they explain the topic.
Thanks Gavin. Your voice on this subject (and other matters) needs to be heard. It saddens me that all too many "apologists" are more interested in winning arguments than seeing the lost understand the beauty of the Gospel.
This is possibly the best discussion yet. I've struggled with creation in the Bible, but I was never aware of these ideas from the early church. This is kind of game changing for me. Thanks so much for this!
He is not a true christian,doubting the bible ,be not decieved,hold on to the faith,Paul warns against false prophets.what makes him the authority of the bible think about it
@@tonyfrederickson6692 Apart from dedicating his life to ministry and having a doctoral degree in it, I don;t know how you can say he is not an expert. What are your credentials to claim he's not only not an authority but a deceiver?
@tonyfrederickson He isn’t claiming to “own” the Bible, nor to be the ultimate authority. Besides, what basis do you use to claim that he isn’t a “true Christian”? He affirms the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection and salvation only through faith in Him. Those are the basics of the gospel.
@@tonyfrederickson6692 This is an unnecessary statement.
Just a thought from someone who thinks in a ‘simple’ way. When I read the Bible it says to me that God created the ‘heavens and the earth’ first, but then the Earth was ‘without form and void’. After that God began to form and design the Earth as a home for mankind in 6 days. So I see no problem with any ‘true’ scientific findings. The problem though with a lot of ‘science’ is that it is far too sure of itself and many scientists are often vociferously anti-Christian, then after a decade or two the ‘books’ are having to be re-written as new and revolutionary findings are discovered, and the subject is found to be far more complicated and profound than they formerly imagined. I do not not believe for one minute that Christians need to be apologetic (in the regretful way) at all. God created the heavens and the earth and then formed it in a wonderful way in six days as a home for man. Done!
I highly recommend Creation Ministries International, they have publications both for casual and academic readers and their tone is much more delighted in the lord's creation and delivery is less condescending and aggressive than Ken Ham and AIG.
I do appreciate Ken's work and ministry though they have lost their love towards the lost and are VERY quick to throw others under the bus than to call for discussion. BUT I will absolutely agree with them on the fundemental arguments they are making; Undermining the first few pages of scripture undermines the faith. If you open the bible and immediately liberalize it, where do you stop? You don't get long ages from plain reading of scripture, people are attempting to make the bible fit the world's view as they always have and that IS something we were warned about.
I would expect most people raised in YEC aren't actually aware of the scientific basis for YEC, to be fair we shouldn't have to check that the bible fits contemporary scientific theory, or you would have to throw it out. We shouldn't be double-minded, as James warned. But people should be aware of the arguments that will be made and the evidence against those arguments.
As you point out with Agustin and this is more a weakness, but if we look to men to verify what we can believe about God, who are we really trusting?
The Sadducees thought everything was metaphorical and GOD (Christ) rebuked them for not knowing scripture.
I appreciate your work and approach to this! I do think Ken needs to be willing to discuss rather than attempt to dominate. That doesn't mean he needs to compromise however, we can agree to disagree on this as an internal debate.
P.S.
Light prior to Luminaries means God created what we physically know as Light before he made sources of it. I had a "Eureka" moment when this clicked for me. A lot of people confuse sources of light as light itself. It's not, it's a physical/immaterial thing.
Creation Ministries International came to my church and gave several wonderful presentations. I purchased several books. I also recommend this ministry.
Are you saying light is not a physical thing?
@@chrisdotson3520
I expect it's not only or merely a physical thing. There's much emphasis on light in scripture and we know it affects human health, moods even in different colors, shifts and amounts.
You’re kind of committing the slippery slope fallacy by applying that if someone doesn’t have a YEC approach to the Genesis 1 that they’ll inevitably become a liberal Christian. Our history of faith would be radically different if that was the case. Also like the YEC stance, there is nuance within the OEC stance as well.
@@chibu3212
A slippery slope is only a fallacy if we don't have people at the bottom of it looking up at us.
Are you familiar with Exodus 20 and Second Peter?
This is exactly the kind of content I've been searching for in regard to Ken Ham and the young earth creationist viewpoint! You are a Christian who lovingly sweats the details and pinpoints the nuances of Ken's views, and that is so refreshing. I think I generally agree with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, but little logical missteps and arguments they make often rub me the wrong way and I appreciate you dissecting some of those in this video.
I have grown up YEC, but from a much more scientifically rooted and soft-spoken strain than perhaps some are (e.g. not just thumping on Bibles and saying that a literalistic reading of Genesis settles the matter). As such I appreciate and am trying to better understand the different strains of OEC thought, and definitely don't think it's an issue that should divide churches or be considered to affect ones salvation. Here are two thoughts I recently had that challenge each of these views.
First, a challenge to YEC. We know that God is outside of time - that "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day". So it stands to reason that the creation days, witnessed only by God are by definition outside of our current perception of time. This is not to say that they were conclusively millions or billions of years long, but just to say that until man was created, and specifically until man sinned in the fall, the passage of time was immaterial as death had not spoiled creation. Further, the time spent in the garden before the fall is unknown and may span days or eons. Thus there is ample room for the earth to actually be millions or billions of years old, even if the flow of time from the expulsion from the garden is literal.
Second, a challenge to OEC. Again and again, I hear the claim that "the evidence is overwhelming" for the earth being old. To the best of my abilities, I'm assuming people who say this are referring to the the dates turned out by various techniques used to tell how old rocks and fossils are. However, this has two potential problems and the first is that the methods themselves are based on assumptions. These assumptions have at times proved to be totally false. Second, even if the dating methods are entirely accurate and honest, they forget this: surely a rock that was dated to being only 1 year old would be one that had just solidified from magma. Therefore if God created the earth in just a week - practically instantaneously - would we expect the rocks making up the surface of our planet to be magma or solid and fully formed? Obviously for God to create an earth that had a surface of molten magma would make life impossible so it can be safely assumed that he created the continents with fully formed and cooled rock. Thus a six day creation would inherently have the appearance of age because it could not function any other way in that regard.
RE YEC;
The idea of millions or billions of years doesn't come from scripture, it comes from Man. From scripture we see multiple instances that the sabbath is modeled on 6 evening-morning days. Time in garden to fall is a fair point but never is it implied or indicated to be a long time, the events seem to happen in rapid succession. Even the supposition that there were eons or long time comes largely from secular society looking to disprove the bible.
I think a better YEC question may be;
If God created Adam and Eve fully formed from dust with all appearance of age, being adults so far as we are aware (Capable of bearing children) then why couldn't the earth have also been created with the appearance of age? This doesn't strictly state the age is real, only that it seems that way.
For the OEC and Theistic Evolution camps the scientific evidence for an old Earth isn't just about methods of dating rocks. To my mind (and this is the thing that led me to conclude that YEC is not true) the more obvious evidence is the fact that most of the stars we can see are millions of light years away. If YEC is correct then virtually everything we think we know about astronomy and related fields is completely wrong. And probably also some things that seem to be pretty fundamental laws of physics, like General Relativity.
@@stephengray1344 I understand your objection here and have heard it before. I would like to push back by asking, what do we know with certainty about the speed of light? We know it's round trip speed - that is the time it takes for light to emit from a laser, bounce of a mirror, and hit a receiver. This is relevant because it means there's a possibility that the speed of light is infinite in one direction and only takes time in rebounding after it has struck an object and is on its return journey. Even if light's speed is uniform both directions we know that the purpose for which the stars and all the heavens were created was to glorify God. Given this, if YEC is correct then God would have created the light between the other solar systems and galaxies and our planet since otherwise their existence would be meaningless.
Additionally the other laws of physics, as they apply to extremely large or extremely small systems (gravity and time when galaxies are involved, or the forces at play at a subatomic level for example) are much less verifiable and certain than most people think. A good example of this is Dark Matter. This is something that was thought to exist for several decades now, but just last quarter (I'm at college right now) my Physics professor told the class that there is a growing movement to completely debunk the theory of Dark Matter in favor of newer more advanced gravitational theories. I bring this up just as an illustration that theoretical physics, while being something I absolutely support and commend, is not something I would use to go against other more concrete scientific knowledge. There are numerous scientific problems I could mention with OEC if you wanted, which I weigh more highly than the comparatively shaky theories on how light, gravitation, and time function on an intergalactic scale.
We know that they were in the garden for less than 900 years because of Adam's age. For the time before Adam, it seems like God is using the same time period for each day, so it wouldn't really make sense for the first 5 days to be so much longer than the 6th
@@tategarrett3042 The main point I was getting at is that the age of rocks is not the only evidence for an old Earth.
If the speed of light changes from infinite to finite when it hits something then we have to throw out pretty much everything we know about thermodynamics. And if it is faster in space than it is here on Earth then the fundamental assumption of science that an experiment performed in identical conditions but at a different time-space location will produce identical results is on extremely shaky ground.
The best YEC explanation for how the stars can be that far away is the explanation that the light we see is actually fake light that God created so that the stars would look much older than they are. This brings up the same theological issue of God creating light before creating the natural source of that light. But in this case it's a bigger problem, because it also means that God deliberately created the universe in a way that makes at least this part of it look old, so makes him look like a deceiver.
Yes, YEC can come up with an answer to that problem (even in this case, which is one where it isn't a necessary part of making the Earth habitable). But it does demonstrate that YEC has theological issues akin to the OEC/TE issue of explaining animal death before the fall.
I believe that young earth creationism is the view that most conforms with a natural interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 without allegorizing the text even though it is the view that most conflicts with modern science. For instance some Christians who accept an old earth or theistic evolution believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not historical which would depart from biblical orthodoxy.
James 1:4
If one accepts scripture is truly God's word, why do they feel the need to harmonize it with man's?
It seems to me of all manuscripts and scripture, it is the most clear and simple explanation he's given us, and yet people labor so hard at trying to make it fit what man thinks.
I wonder though, when God created the heavens and the earth, it doesn't say how long that took. The first day only appears after the separation of day and night, light and darkness. The Bible never mentioned how much time went by before that first day. So we only have a starting point when this first day was counted. And later on, some people lived for hundreds of years. I think I'll have to do the actual math how many years it really was from Adam to Jesus. Shouldn't that be quite a lot? Would we arrive at the 5000 plus years of the Jewish calender?
Okay, it certainly can't be millions since men was made but before the separation of light and darkness, we don't really know...
"modern science" is destroying Creation and its main objective is to eradicate the Creator.
@@kriegjaeger pride is the urge to physically and mentally triumph over the Creator. It hasn´t worked yet, but science continues to hammer away at their new and improved tower of Babel II. (the con-struction of de-construction).
This is a much needed perspective Gavin. Thank you, as always, for bringing clarity, historical perspective, and a gracious tone to an important discussion.
Brother, you are such a blessing.
Love it. A very timely and much needed video for me. Book recommendations are great too. Would love to see them mentioned in video descriptions too. Ready for the next video.
Soooo great. Looking forward to Monday 🤩. Thank you for you work sir 🙏🏾
Great stuff. Really appreciate this gracious and well thought out response
Gavin - Thank you again and again for being the voice of reason clothed in the garment of humility. This is the best presentation on this topic that I've heard. Totally agree with you!
Hi Gavin, found you through Andrew Wilson’s Think Theology and God bless you for making these videos. I struggled with these issues and didn’t have a place to turn to as a new Christian. God has been faithful and every time I said I am being swallowed up by doubt and darkness and fear, He shone His light. Praying for you.
Gavin- I am so glad I watched your video. I’ve read books about this topic and heard both sides, and I just have so much trouble with grasping a young earth in the face of so much evidence against… Very encouraging
Wonderful stuff as always, Gavin! Perfectly done.
You summarised some Augustine for us! Thank you! There's so much to read and so little time. Videos like this one are incredibly helpful.
Thank you Gavin. Very clear presentation. I'm looking forward to next week
Love hearing about this topic from you! Really helpful video
Very sad to hear that someone would walk away from the LORD on this issue. We don't know HIS ways and there are many things in the Bible that can confuse people. However HIS love for us isn't one of them. Love your neighbor and don't argue things that would cause them to stumble. Thanks for the video
Pushed out my church because of this. Very sad. I hope your work will have a great impact on the Church. It’s a fight people like I am fighting (as humbly as possible).
Thanks for this, Gavin. As a science major in college I almost “deconstructed” over this issue. Thank God for Dr Gleason Archer and Dr Walt Kaiser at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, two of the most Godly, knowledgeable Old Testament scholars I’ve known, who encouraged honest discussion while themselves holding to and older earth view. I would wish the same respect would be given to you in this discussion!
I will pray for you to remain faithful to your understanding of the Bible. Thank you for this.
Thanks Gavin I’m still a YEC but your points are very interesting and that leads to a more robust understanding! I am open to OEC perspectives. However the one perspective I cannot support is Theistic Evolution, this view places Science above Scripture.
Dr. Ortlund how would you respond to the claim that the statement made in Exodus 20:11 that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh shows that the days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days. I have been enjoying your videos. May God continue to bless you.
Great video Gavin! I'd really appreciate a video that focuses on the textual arguments for a non 6-day reading of Genesis 1. Thanks again
Check out Hugh Ross and ‘Reasons to Believe’… he gives a great explanation of an Old Earth model (non 6-day reading) from the Bible.
So does Greg Koukl, Stand to Reason and John Lennox.
Great video. I tend to agree with Ken Ham but I appreciate your point about historical Christian views on this issue and how it should not be considered a primary issue.
Don´t forget that even "the early church" was infiltrated by anti-Christ.
I love this topic and have been writing this out for why I am a YEC.
So we know God can perform miracles. The way it describes Adam and Eve right after creation is as if they are young adults. I see no reason God couldn't have made an earth that looked older.
God created natural processes to govern the universe and so for future people to reach the stature Adam and Eve were created with, they would have to grow up normally and not be instantly created by God.
Now that said I believe the Earth is the same way. If a new planet was to start to be formed it might take billions of years to do so if that's how the natural laws God set up require it to go. But at the beginning God performed miracles and made everything so it may look older than it is, but just like Adam and Eve, I believe the universe younger than it looks. Most if not all other miracles break the laws of physics so I see no reason God creating the universe would be any different.
In the New Testament when Jesus heals people, did he make medice and then take them through the process of treatment and only use normal physical means to heal said people? No, he instantly healed people. I am sure if a doctor who was an unbeliever had looked at them before and then after they would try to come up with an explaination as to how they were healed and that it wasn’t instant but that is not how he was healed so while the physical "evidence" may point to the long process of medical treatment [simply by ruling out an instantaneous healing miracle would lead to this] in fact the person was just healed instantly. So why can these miracles be instantaneous but creation can't?
This combined with how many Bible verses in both the Old and New Testaments talk about the lineages as if they are literal shows support for YEC. Also Jesus being able to be traced back to Adam is important.
If you try to say the super old people in the lineages are given those massive age number for honorary reasons or those are just metaphical and stand for months not years, how can you split the ages into metaphical and real when the genealogies just list them all there together and it suggests they are literal?
If you try to say that Adam is a metaphor for all mankind and just a representative then why does the Bible say sin came through one man i.e. Adam and then the lineages treat Adam as an individual? I would say Adam was humanity's representative but also a real individual just like modern day republic government officials are. They are elected to represent a group of people but also are individuals themselves.
Also the word day I am pretty sure usually means a literal day in Genesis and even if it didn't always mean a literal day, the word day combined with the phrase "there was evening then morning, the next day" definitely suggests literal days.
Not only that but the Bible tells us God made the birds before the land animals, and that just goes counter to evolution.
The argument that "the sun and moon were created on the 3rd day so the word day can't mean an actual day" is very weak. There are a couple of easier options than reading millions of years into the Bible:
1) God knew how long He was going to make a day. So He just did all the work within those time periods to begin with.
2) God could have come up with the word day after making the sun and moon and before relaying Genesis to Moses. God could have decided to make the rotation of the earth and thus the days line up with the time he had already spent on the first 2 days of creation.
This is like someone doing some work over a consecutive time intervals that happen to be of the same length. Then later, they give that time period a name and tell others how long it took after the fact using the new time period in your retelling of the story.
In either case, it seems God was not pressed on time. He finished before evening and then starts the next morning, so He was not working around the clock. God can create infinitely more than we can imagine and simultaneously because He is all powerful.
The verses talking about a day being a thousand years and a thousand years being like a day to God is not meant to give us more context for Genesis. It is simply stating that God is outside time.
Not only that but finding soft tissue and blood sample on creatures that supposedly died hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago is harder to believe than God made the earth and there was a global flood.
We also have paintings/drawings from ancient people depicting dinosaurs. How is this possible if humans and dinosaurs didn’t live together since only somewhat recently have humans begun to dig up fossils and recognize what they are? [I have links below of this, some items may be fake but even if all were fake/misunderstood this is really only a minor point in my arguments]
The world's oldest trees are also younger than a YEC view of the world. This suggest that the earth is younger than millions of years old as well. [Again linked below for those curious]
Are we to believe God didn't care about who knows how many barely-not-humans before he revealed Himself to Adam? I don't think so. I also don't believe that it was only human death that came through Adam but all death.
Population charts also indicate its very possible to get today's population from Noah's family. I would argue they also suggest that if a global flood didn’t happen then today's population should be much higher. [Again linked below for those curious]
Also people saying the earth is billions of years old: How do you know the starting conditions of the universe? While we might know the decay rates of certain materials we have no idea of the starting conditions so you can't use any of those dating methods without some blind faith that you know the starting conditions.
As for the Flood. I see Genesis as suggesting it is global and not local. Here are a few points:
1) Noah's ark is extremely oversized for a local flood. He would not need that many animals just for a localized flood.
2) If it was just local Noah could have just moved away in the 120 years God gave him instead of building the ark.
3) Are we to believe all of humanity could be killed by a local flood? The whole point of the flood was to kill all of humanity except for Noah and his family because of humanity's sin.
4) The bird Noah sent out would have been able to easily find land to make a new home at with a localized flood so the bird returning because it can't find land doesn't really make sense.
5) The duration of the flood is unbelievably long for just a local flood.
*I won't ever say that someone isn't saved if they believe in an older earth, I just disagree on that point
www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
www.icr.org/article/why-arent-earths-oldest-trees-older
creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model
answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
Thank you for the well thought out and well provided evidences for young earth!
how'd you manage to link websites without getting them deleted?
@relajado-fx5rf not sure, I was worried it would delete the post and if it had I would just repost but take those out
Thank you for sharing all of this. If we're being intellectually honest with the plain reading of Genesis, the understanding that sin caused death, and lineage from Adam to Christ, and knowing that Gen 2:4 says "this is the account of the creation of heaven and earth," then we should led what is clear and plain guide the apologetics and land on Creationism in it's entirety while acknowledging some mystery in some unknowns.
Up until 15 minutes ago scientists thought the universe was caused by the Big Bang and christian apologetics worked with it to defend God as the cause. Now, the James Webb telescope proves there was no Big Bang and the universe just is.
God is a supernatural God. The Bible is a supernatural book. Science changes. God and His Word does not.
@@jeremystrand7095
This is a great point!
Heard about that too, galaxies further and should be older are around the same age. None of them have a ball shape like something that exploded outwards, but a flattened disk. No oort cloud to account for meteors, no dark matter.
Build your house on the foundations of God. Not the shifting sands of Man.
I love your appeal for us to be united despite our differences on this view.
I am surrounded by YEC where I live, and as someone who isn't a YEC, I often find people act very condescendingly towards me as if I just don't view Scripture highly due to my views. We older earth people love the Bible too!
Incredibly helpful. Thank you for parsing this out.
I grew up as an old earth Christian and I believed all that I was taught in school about the age of the Earth and Evolution and even that Adams parents were monkeys or apes or something. I was a very weak Christian at best or if at all.
Back in 1996, a friend showed a few photographs to me that quickly destroyed my old earth view. One particularly stupefying photo was of a petrified tree passing vertically through layers of stone with the age difference from the top stones to the lower stones spanning thousands to millions of years. I could not accept that a tree could stand vertically for a million years while rock slowly formed around it. At that moment, I knew then that I had been duped by many people.
I was immediately ashamed and embarrassed of how I had not believed the Word of God. I am still ashamed of that but it makes me so very grateful for grace and mercy. I cannot describe what a great blessing it was for me to have my eyes opened to just how accurate and true the Word of God is. Life has been so much easier and brighter since then.
I am sure there are other poor souls out there lost in the darkness. I hope that God sends each of them a dozen of friends like the one that helped me. I think Ken is trying to be that friend to someone out there. I hope you will overlook Ken’s flaws and let God use him to help someone in the greatest need of their life.
Thank you for this video. One of the issues I have with some old earth interpretations of Genesis is how proponents seem to deny a historical Adam. Would love to know your thoughts on this.
It's because many of them ARE coming from the place of extrabiblical science that "proves" the earth has to be this many years old because fossils are this many years old, and fossils "prove" that man has evolved, and evolution "proves" Adam could not have been a literal singular human being responsible for casting sin upon all his descendants - mankind.
It's one of the major issues with the "well, it's just metaphorical" view of Genesis. The issue is actually not how many literal hours have passed since the creation event and today; the issue is people being far too quick to dismiss Biblical details to fit "proven" science, little by little, until suddenly you don't have a first Adam and therefore no rational need for a Last Adam.
If you want, you can read William Lane Craig's book, The Historical Adam
@@kazumakiryu157 After you're done with Craig's book, I'd encourage you to read "Searching For Adam" by Dr. Terry Mortenson.
I recently left a church I was considering joining because the pastor claimed believers in evolution are rebelling against God. I realized I couldn't meaningfully serve there. It is hard, because I really liked that church.
If man evolved from animals, at what point did man gain a rational soul distinguishing him from animals? If animals are incapable of sin, at what point did the animal "man" gain culpability for said sins and a need to be redeemed? If man was descended from animals, who is "Adam" in Gensis? If "Adam" is only metaphorical, what is he metaphorical for? If Jesus is the "Last Adam" sent to redeem mankind from the sin brought upon us by the "First Adam", but the "First Adam" is only a metaphorical concept describing early man (or the animal that would eventually become them), what exactly is Christ redeeming us from? And if sin and death are natural parts of creation (as all evolution hinges on the concept of good traits being passed on through procreation, and bad traits being discarded and lost through death of the "less fit"), then what exactly is Christ redeeming us to, if there was never a perfect painless deathless state of being to begin with?
"Believing in evolution is rebellion against God" sounds hyperbolic and harsh. But the thing being criticized is not just a general amorphous concept - it is a series of multiple, multiple, multiple building blocks making up a framework of how you see the world and by extension God's inclusion in it. It may not be direct intentional rebellion, but it fundamentally antithetical to the very essence of Salvation when it is broken down into its elements.
@@drawingdragon I can't reasonably be expected to answer every single question in a UA-cam comment. I can, however, point out that that is all they are. None of them positively demonstrate a contradiction between the Gospel and the scientific theory of evolution. And if that is true, then this is an area where believers can have reasonable theological conversations without charging their opponents with heresy.
The problem with the old earth scenario is that sickness and death entered creation before Adam sinned and caused all creation to fall and death, "the day you eat of it you will surely die", it was Adam's disobedience that death entered the creation, not before.
Why do you say there was no animal death before the Fall?
The curse before the cause, you could say.
It could quite easily be referring to spiritual death, rather than physical. See Romans 5:14. People did not become immortal when Moses came, and so it must be spiritual death.
@@chrisdotson3520Since Adam brought death. I guess it doesn't make sense though
@@relajado-fx5rf I mean it makes sense if that death applies to all of creation, but it could be that only Man was immortal until the Fall.
I am not settled on a specific earth creation date, but I dont think its a litmus test at all- I fail to see how it makes or breaks salvation.
it definitely doesn't, but it causes a looser interpretation of Jesus and Adam
On the one hand, I am glad I had the experience growing up in a creationist church because it helped me take scripture seriously, learn how to analyze people's presuppositions, and fall in love with the first dozen chapters of Genesis.
On the other hand though, having to re-orient my brain around how to understand scripture (like acknowledging genre and the history of tradition), how to engage issues with charity and irenicism, and how to value all of scripture has been a serious struggle.
I would say creationism was a major reason I have pursued theological training at an academic level, so I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with it. The process has been long, but videos like this have been such a help along the way. This video will be a helpful resource that I can give people if they have questions around this topic!
My experience has been the opposite. I became a believer as a child but accepted the worldly view of deep time and the evolution of ‘kinds’. Then in my adult years I came to see the necessity as a true believer of accepting the Bible as true from the first to the last word and God-breathed. I then came to see the unacceptability of accepting the Theory of Evolution which of necessity would have death and dying as part of God’s plan from the beginning, which contradicts God’s word. When I came to accept God’s word as inerrant and true my faith soared.
Just a thought from someone who thinks in a ‘simple’ way. When I read the Bible it says to me that God created the ‘heavens and the earth’ first, but then the Earth was ‘without form and void’. After that God began to form and design the Earth as a home for mankind in 6 days. So I see no problem with any ‘true’ scientific findings. The problem though with a lot of ‘science’ is that it is far too sure of itself and many scientists are often vociferously anti-Christian, then after a decade or two the ‘books’ are having to be re-written as new and revolutionary findings are discovered, and the subject is found to be far more complicated and profound than they formerly imagined. I do not not believe for one minute that Christians need to be apologetic (in the regretful way) at all. God created the heavens and the earth and then formed it in a wonderful way in six days as a home for man. Done!
Love this video Dr. Ortlund, so looking forward to the follow up! Thank you for your bravery in putting this out. I’ve learned from experience it can be so hard & painful to challenge peoples’ established church culture. It’s like saying to a group of Holiness Pentecostals or I.F. Baptists, “It’s Biblically not a sin to consume alcohol, in fact Jesus did….” then experiencing the explosive rage & rejection they can hurl at you. You’re a strong man Gavin, my prayers are with you!
Thank you for the clear truth that this isn't us bowing to modern science!
"In the church we often emphasize being a sinner, and have underemphasized being a human being. . . a creature of God."
🔥🔥🔥
My relationship with the Lord and the quality of my faith improved dramatically when I left young earth creationism. There is a humility and a curiosity that comes with the admission that one doesn't have everything all figured out. The Lord uses that humility and curiosity to reveal himself.
Care to explain in what ways? I can walk in humility and curiosity as a YEC .
Agreed.
@@benbutler345 absolutely you can. Forgive me, I meant to write "Ken Ham style" YEC. It wasn't the young earth creationism itself that was a hindrance to me. It was the attitude that often, but not always, comes with it. The assumption that the biblical record is historical in exclusion of being theological and symbolic. I was so obsessed with the historicity and science of early Genesis that I couldn't see the profound theology it presented. Since that theology is picked up on in the test of the Bible, I was blinding myself to that as well.
I really could have used this info as a young Christian 25 years ago. Thank you so much for this.
Looking forward to the follow-ups! Thanks for attempting to prune this thorny topic.
You did such a great job on this Gavin! Thanks for your work to help believers and the useful quotes. Again, you were irenic yet firm in stating the facts that needed to be discussed. This is extremely useful. The Lord bless you!
I don't really have anything to add, but I simply must say, thank you! This was a very necessary video. Love your work, Gavin!
Thanks for your video 😊.
I'm curious about the line Mark 10:6 - "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (KJV) Can there be millions of years before Adam? How? Or is the time between Adam and the present way, way more than approx. 6000 years?
You're right to recognise the importance of these topics for believers. Thanks again for your work.
(edited for spelling)
Fantastic video as always! Thanks for such a thorough yet understandable response.
Separate from the Days of Creation debate, the question of Noah and the flood remains. Scripture very clearly says (and in great historical detail) eight survived, giving us the table of Nations. Noah is all humanity's common "Grandfather." That seems quite clear from a basic reading of the text. You don't buy yourself much by ditching a Young Earth view. The flood narrative and detailed generations account from end of Genesis on to Abraham is hard to square with modern so called "science". Got to choose.
This is excellent, Gavin! To be honest, I have really struggled with this. Particularly, as someone who has argued for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I could not understand how fellow brothers and sisters in Christ could not see it the same way. But I feel much more enlightened now from this video, and can now understand where those other views come from by other Christians. It is nice to see that even older Church fathers contemplated Genesis' meaning. What a neat debate! Thanks, Gavin! God bless you!
This is a blessing to hear! Thank you for sharing your process my friend!
I went to a Christian college. It was one of the best decisions of my life. Yet, even in school this was not a hot button topic. Why have you struggled with the Gensis account? I like to hear the beliefs of other Christians. God Bless!
@@Disciple793Thank you for asking! When I say "struggle," I am referring to a struggle of discernment of truth between the new-earth creationism and old-earth creationism. Specifically, I wrestled over why God would say "day" and "night" and not mean a 24-hour period that He has defined throughout the Bible. I hope that clarifies what I mean. Gavin's presentation on this really opened my eyes and heart as to the other side of this interpretation. Super fascinating. God Bless!
Just a thought from someone who thinks in a ‘simple’ way. When I read the Bible it says to me that God created the ‘heavens and the earth’ first, but then the Earth was ‘without form and void’. After that God began to form and design the Earth as a home for mankind in 6 days. So I see no problem with any ‘true’ scientific findings. The problem though with a lot of ‘science’ is that it is far too sure of itself and many scientists are often vociferously anti-Christian, then after a decade or two the ‘books’ are having to be re-written as new and revolutionary findings are discovered, and the subject is found to be far more complicated and profound than they formerly imagined. I do not not believe for one minute that Christians need to be apologetic (in the regretful way) at all. God created the heavens and the earth and then formed it in a wonderful way in six days as a home for man. Done!
Really appreciated this information, I wasn’t aware of most of it
Great video as always Dr. Ortlund. One of the Ken Ham/YEC calling cards is that "Yom" is normally interpreted as 24 hour periods throughout the Bible. A treatment of this would be of great service.
IMO it is not so much that this is incorrect. The mistake is that the way the text is constructed and the culture it comes from show us that we are in the realm of poetry (which nevertheless tells us very true things about God, the world, and human purpose.) For instance, we could talk of parallels between days 1-3 > habitations or realms, and then days 4-6 > inhabitants or ruling functionaries of those realms. The Mesopotamian world was not scientific as we understand the term and did not understand the cosmos as a machine running by ordered laws. Rather, what the gods were like and what humans were made for was the primary concern. The Israelite Scriptures are casting a unique theological vision that communicated truth on these localized cultural and religious terms.
There is also the matter of pacing. Why does creation take only 2 chapters but by the time we get to the patriarchs, the author slows down to tell us how Isaac was comforted after the death of his mother? The pacing of Genesis 1-11 is hyper compressed compared to 12-50. This is another indication that 1-11 is telling a primeval story in which theology and human telos is primary and a timeline is somewhat of an afterthought.
Thank you so much Gavin, this is all so helpful.
Great video as always. One fault I often find with "Christian Apologetics" is the mistaken belief that we have to have "all' the answers. The older I get, the more willing I am to simply acknowledge "I don't know"....and be OK with that statement. When I was younger, I consider this to be almost insulting, to acknowledge that I didn't know. Now, I recognize that not knowing is not an insult, it's a reality.
To make matters worse, there seems to be this "gotcha' type of mentality among debaters on the subject that often hold Christians to, and theist in general, where ANY acknowledgment of "not knowing" or "not having" an answer for a challenge means by default that those in atheistic circles are correct in whatever belief that they hold or argue by default. Of course, the opposite is not applied, meaning that an atheist need not have "all the answers" and yet they are often given a pass often with the, mistaken, belief that eventually given enough time, they will.
I think the "gotcha" type debating style so prevalent today, has had a polarizing effect on Christians, causing them to argue definitively on matters that reality, study and observation provides much greater flexibility. While it is important to hold to scripture as definitive, we must be willing to acknowledge that it is not scripture which is lacking, but our understanding of it that is often flawed.
In the end, I care less over the amount of time it took GOD to create the universe, the Earth and all that is therein, than I do the fact and awesomeness that HE created it, me and everything else. I care less over which came first, the chicken or the egg, than I care over his love and compassion towards what he created that he was willing to express that love through an act of sacrifice to provide us a gift as great as eternal life. It is my observation of death that makes me recognize the splendor of life and the significance of eternal life.
We do a great disservice to the witness of the gospel whenever we argue definitively on matters which scripture does not.
Fully agree. John 21:22: "...what is that to you? You must follow me.” There are some things which should not worry about.
Quite true. I made the same "discovery" when studying theology. There comes a point in many debates about the Bible and Christianity when I simply had to say, we don't know but I believe it.
Many of those clever theories in theology stand on shaky ground. The whole word "Theology" is at its core an impossibility. We can't have a "science about God", we can only bow down to him and try to follow his word in the end.
Just a thought from someone who thinks in a ‘simple’ way. When I read the Bible it says to me that God created the ‘heavens and the earth’ first, but then the Earth was ‘without form and void’. After that God began to form and design the Earth as a home for mankind in 6 days. So I see no problem with any ‘true’ scientific findings. The problem though with a lot of ‘science’ is that it is far too sure of itself and many scientists are often vociferously anti-Christian, then after a decade or two the ‘books’ are having to be re-written as new and revolutionary findings are discovered, and the subject is found to be far more complicated and profound than they formerly imagined. I do not not believe for one minute that Christians need to be apologetic (in the regretful way) at all. God created the heavens and the earth and then formed it in a wonderful way in six days as a home for man. Done!
"Till we all come to the unity of the faith _and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ_ ;(Eph. 4:13)"...but _grow_ in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ(2 Pet. 3:18)"...It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, _but the glory of kings is to search out a matter_ (Pro. 25:2)." No true Christian could have such a lazy perspective on biblical education.
If I had heard this message 12 years ago, I wouldnt have become an atheist for several years. Thank you.
so why not wise up and believe the Lord now. Only hubris will stop you.
@guywillson1549 it seems that OP is Christian now!
Yep 👍
@@dieseligewissenschaft praise the Lord!
Outstanding; rich and charitable, as always. Billy Graham is another high profile 20th century evangelical who was comfortable with non-YEC views.
Who cares about "high profile"? Only the Word of God matters. He is no respecter of persons.
@@jannaswanson271 Certainly only the word of God matters, however admitting uncertainty as to how to interpret Genesis, is not a compromise. it is honesty
Bill Graham also spouted some flagrant heresies about how people of all faiths can wake up in heaven. If I understand correctly, he balked at affirming the YEC position because he didn't want people to reject Christianity over it. IMHO, that's not ethical.
It's one thing to leave a drum for now and bang it another day. It's another thing to deny the drum because you don't want to offend.
If God wanted me to believe in millions of years, why was it so hard for Him to just say so? There's no harm in that.
@@timffoster He did say so. The heavens and earth declare the glory of God. And every single thing in the heavens and earth confirms the old age of the earth and the cosmos.
It's utterly ridiculous to deny this just because the Bible didn't include a section on geology or astrophysics.
@@TheBlinkyImp is God's glory displayed in Him supposedly calling millions of animal deaths "very good"?
Thanks, Gavin. Appreciate the spirit in which the video is given. Here are the 2 questions I have:
At this time, I would consider myself a YEC (although the attitudes/methodology of the strongest YEC proponents give me pause).
I am willing to grant that:
a) the YEC position is not monolithically present in historical theology
b) there are other potential reasons besides "modern science" to subscribe to non-literal readings of Gen 1-2
Question 1: Does Augustine ever show signs of what he was attempting to harmonize or engage? (i.e. pre-Darwinian origin theories popular at the time) You mention that his concern was apologetic, and I'm curious if his non-literal readings could be characterized as an attempt to harmonize the Biblical account with other origin theories extant during his time?
------------
Question 2: What would your response be in regard to the implications of a non-literal reading of Genesis for other areas of theology?
ESCHATOLOGY: A view of the NH&E as a Restoration of all things would
a) bode well for all created things, not just man (the liberation of creation to match the freedom of the sons of God)
Does it bode well for animals if they are to continue to painfully die to satisfy the hunger of other animals?
Does it allow the lion to lay down with the lamb?
Does it allow the little child to place his hand on the den of the viper?
b) make death a thing of the past
But if this is true, then the NEW Creation seems to be an improvement on God’s original, not a restoration of it. (i.e. the lion did not originally lay down with the lamb) - Does Augustine comment on this aspect... will there be death in the New Creation as their was in the original which God declared "good?"
ANTHROPOLOGY: In a non-literal reading of Genesis, was work cursed BEFORE sin, at least outside the confines of Eden?
Before sin, Adam’s commission to Work to make the rest of the world like Eden would have been:
> already difficult/improbable
> already prone to death and struggle and sweat
> already 'red in tooth and claw'
This seems incongruous to me.
Curious about your thoughts.
Well said, I'd have these same questions.