Im an atheist and I have always thought WLC seems like a real nice guy who truly is seeking truth. Apologists like him are more likely to make me consider his arguments than the literal interpretation type.
lets see truth and be biasless and yet someone makes you think in some perspective simply because they are nice,be humble so you wouldnt follow someone just because you like them becauss you believe yourselves are wise
An apologist by definition is not seeking truth. They defend a preferred narrative & typically do so NOT by providing objective evidence, but instead by demanding evidence AGAINST that preferred stance. As an example, I have no evidence that Big Foot exists, but u cannot prove he doesn’t exist. This is the opposite of science. Religion starts with a supernatural claim & then demands we cannot prove it to b false. An apologist is always finding creative ways to square the Bible (or Torah or Koran, etc) with current times & against scientific fact (claims supported by objective evidence). I point my evangelical friends to William Craig because I respect his education as a theist & feel he is a wonderful communicator. In my opinion, a religious person who seriously pursues theism is much less dangerous than the average church goer who shows up to a giant shed church each week & is brainwashed into prosperity preaching, Christian Nationalism, & often….bigotry as it is personally embraced by that particular pastor/organization. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Craig has never put forth any work that started from a blank slate. He is always defending Christianity & the belief in God.
I really appreciate Josh's humility and intelectual integrity. These traits are incredibly refreshing within the larger christian debate/conversation within this space.
@@Polynuttery Based on this interview and his book, I do genuinely believe that Josh has strong convictions but a charitable posture towards those who disagree with his positions. It's a difficult thing to balance, our opinions and our humility. Sometimes we tip the scale of that balance too far in either direction. Based on your comment here, i'm assuming you also hold strong opinions and find it difficult to give people with opposing views the benefit of the doubt. So, all kidding aside, I do stand by my position, and if Josh, in future interviews, presents himself as an arrogant and uncharitable guy, I will adjust my opinion.
Yes, I agree. I have read his book and interacted with him on his website and I am deeply impressed by the way he tries to build bridges with people of different perspectives, and by his openness in admitting when he has made a mistake. Of course like all of us he is only human, and the way he was treated by biologos is obviously still a sore point for him.
Does anyone read their Bible's nowadays??? _1 Chronicles 1_ literally starts with Adam in the genealogical account and continues to show how king David eventually descends from that whole line of mankind!!! It's very simple: _Before Flood_ *Adam* (Progenitor of mankind) *Seth* (Jesus would descend from him) _After Flood_ *Noah* *Shem* (Semitic Ancestor) _Ancestor of Hebrews_ *Heber* (Hebrew Ancestor) *Abraham* *Isaac* _Founding Father of Israel_ *Jacob* (Named Israel and its Father) *Judah* (Father of the Jews) *David* (King of Israel and Judah) *Jesus Christ* (Heir to David's throne) *Shem = Semitic Ancestor* *Hebrew = Ethnicity* *Israel = Nationality* *Judah = 4th son, and 4th tribe of Israel/Jacob, and tribe of the Jews.*
Exactly. It is the Bible´s own teaching that is being ignored, sidetracked, or contradicted, so that men might indulge in intellectually stimulating "speculations," rooted in naturalistic assumptions, that are clearly incompatible with what the Bible says. Craig needs to realize that God does not give us the option of choosing between two Christian "faiths"-- a simple, literal, exoteric faith for the ignorant masses, and a more sophisticated, metaphorical, esoteric faith for the "initiated" Phd´s. There is only one Christian faith, its contents revealed in a book which is not only inerrant but also perspicuous (clear) in its fundamental teachings. However, to receive those teachings, one must humble his mind and accept those teachings with the simple faith of a child, and hold fast to them as the underlying, unwavering presupposition of one´s investigations into ALL areas of knowledge. Thus, the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the parents of the entire human race, who lived thousands, but not hundreds of thousands of years ago, must be accepted BY FAITH. There is no honest way one can insert two hundred thousand years of history between Adam and Noah, in light of the genealogies given to us in Scripture. To subject the clear and unequivocal teachings of Scripture to the guns of skeptical, higher critical thinking, as Craig seems to be doing, is a sure path to agnosticism and the erosion of faith. One simply cannot harmonize the teachings of Scripture with theories, assumptions, and conclusions about natural history based on post-Enlightenment Deistical thinking about the natural world and what we find in it.
I have a lot of respect for both William Lane Craig and Joshua Swamidass. I do have some questions about the references to the "mytho-history" in the New Testament. Dr Craig handled the problem with having a figurative Adam (by providing a real Adam), but there are other historic references as well. In Hebrews 11, Noah and Enoch (also mentioned in Jude 1:14) are mentioned in a list of heroes that includes people from outside Gen 1 thru 10. The flood is also mentioned in a couple places (Matthew 24:38 and 1 Peter 4:4). Furthermore, the genealogies list people from before Gen 10 as well as after. It seems odd that the authors would knowingly mix figurative and real persons. There isn't even a hint that the authors are not referencing real people. For instance, in Hebrews 11:7,8 -- Noah (v7) and Abraham (v8) are commended in the same way. "By faith Noah...", "By faith Abraham..." I am also interested in knowing how the flood (apparently a historical catastrophic event in the minds of the N.T. writers) fits into the narrative. Could a local flood, that wiped out all mankind except Noah & family, have occurred also about 700K years ago? If so, how would that impact his hypothesis? Finally, 2 Peter 2:4-6 references the fallen angels (of Genesis 6) and the flood. To me, the issue is bigger than Adam and Eve. We must also reconcile the other people and events mentioned in the N.T.
@@johnchristiandeguzman5295 i didn’t mean to imply that this idea is not worth exploring- only that pushing Adam so far into the past brings a whole history with it that needs to be reconciled with the Biblical record.
@@hondotheology that's ridiculous. They're throwing ideas out there. Maybe you didn't even watch the video, because right of the gate Craig clearly states that scripture comes first. I suspect it's more comfortable for you to think of your faith in total simplicity, that anything outside your comfort zone must just be coming from Christians less committed than yourself. It's pure intellectual laziness. I don't even agree with these guys, but to claim they don't have first loyalty to scripture is absolute nonsense.
First, this is a fascinating discussion. I also highly respect Dr. William Lane Craig. That said, my biggest question is why are there such specific genealogies in the early Genesis account? Like how long each man lived and how old they were when they had sons? That seems awfully specific for historic mythology. I also would say, WLC rebuttals to Adam and Eve being “in the beginning” was very weak. If a football team says “the beginning of our season was good” one would expect the first couple weeks. However, if they meant their final game, it would be absurd. In Big Bang cosmology, Adam and Eve’s arrival would start after 99% of all historical time has already passed.
You know the answer to your first question. It's that the Genesis account was written as true history. If we write it off as allegory, we blow apart the whole foundation of Scripture. It's not so simple to just interpret some verses as figurative speech. We must deny the historicity of God's actual involvement in the world and invent entirely new unscriptural descriptions of his involvement both in purpose and means - and write our own books about it! It's an intoxicating but fatal doctrine.
1. He didn't deny an Adam and Eve, did he? 2. I the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Not in the beginning God created Adam and Eve. So is there an argument?
@@ProfYaffle I believe in a literal Adam and Eve too, but they are organic cyborgs yet to be created in our time traveling future, which will have their consciousness downloaded from Meta. This is obviously possible because God is timeless and spaceless. I mean the differences between that story vs the one where God carefully fashions Adam with His own hands in the clay and breathes the breath of life into him are immaterial, right? The process doesn't matter. God will still be responsible. Can I write a book about that and debate somebody about it? Like my joke, Craig has ceded so much Biblical ground to "appeal" to the carnal mind that it's a joke to attempt to call it Biblical in any way. 2 Peter 3 teaches that it is willful ignorance towards the reality of God and His judgement that leads men to accept gradualism and deny the global flood. If people wish to reject the inspiration of Scripture, fine, but don't claim to accept it while sacrificing the entire narrative arc and key story details at the altar of fallible human wisdom. That is something Scripture clearly condemns. Choose whether to doubt God's word or humanity's ability to flawlessly peer back into "deep time." I'll always choose the latter.
@@michaelhenry1763 No comparison. Prov 30:5,6 Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.
@Whatsittuya407 There is no credible YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST scientists. The entire "science" of Creation Science is based on several falsehoods (this is kind I should have said lies!). Here is the problem with the entire YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM Worldview, and please note I am a PhD level Christian Physicist that won 2 International R&D 100 awards and I developed ionizing radiation dosimeters and detectors for nuclear weapons safeguards. The first problem is that Science isn't a WORLDVIEW, Science is a METHODOLOGICAL approach to understanding the Natural World. The primary objective with Science is TRUTH. YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS are master TRUTH manipulators and I don't care if the Scientist making the claims is sincere or if they are just charlatans trying to make a buck, it's still dishonest either way. Push back at ANY Creation Scientists that tries to claim Science is a WORLDVIEW, or there is such a thing as multiple varieties of Science, there is only one type of Science. There is no such thing as "SECULAR" Science as Ken Ham and others like to blather on about to DECEIVE people and most YOUNG EARTHERS just don't know any better unfortunately so I don't blame them. Science doesn't have a "secular" or Christian version of Science. People bring their WORLDVIEWS with them that do Science and therefore you can be an athiest and do great Science, just as you can be Christian and do Science. The second major mistake of YEC is they created an entirely separate CREATIONISM JOURNAL to publish their "scientific " journal articles. Do you know why, it's because real Science Journals won't publish their nonsense. Look Science is Science it's a method to understand nature and I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ and the Ressurection. You don't have to be an Athiest to understand the Earth is ancient as I do. Remember God is outside time, space, and matter and is therefore not bound by these. This is basic Philosophy and Theism. Don't let Ken Ham and others cause you to loose your faith. You can be a great Scientist and also be a faithful Christian. I actually teach Worldviews and the 5 Basic Beliefs of the Christian Faith have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH GENESIS or a YOUNG EARTH. Also Ken Ham makes his money selling ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos and I have watched every one with an open mind and they all have many major scientific untruths and all are absolutely garbage from a Science standpoint. If these give you a WARM FEELING by all means listen to them, but please don't make the mistake Ken Ham makes and start pointing a NASTY FINGER at PhD Christian Physicists and PhD Christian Astronomers and Geologists that understand the age of the Earth. My mother ALWAYS said if someone other than GOD or JESUS is pointing their finger at you , they have THREE FINGERS POINTING BACK AT THEM!! Listen to Matt Walsh on WHY HE ISNT A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS. Matt is smart and non-Scientific and Matt trashes YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM very effectively!! God Bless....
I appreciate any intellectual discussion that is sincere. We will never “figure out” God and how he designed existence and played it out…. ‘Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Once again though I do appreciate your works.
Oscar Cullmann once said that Genesis is a prophecy into the past. Just like we believe that God will resurrect us in the future and create a new world free of death and suffering, we can believe that he originally created Adam and Eve.
It doesn't 'take courage to take on these types of questions', if you are willing to subvert scripture, judging it through the lens of human reasoning. It takes courage to stand on the scriptures, subverting everything else to its authority.
Completely missed the entire point of the discussion. The question is, what is teacher actually teaching given the literary genre in an ancient culture
I read the Dr Craig's book. To dismiss the events in Gen 1 - 11 because they are too fantastic doesn't sit well with me. My God can do anything just by commanding it.
The way I see it is what if there was no story of Adam and Eve and just a story of how man developed into a sinful nature slowly over time ? Imagine how much less profound and meaningful that would be. The story of Adam and Eve is a beautiful story of the creation of humanity and the fall of man that has so much depth and lessons to gather from it that we are blessed to have it around. God can do anything anyway so he could have made the world like that just like Jesus turned water into fermented wine. He could create a universe that appears fermented in a way.
@@teachpeace3750 only serious theologians with proper discernment understand the literal narrative of the book of Genesis. The compromised theologians you speak of are only seriously clueless
@@bwc6520 this isn’t really a debate outside of fundamentalist seminaries. As a graduate of a moderate seminary, I can assure you, this is a settled issue among serious scholars and theologians.
Can we say that most of the Bible, including the new testament, is mythohistory, even the essential resurrection? When do we draw the line? Can you see why people will lose faith in Christianity? If you say the word of God in the be Bible is not inherent and not literal, then why can't people be justified in believing that the resurrection was part of the genre of the time?
There were multiple eyewitness accounts to the Resurrection and it absolutely transformed them and their life trajectory and humanity's understanding of reality. And much of it was documented. It's about as opposite of mythohistory as we can get.
then there is no basis for Christianity you draw the line when you get to abraham the basis of Christianity is Jesus in my opinion the adam and eve can be considered a parable
@@lkae4 same as Mormonism, except with the Mormon religion it was better attested and is growing faster than any other form of Christianity. Your point doesn't make it true.
If Adam was created while other people were already existing outside of the Garden, why does Adam seek a helper among animals and not even consider any of the women that already existed? God then creates for him Eve, a woman, but women already existed. It seems this would blow a major hole in Swamidass' theory, right? Thanks in advance for answering.
It's amazing to me that learned individuals could be so earnest in discussing if Adam and Eve actually existed. How can these people be taken seriously.
I admire Dr Craig's intelligence and philosophical reasoning. But I completely disagree with his views of Adam. I don't see how you can believe death and resurrection of Christ but not believe in Adam and Eve.
@@gabepearson6104 you make an excellent connection between belief in Adam & Eve and belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a similar connection that Paul makes in Romans. Adam is the first human who brings death; Jesus is the first human that brings life. I reverse the connection. Because Adam & Eve did not exist thereby original sin did not exist to condemn humanity; Jesus did not resurrect to defeat sin because there was no original sin to defeat because Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit.
@@gabepearson6104 isn’t that what the original post is saying? Of course Adam and Eve did not exist. They are mythical characters designed to illustrate deeper truths about humanity: our capacity to do good or evil, our desire to gain wisdom, etc.
Nicely put at the end: even though our view of Adam might be blurry, the resurrection of Jesus Christ has a profound weight of evidence for it. And I trust Jesus Christ.
At about 37:00, Dr. Craig states that it seems "plausible that this is a figurative account (of Adam and Eve) He also states that it just seems so implausible that God took an actual rib to make Eve or that He created Adam from dust. He states that the description of God in Genesis 1-3 is just anthropomorphic and his actions in Genesis 1-3 are figurative. But I've always taken the account to be a good example of a Christophany as in Joshua 5:13-15 and Genesis 18. So, Jesus (=God) could walk with Adam and Eve in the garden. The actions of God in Genesis 1-3 have parallels in the New Testament. So, to me, they're not so hard to believe. For instance, in John 20:19-23, Jesus breathes on his disciples to give them the Holy Spirit (spiritual life). This is similar to God breathing life into Adam. In John 9:6, Jesus spits on the ground and makes mud. He puts the mud on the blind man's eyes then instructs him to "go wash in the pool of Siloam." The man is healed. This is similar to God making man from dust in Genesis 2. Although I agree that Genesis only provides broad strokes of the creation events (and the timing is unknown), I also believe that the cast of characters and their actions belong on an actual time-line.
If the authors of Genesis were inspired by god, why didn't god inspire them to be more accurate in describing the origins of humanity? It wasn't necessary to talk about neanderthals and H. heidelbergensis, of course not, but the stories written in Genesis to explain human origins are utterly remove from reality, so much so that what we see here is complex mental gymnastics to give these stories some validity.
The validation of the story is found in the truthfulness of things like the envy of Cain and how it destroys him. The necessity of sacrifice. The evil desires of mankind to dominate and amass wealth for their own selfish desires. To look around at what was obviously a creation and be so determined not to be subjugated to a creator that you demand proof when deep in your heart you know there isn't a proof you will accept because really you don't want to be held to account for the sins no one knows about but you. You want to be the master of your world, because then it is you who decides who is good and who isn't, but really, you weren't designed to be that judge and it is actually a burden too heavy to carry.
I like the minimalistic approach Dr. Craig and others gives. This approach is where apologists usually defend things that most people can agree on and only push on the essentials, such as the resurrection. This is a great way to defend one’s position, but it makes for problematic theology if one forces this thought on the text of Scripture. The issue seems to be instead of standing on the ground these apologists are defending, that is, these bare facts, some apologists want to line up the ground they gave up matching the little ground they apoplectically stand, say Genesis 1-11. In my view, It would be better if the minimalistic apologist stayed on their intellectual hill, where they seem to do well. In my understanding, these apologists want to restructure Scripture into their image, to make Scripture line up according to the cultural likeness. They want to make for themselves and a biblical interpretation that reaches such heights that no argument can stand against it, but I think they do not weigh the cost of what they do. Sometimes it is good to step back and consider what one is fighting for and what one has to give up to appease the masses of the day.
@Richard Fox Hey Richard, Thank you for your reply. I like your statement; it is short and straightforward. The issue I have is that "intellectual honesty" is subjective. It is subjective in that many Athiest have said that "intellectual honesty" requires that we reject miracles altogether. And many Christians would say "intellectual honesty" requires that we reject the majority of the Old Testament as a myth, rejecting historical figures from Abraham well into the kings of Judah. And as for the New Testament, the Jesus seminars, that had about 50 critical biblical scholars insist that "intellectual honesty" forces us to disregard or view with suspicion many of the Word of Jesus. I am trying to say that "intellectual honesty" really comes down to each individual and the worldview they adhere to, or as the Joker put it, "Hubba, Hubba, Hubba, money, money, money, who do you trust, who do you trust?" To be honest myself, I am a YEC, not because I ignore science. Rather, I believe science supports YEC, though I know most scientists disagree with this, and there is evidence to the contrary. Still, I do respect other Christians who disagree with this. But I would like for people to consider what they believe and why they believe it. I know that too many Christians young-earth creationism is a stumbling block, and to the lost, it is foolishness, but for me, it is true and has scientific credibility. Thank you again for your reply, and God bless. Richard Fox 2 hours ago The simple fact is that intellectual honesty requires we acknowledge the Creation story to be a myth.
@Richard Fox Thank you, Richard So you are a paleontologist? That is impressive; I know that it is hard work, but it is worth the effort. Still, I think your statement that "not a shred of evidence for a young earth" goes too far. There are YEC paleontologists who believe that paleontology provides good support for a young earth. You also said that "evidence from many many disciplines supports this view." I know this to be true also; that is why I said in the previous post that while "I believe science supports YEC, though I know most scientists disagree with this, and there is evidence to the contrary." Still, there are YEC creationists in many if not all of these other fields that believe the data does more than give sherd of evidence for the YEC position; it proves it. Now, your last comment is, to me anyway, the best argument for an Old Earth, that being distant starlight. This issue is the one that I had my greatest struggle in, though I know you were speaking to the formation of stars. How does this starlight travel from billions of light-years away to Earth in only a few days, seeing that stars were visible on day four? Models have been proposed to solve this issue, one of the proposals is by Russ Humphreys. His model works well with the current understanding of science. The drawback is that while his model works well for starlight from other galaxies, the light from our galaxy exceeds the time frame of a young earth; Humphreys is still working on this model. There are different models as well, but the point is that there are Ph.D. scientists from many, if not all, fields of research that claim that if they are to be intellectually honest, the area of study they are in supports a young earth. Still, this assumes that our, the YEC people, view on Genesis is correct, but we may have that wrong. The more I read from scientists like Hugh Ross, the more I find that his view of the creation account does hold weight. In this view, the days were ages, not literal days, and God used progressive creation to make the Earth ready for human life. This could be the correct view of Scripture, but to me, the Young Earth view fits better. Of course, I know of Waltons view, and at first, I had thought that this was a solid view that I could get behind. But after reading more on the subject and reviewing Dr. Craig's thoughts on the problems this view holds, I now think it carries little weight. I have also looked at Theistic evolution, but this is not a great view of science or Scripture, in my opinion. Recently Joshua Swamidass, who appears with Dr. Craig in this video, has released a book called The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. This is a differnt take on what it means to be descended from Adam, and I think it has value, but it has to be grounded in a good view of Scripture. I believe the Hugh Ross model and Swamidass can work well together, other than the fact Ross believes that there was a literal Adam and Eve while Swamidass believes in common descent. Again, the only thing I do not like is how brothers and sisters in Christ can so easily disregard and belittle each other for honest disagreements. If we are to be intellectually honest, we must consider the other side, look at the evidence, and weigh it ourselves. This is where people like Ken Ham tend to wavier; they will say something dismissive about those who disagree and never really consider the other side. This is how I became a Hugh Ross fan; while I was on Ham's side, Ross seemed to act more Christian than Ham. Since then, I have picked up all the books Ross has put out and read most of them. My view of Ross's integrity as a scientist and Christian has only strengthened over the years. He always presents himself in a humble, very Christ-like manner in debates with YEC. Ross seems to be a good scientist as well, in that he seems to know his stuff, and he seems to be knowledgeable in Scripture, which makes Ross well worth listening to. Thank you again for your thread and your work as a paleontologist, and God bless.
@William Billy Craig The starlight is the equal problem for evolutionist. Universe is too big for light to travel through it as we observe it today. So you shouldn't really have that problem. And I think folks from CMI responded to this problem quite well.
Genesis 1-11 is ancient historical narrative, people. The story moves seamlessly from ch. 1 through 50 as indicated by the 10 or 11 unit markers "these are the generations of..." or perhaps translated, "this is the account of." It is an arbitrary tear in the weave of the Genesis tapestry to treat ch. 1-11 as another genre from ch. 12-50. If we stick to grammatical/historical exegesis, we remain true to the uniform interpretation of Genesis, unashamed that God "Elohim" is both Creator and "YHWH," the LORD of the covenants of Israel who sent His Son, the true Adam, the true Israel, the Offspring of Eve, who restores us to His image and crushes the serpent/Satan's head. Presuppositions of inerrancy in the original mss. and sufficiency of the Scripture are on the table, yes. Otherwise your presuppositions are like Craig, using recently discovered ANE literature (Gilgamesh, etc., etc.) to identify Genesis' literary genre by equivocation. This is a demotion of the Word of God. Jesus interprets the account of Genesis as historical, so do the OT and NT writers. Gen. 1-11 is foundational to Torah, the rest of Scripture, and the Christian faith. It stands against every effort to suggest by a hermeneutic of suspicion that God did not directly create "the heavens and the earth" or "the universe" (Heb. 11) simply by speaking it all into existence in six literal days. It will prevail even as the gates of hell make inroads through so-called science that presupposes millions of years before concluding millions of years. That's all for now, folks. Good day.
WLC stated that he started this research unsure of where it would lead, but then stated that he starts with Scripture as the foundation and then see if modern science potentially aligns with what they uncover. My question is, what if they found that there still were very clear contradictory inconvenient facts that went against what was laid out in scripture. Would he be forced to change his stance and throw out the Genesis account altogether? If even then he still disregarded inconvenient findings, what would the point be of the research in the first place?
Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through ONE man. So it seems at least Paul thought that Adam was one singular person, hence taking the genesis account literally in that regard .
@@jasper2621 I think it's more to do with taking the bible literally or allegorically, rather than being inerrant. Paul took Adam to be a literal single person going by this verse .
@@jezah8142 exactly. Just looking at genesis, it’s not clear whether it’s literal or allegorical, but add in Paul’s commentary and you clearly have to read it as literal.
He’s a fallible human being who made the mistake of trying to insert evolution into the Bible. We are to seek the Holy Spirit for all the answers, not man.
@@Keesha_Hardy Thank you Kesha, for your response. It is not easy to have all the dialogues we are all having about God and how we validate the "revealed text". I think a good number of believers today, perhaps including yourself, would never think it is okay to enslave other people, or stone witches or gay people to death. I think most people realize that those actions are immoral, even if they are sanctioned in the bible. So, for me, I do not have a problem with people believing as Christians. However, I keep my eyes open and engage in conversations and dialogues, to keep me aware of when believers start using their belief as a weapon against people. It is how dangerous that believers can easily become that worries me the most, and it is the reason I listen to religious stations and talks, in order to know when the temperature of believers start moving in the direction of real harm to real people. I'm sure it must be obvious to you that one of the main reasons why dogmatic believers insist that the Bible is inerrant, is so they can justify horrible things they are doing or want to do to people. By the way, I do not think you are like this at all, since I don't actually know you. But, I've seen a lot of believers who hold terrible views about other people, and do horrific things in the name of the book. Perhaps, you can help me understand what your thoughts are about how we can make sure that believers DO NOT use their beliefs as weapons against the populace. So appreciate your interaction with me. Thank you
@@Keesha_Hardy "seek the Holy Spirit for answers.." of course, and you get tens of thousands of christian denominations worldwide with their founders claiming to receive all their teaching from the Holy Spirit...
@@Keesha_Hardy Sounds like you really know what the smart people told you to believe. Good job not thinking for yourself. I see a lot of people are in the same club as you. Good work... !
I must say on the one hand I have tremendous respect for the work of people like Tour and Dr. Swamidass have committed themselves to and share their findings with us. I love knowledge and could have never come to the info they're dishing out. On the other hand, I ask myself if they're listening to themselves with statements like humans outside of Adam and Eve, and whether God really made mankind out of clay as taught in the Bible. Some of these things they're questioning seem to be the bedrock of Christianity and salvation.
If you think salvation is based on whether you believe humans were literally molded out of clay and popped into existence as adults, you need to go back to the drawing board
I don't understand why three well-educated people are having this discussion. Humans evolved from other species. They weren't created whole. What am I missing?
I'm not arguing for literalism on genesis. But if Dr. Craig believes in creatio ex nihilo, it's strange that he would be so flabbergasted at creation from dust de novo.
I think he does not believe in genesis because the way its written. After all we are star dust, acording to science. But genesis is very similar to other mithological explanations for natural fenoma and not consistent with the nature of god
Dr. Craig is a philosopher that relies on empirical evidence and everyday experiences. So if the evidence for the beginning of the universe is that it is the beginning of spacetime, then it would be reasonable for him to believe the universe was created ex nihilo. But with regards to biology, no one has empirically seen any humans coming out de novo. Just to clarify on Dr. Craig's epistemology.
He’s not flabbergasted at de novo creation. He’s talking about whether the biblical account is literal or figurative. And given that it anthropomorphises God as having hands to mould clay and a mouth to breath into Adam’s nostrils WLC views this as a figurative account.
"Magical tree"? Your words, not Yahweh's! The church cannot and should not be comfortable with your view. So Packer, Wenham & others are comfortable with this doesn't make it correct. The bottom line is this, for someone who claims to be a Christian and a defender of the faith, your unbelief is astounding!
My belief in a literal 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve stems from this question. Is it more compatible with the nature of God as understood by Christianity to believe He; A. Gave us a historical text that is not literally reliable, but only meant to be taken figuratively? Or B. Gave us a literally reliable text that requires faith to believe in spite of the broadly accepted scientific paradigm? My Bible says over and over again to have faith, and to believe when it's difficult to believe. I'm not aware of a single text that says that God speaks in mythology (unless you take the parables of Jesus as such. Since they are plainly labled as parables, I don't think that fits.).
@Richard Fox at one point there was clear evidence that the earth was the center of the universe. And if there is a God, then there is definitely also a devil whos goal is to deceive. There is scientific evidence on my side. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (microbiologist), Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysicist) and many more whos names I can't remember can explain that side better than I can, but from a purely philosophical point of view (as that is the specialty of Dr. Craig) it is more consistent with the character of God to believe that His word could be easily understood in a plain sense reading, than to believe He would leave us with a riddle that must be read with a key in the form of a specific literary genre.
@Richard Fox Not to be rude, but you're simply wrong. The belief that the earth was at the center of the universe was based on a mathematical "model" that accurately predicted the path stars would take across the night sky. It was the very best science and mathematics had to offer at the time. Look up the Ptolemaic Model.
@Jaron Hooten - surely the question you should be starting with is whether a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve is consistent with scientific evidence. In both these cases the answer has to be no, for all the reasons that the most cursory review of the evidence would show. But this does not mean the stories are untrue - they are myths - they carry a truth, but are not true in themselves. Promoting a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve will kill the Church, as they are so demonstrably false.
@@Faust2Dr I wholeheartedly disagree with not only your assessment of the available scientific data, but your conclusions about the Bible and the Church that you draw from them. I have taken more than a "cursory" look and have seen enough to know that the science is far from settled on the age of the earth and the genetic evidence of an ancestral pair at the top of our family tree.
@@Faust2Dr I have been told my entire life that science has proven that God is unnecessary to explain life and origins. The accepted scientific paradigm says there is no God. Accepting that paradigm is what will "kill the church".
Interesting. I think the first part of eternal life after catching up with loved ones, will be asking God all these questions like how many years BC was Adam created etc etc. Or maybe God has a long movie for us all to watch explaining everything to us????
My take was God created the Solar system, The Earth and sea, "Life" that evolves into all the animals and "Mankind" (sixth day). Then the Garden of Eden (either on earth or heaven) including the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life AND the serpent, Then Adam (The first Hebrew) was created. It can be debated that since the serpent got Eve to eat then cinvince Adam to eat of the fruit of Knowledge then it is plausible that the Serpent used the fruit of Life to fashion an agent of Sin that was sent amongs Man. Jesus does say "They are of their Father the Devil"
I'm partial to John Walton's understanding, that the creation narrative is about God putting His creation in order and setting Adam and Eve as priests over the creation. I think it fits really well with the NT narrative of God establishing His kingdom on earth, and also answers the question 'where did Cain get his wife?'
@@rob-890 I'm not sure how respecting the work of an ANE scholar who is interpreting an ANE document or seeing a cohesion between his interpretation and the gospel is 'picking and choosing'. (ANE = ancient near east)
@@danielcartwright8868 The believers keep throwing random, esoteric concepts and their spokespeople at a wall to see if they stick better than spaghetti. Christians love to water down what it is they claim to believe in the first place. It's so easy to witness the weakness of their position exposed... (just get them talking amongst themselves and see how little they are up to speed regarding their supposed "beliefs"). Comical, really. Sad too. Adults... pretending to know what gods think and desire.... all the while denying the actuality of what they are able to substantiate. And, still, without good evidence for their personal, opinion based fairy tales. Don't you agree?
1. When God said: "Let us make man in our image" WLC thinks God wanted to make a couple of homo heidelbergensis members around 700K years ago? Wouldn't that mean modern humans (homo sapiens) aren't made in God's image then? 2. Adam and Eve's first born was a farmer and their second born son was a sheep herder. Does he not know that agriculture and domestication of cattle wasn't a thing 700k years ago? The intellectual gymnastics being played here is unbelievable.
If you read between the lines, Craig suggested in this interview that everything up through the story of Abraham is part of the mythic history, which he says is not literal. He seems to be being very political about how he’s saying this, but that would make sense since if one accepts Noah as historical than ultimately THEY are the family from which everyone descends. But I agree, it does seem a little ad hoc for him to be so diehard about an actual historical Adam if he’s going to also go out of the way and say Genesis is mythic history. He seems to be trying to walk a fine line.
1. Umm no WLC groups together H. heidelbrgensis along with Neanderthals and us as all the same "humans". 2. WLC is pretty clear that Genesis 1-11 is mythohistory, he hardly cares about the historical accuracy of this section. Thus there is no "intellectual gymnastics".
@@everyzan-m2q Jimmy's assessment is correct. I don't know if I would say that there are no intellectual gymnastics however, lol. I think there most definetely are some gymnastics going on here but that shouldn't be a criticism of any worldview. Any serious worldview is going to requite intellectual gymnastics.
@@everyzan-m2q Ummmm...... so according to WLC the events described in Genesis 1-11 which includes the original sin narrative is nothing but mythohistory and a nonbeliever shouldn't care about its historical accuracy. So why should a nonbeliever care about Jesus and Christianity? Paul says in Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. If original sin is mythohistory and not accurate historically then Paul's original sin theology goes out the window. Also, do I really need to mention the NT scriptures where the authors relied on mythohistorical passages within Genesis to double down on their own arguments? Well actually, you know what I will... Exhibit A: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9: 8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man (from Adam's ribs). 9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. If the whole story of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is 100% non-historical as WLC claims, then tell me why am I reading this passage in 1 Corinthians 11? What else was Paul and other NT authors wrong about? Exhibit B: Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:13-14: 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Again I ask, what else was Paul wrong about? Heck, why should any nonbeliever care about what any NT author wrote about Christianity and Jesus?
I find all of these men to be highly intelligent, reputable, and full of integrity; however, Dr. Lane Craig said something that was startling to me. Why would the resurrection and person of Christ be into question, or Genesis and God's character, because it may not fit into your understanding of creationism?? Science requires interpretations of data, however interpretations are given by fallible men, therefore may be the issue is your either misinterpreting scientific data or just wrong? Especially if you begin with attempting to line up Genesis with your understanding of evolution. Seems like circular reasoning to me! It should always begin with God being the ultimate authority If your having trouble fitting the story of Adam and Eve into Darwins hypothesis of evolution, because theories are proven accurate and evolution has not been scientifically proven; than surely the issue never lays within God's divine inspiration of the scriptures, but with you. Thats a dangerous mindset. God is always right and constant, just as math, and we compare that data with that reality. If our mathematical calculations are inaccurate we would never assume the math is wrong, rather our calculations of the math. Some scientists believe something came from nothing with the same accurate data another scientists would conclude there is intelligent design!
Amen! For God everything is possible, even a 6 day creation week! Jesus belived it. And so do I. Darwins theory is not proven on the macro-evolution. The question is how Great a God we have. Hard to understand with our micro-brains. People always tend to lower God to human standard thinking. Science should be to study creation as most God fearing scientists used to do before they were shut off the room by darwinist faith. Christianity and Darwinism is not able to unite. Totalt different and not anything for christians to mess with. Let each faith stand alone.
I have always felt it was irrelevant as to whether the genesis story was literal or figurative. The point is the truth that is realized about our standing with our creator. All of us live for a very short time on earth. 10,000 years or 10 billion years. It's all the same unimaginable amount of time to a finite being
@@Zeus-bn3nc it is only important for people looking for a reason not to believe in the truths about humanity. If you are looking for a reason not to believe they aren't hard to find. If you are willing to admit your personal falability, personal unholiness, unworthiness, when you realize you cannot be good enough to stand before the holiness of God, all else becomes less than. Grace is unmerited favor. Meaning I have it because of what God did. I don't have all the answers, but I have the ones that matter.
Well, it might be important whether or not you actually believe God. Do you think the Holy Spirit was mistaken or lying when He inspired the author to write the words in Genesis 1 - 3?
@@nooncecares But how do you know that if Genesis is literal and thus wrong? We can't get that from the Bible. What is a 'truth about humanity' that requires God or so? And what does 'unholiness' and 'unworthiness' even mean if we can't apply the context of what's said in the Bible? Additionally, why would one care about the 'holiness of God' if we can't trust his book?
@@rubiks6 you and I probably have a different concept of what inspiration is/means. I am often inspired. I can't know anything for you. You can't climb in my mind and think my thoughts. I know God is real.
With respect to Bill's quest in understanding the Genesis chapters, among the texts that he consulted, there is an astounding absence of ancient Jewish texts such as the Talmud, Midrash, Mishna, Maimonides and the other medieval Rabbinic sources, not to mention the host of contemporary Jewish scholars who have extensively dealt with these issues. This is quite outrageous, frankly, for a scholar such as Craig. His conclusions, in my opinion, given the serious lacuna evidenced here, cannot be taken seriously.
William Lane Craig made a blunder mistake by classifying the Genesis 11 chapters as Mythohistory b/c What happened to Adam on a day he ate the forbidden fruit is reversed in the New Testament, meaning Adam passed over from eternal life unto death & the same is reversed through Jesus, and now it's possible to Passover from death unto Eternal life as/John 5:24. Therefore, would WLC say John 5:24 is also Mythohistory as these scenarios are similar in nature?
@@Kingoflettuce Thanks Ryan. Yes, I listened Dr.WLC classified Original sin is based on Romans 5 as fact while rejecting the historical Adam & Eve described in Genesis 2 isn't literal. I don't think he understands the foundation of the Holy Bible, he along with Joshua may entertaining but not helpful any way to hasten the kingdom of heaven.
It's great to have possible alternatives, but to be honest, science changes all of the time and it won't surprise me a bit that further study of population genetics and new discovery, will open the door for an original Adam and Eve as the 1st people.
It's understandable that we try to find scientific basis for the Bible, but keep in mind that God is not limited to the scientific rules that He set up, and He breaks it throughout the Bible to demonstrate that He is God. Also, remember Jesus's made wine instantaneously, and if we scientifically measured the age of the wine, the results would not be zero time, so God is not even limited by our concept of time.
Science can’t disprove God. From what we observe the origin of the world is sound from a biblical perspective. There was a creator who is outside of time, space and matter. Nothing doesn’t create something.
Evolution process is extremely slow - addition of minute DNA changes over 100s of thousands of generations. Asking the question "Who was the first human?" is as absurd as asking "How old were you when you were growing up?". A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.
Lane Craig is a good philosopher and an appaling exegete and theologian. I'd go as far as to say he is heretical on issues like innerrancy, creation and Molinism. Jesus and Paul both clearly believed in a literal Adam, and Paul taught in Romans 5 and Romans 8 that creation is suffering because of the fall and death is because of Adams sin. You are either in Adam and still fallen or in Christ and redeemed. The only "evidence" that prevents people from accepting a young earth is radiometric dating and the speed of light argument. All other evidence points to a young earth and universe and a global flood which Jesus also believed in.
If Adam and Eve were not the first Man - the crowning jewel of creation - then everything Christ accomplishes in the new covenant is for naught. To reject the creation account of Adam and Eve dissolves the foundation of the entire Christian faith.
The gospel is foolishness to the perishing. The deflation of the biblical narrative does nothing to promote or extend salvation to a damned people. We are failing being the image of God as we continue to seek contrary explanations for the biblical authority. I don't see how the salvation of humanity via the blood of Christ can be reconciled in the heart of one who refuses to believe in the creative authority of a God who cannot be the light until day 4, when he has chosen to craft the sun. Consensus is not science, especially as we grow further from true science. Our biases are becoming more deeply deceptive to proper science. As we move further from truth and heap up bad knowledge it becomes less likely that we will accept findings that prove opposite. When Christ appeals the Genesis Adam and Eve, When the ten commandments appeals to 6 day creation, you must either accept it, or reject it.
@Richard Fox There are equal bodies of evidence for a young earth. The pre-bias we use to interprete the evidence will lead us to the conclusions we choose. We come to the evidence with certain assumptions, mostly seeded by those who preceded us and our contemporaries. We acquiesce to authority because, after all, who should we trust. However if you look into the bodies of knowledge handed to us it is evident that they had an agenda. Critical thinking has long been lost in the academy and replaced with preprogrammed conclusions. It is uncouth to challenged what the professor declares to be established science even when it is still a theory. How is it certain ideas need be protected to the point of litigation? Shouldn't said ideas be strong enough to hold their own? It is also interesting how in flames a person gets when the ideas they hold come under question. As though the very person is under attack. Then mis apply this deference to the one with the challenge as a simple person might do. Symptom of a lack of accurate critical thinking. Please, do be challenged to not make shallow assumptions of someone because they choose to observe and weigh out faith, even in the face of scientific inquiry. Godspeed, in Christ.
@Richard Fox The Earth is clearly not thousands of millions of years old, the evidence is against it. On the other hand, we have genealogies going back about 6000 years. Without the Bible, you would still have no evidence of thousands of millions of years, but plenty of evidence of thousands.
@Richard Fox I'll answer both of your posts here, if I may. "The mountain ranges are still forming in the Alps - their rate of rise can be measured and give us a period of about 300 Million years between the initial tectonic collision and their current height. " So how do you know those rates have not changed, how do you know they were not faster in the past? You don't. "A young age of the earth does not give any time for coal or oil to form in the quantities we have, let alone the millions of years it took to make it." So where are you measuring the length of time taken to form coal? You're simply assuming. "It does not account for erosion of canyons (no, a 40 day flood does not make 1 mile deep canyons)" The Flood lasted for about a year, the amount of water that would have gathered to create the Grand Canyon would have been quite sufficient to form it in a fairly short period, since canyons require water rather than time. One thing is certain, it wasn't created by a river. "for the ancient super volcanoes that have exploded in the past, over 600,000 years ago in the case of the most recent Yelowstone erruption. " The Flood was a period of great seismic activity, no great time scales required. "And, of course, radio metric dating of moon rocks and earth rocks show that the earth and solar system are 4.5 Billion years old." RM dating shows no such thing. I is based on assumptions and has never been tested or calibrated. "Evolution is most definitely science" So demonstrate it, reproduce common descent. "says 25,000 Evolutionary biologists . . . have a chat with one about how they know." Maybe I should ask them if they feel guilty for being paid to do a job that involves pretending Evolution happened. "Remember, it is YOU that wants the facts to fit the Bible - scientists don't really do that." Oh yes scientists do that. When they have a hypothesis that they are convinced is true but their testing fails to give the required result they most certainly do. Do a search on scientific fraud & you may be unpleasantly surprised. Much of the fraud involves biology & medicine, which makes me very uneasy about the claims around COVID and the vaccines.
My question is: Since Jesus and the NT references the first Genesis chapters on occasion: Adam and Eve, the serpent, Pauls speaks of Eve’s deception, “in Adam everyone died”, and the NT also uses those chapters as a premise for arguing justification throughout (especially Romans), do we have reasons to believe those references are about mytho-poetic-history? Like the NT seems to refer to them as literal events.
If Jesus was both fully human and fully God, then perhaps his full humanness results in him believing in what his Jewish tradition believed in, even if that belief was not literally accurate. In addition, how do we know how Jesus actually interpreted the Adam and Eve narrative? Perhaps Jesus viewed that narrative a non-literal story that pointed to a larger truth.
@@ayurajanyamaka9255 Fair. But he refers to the text a bit literally. He timelines the institution of marriage, that “in the beginning, God made Adam and Eve.” Next, he forbids anyone to “asunder” marriage. Like…would Jesus base an argument about creation and marriage using a historic legend?
Like, when has Jesus ever described God’s activity in terms of legend? What other mytho-historical references does Jesus allude to in the Nee Testament?
I think William Lang Craig is still sweeping theological anthropology under the rug. WLC is avoiding the question of why he begins with his assumptions@29:16 because he has to admit he is primarily committed to a different starting position than a true Biblical Worldview, which for him comes from his Philosophy. That is not how you reach a good hermeneutic, which is why he doubts the doctrine of original sin, and does not know what Adam and Eve's sin even is. Without DE Novo Creation/Historical Adam and Eve we lose Federal headship for humanity, as he admitted, nor do we even understand what a Creator God even is. Mesopotamian myths exist because an event occurred that many cultures reported on, which is also a clue in how recent they are. The very presence of genealogies in Genesis 5 is implying actual history, not a myth genre. He keeps saying plausibility, why is the Biblical account not plausible? It is because of his starting places. The question remains, does God get the last word through his revelation, or are we committed to another system of Macro Evolution that is not by any means settled science? I like WLC but when your worldview is Philosophy first your theology won’t be Biblical.
Very well said. Still too nice though. WLC is a man to be avoided by a mile when it comes to theology. Good debater and philosopher for sure. It is him, who starts with myths. Myths of 19th century fool. It is a blasphemy to say, that there are myths in the word of the Living God. And if he won't repent he will bear the consequences... 😔
I said nothing of that sort Arsenne. What do you mean by original sin? Are you Catholic or Protestant? And how would you explain original sin in terms our genetics? Can we see sin in the human gnome?
@@arsennelupin8561 I am not necessarily in disagreement with you concerning our ancestory with apes. And to say that you believe in what you see seems to me not a good enough reason not to believe that God exists, to be honsest. How do you come to such a conclusion? There is no good reason to say that just because you have not seen something that it is not true. I mean, you did not see the Big Bang and how it looked or the formation of the earth and how it took shape. That does not mean that those things did not happen. We see the workings of God in the universe and posit that God exists. There are volumes of good evidence that points to the existence of God and along with that numerous evidences for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth to validate Christian beliefs.
I always find it very bizarre that people like William and others struggle with this 😢. But the son of God didn't nor did the apostle Paul. Like I said, Ken ham and tons of other creation ministers have been giving faithful biblical answers to these issues for decades. I know coz iv bn looking in to this subject early on after I got saved 🎉❤. Adem was not some knuckle draging half man half ape that Got put a soul in. The historical Adam is tied to the Historic christ ❤🎉. In Adem we all die but in Christ we are made alive ❤🎉😊 please check out Answers in Geneies your get the Answers you seek 🎉. God bless 😊❤
Interesting, but people can go down so many rabbit holes. Sometimes we get too close to the wall and can not see the bigger picture. Faith is a balance of seeing but ending up in what we do not complete understand. We see in a mirror dimly now.
I am impressed that Bill was willing to tackle such a project and to actually reveal the insights he’s gained as a result even though such insights challenged his long standing convictions… Since he is an apologist, I was expecting to hear him make more theological excuses for the Biblical representation of Human Development via expounding on their existing creation myths… But Bill pleasantly surprised me… For folks that are Christians, developing this more reasonable scientific aligned perspective of human evolution may cause more reasonable people to stick with Christianity instead of continue forcing myths as facts down their throats… As the conversation was progressing, I could see Justin struggling with what was being revealed. There definitely was some internal struggling going on with him, but overall he handled it well. Very interesting conversation. Thanks for sharing.
The gospel is foolishness to the perishing. The deflation of the biblical narrative does nothing to promote or extend salvation to a damned people. We are failing being the image of God as we continue to seek contrary explanations for the biblical authority. I don't see how the salvation of humanity via the blood of Christ can be reconciled in the heart of one who refuses to believe in the creative authority of a God who cannot be the light until day 4, when he has chosen to craft the sun. Consensus is not science, especially as we grow further from true science. Our biases are becoming more deeply deceptive to proper science. As we move further from truth and heap up bad knowledge it becomes less likely that we will accept findings that prove opposite. When Christ appeals the Genesis Adam and Eve, When the ten commandments appeals to 6 day creation, you must either accept it, or reject it.
Maybe it’s best if people that have to have a scientific faith keep moving past Christianity , it may be too hard for them 😉 kidding sir it’s for all but I’m curious if your a Christian and do you find the Bible to be mythological ?
@@Mellownius ... Yah, I wonder why folks may have a hard time with talking snakes, donkeys, etc... Haven't they seen Shrek (Lol)... Nah, in all seriousness... No, I'm not affiliated with any Religion... I do; however, can see the usefulness in Religion (if properly executed)... I also think it would be useful for Christians to utilize the Mythological nature of many parts of the Bible... I think the Religion would do better than what it's already done and the longevity of it may be more easily sustained. It may be easier for the more scientific minded folks to buy into some of it.
I believe that Dr. Craig's book actually comes out on September 28th. At least that's the date I kept seeing when I looked on various websites (Amazon, Christian book, Apple Books).
There you go. 20:50 is basically what every Christian theology needs to start talking about. Nothing else. Swamidass nailed it. That is the most important question. "How do you know what is figurative vs how do you what what is figurative and with historical reference. "
What a fascinating and relevant discussion. Hillsong's "So Will I" prompted my interest in this topic. Also I would like to see Justin play a solo on the congas in the background.
God has a son!!! Why not daughter? Does he has a wife? God all great all power all wise , eternal, omnipotent will never has a son or daughter or wife. He is almighty the creator of all creations. Jesus peace be upon him is just a prophet and messenger like his brothers before him starting from our father all Adam , Noah , Ibrahem and so on.
WLC is a brilliant mind, but he's simply wrong on this, imo. Any other reading of Genesis other than literal is a huge stretch and I can't even begin to fathom how damaging it is to other verses throughout the Bible that explicitly say it so. I suppose WLC doesn't believe in Christophonies, either. Goes without saying that Jesus interpreted Genesis as historical narrative. Not one time does Christ hint at it being figurative or read any other way other than literal when HE quotes it...same with Paul. Love WLC, and his ministry has blessed me tremendously, but he has this wrong, imo.
William Lane Craig’s problem is he wants to dance on two weddings at the same time or better said serve two masters simultaneously and you already mentioned the coffin’s nail to WLC’s position: Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve as historical persons. Finito la musica. No other proof and argument is needed.
@@williamofbaskerville359 I agree with this. Jesus spoke about them as if they were real people. I don't need any more evidence that they in fact existed
@@stevedjuric8474 Not dumb. Sometimes too much intellect causes one to overthink. WLC is convinced of this, so it's obvious he's thought it through. He's just come to the wrong conclusion, imo. Definitely not a dumb man. A thinking man? Yes. Sometimes we ALL have a tendency to over analyze or analyze from pressupositions.
@@LetsTalkChristMinistries I can number you thousands brilliant minds who are heretical. Rather to be simple and take god at his word.… nobody questions his salvation but living in this time and age especially requires sounds doctrine so not to lead simple mind like me to error. I maybe a doctor and not a brilliant one …but I can see more errors of him which is not worth debating. I did followed him for long time …
Agreed to an extent; Genesis is an accurate historical account but it's not a history book. However, I agree on what Dr. Craig is stating is dangerous! I love Dr. Craig but that disturbed me when he stated if science led him to believe that Adam and Eve was not true basically what would that mean for the resurrection of Christ and the Bible. That's scary and your one of the only people to speak up! Modern scientists postulate something came from nothing, therefore, science as the study of the natural and not metaphysical; data is always interpreted by a fallible man! This seriously bothered me.
@antitoxin Respectfully, no where does the Bible state or even infer that we evolved from earlier life forms. Not even an implication. God is very clear about keeping everything with its kind; the entirety of the beginning of Genesis makes this very clear. He is meticulous and organized. It is an abomination according to Him to mix beast and man. The very idea that we came from earlier life forms is absolutely erroneous, which is why for the entirety of the history of mankind women do not breed with animals. Even in the wild it is rare if not impossible for animals of the same species to intermingle unless mankind has a hand in breeding them. Furthermore, I agree with you! Science is a great tool in the study of the natural as that's its very definition. However, science is limited. According to science there is no God, something can come from nothing, and the earth used to be flat, spontaneous generation, static earth, expanding earth, Pluto is a planet, not a planet that is The question. Science Is a tool to study Gods creation not the litmus test that we measure all of reality by. We never came from earlier life forms. Also human reasoning is the reason why mankind fell; remember that. God says in man's wisdom they became foolish
@antitoxin science doesn’t equal Absolute truth. There are many people studying and researching in various scientific fields and they never have come to a consensus about *anything* - There are many brilliant scientist who believe: 1) The natural world is evidence of a Creator, 2) The evidence we see fits the Bible narrative. 3) Genesis is history and can be proved by scientific evidence. The thing is, everybody have access to the same evidence, but their conclusions differ from each other. You rather believe the Bible or you believe those who contradict scriptures. And I’m not saying we should believe in the Bible even if the evidence contradicts it. I’m saying that there are so much evidence that proves that evolution is a lie, the world is NOT millions of years old but thousands, mankind is unique, we are not related to animals but created in God’s image. There’s even evidence that fits the flood narrative. Either you believe “scientists” (some of them - enemies of God) or you believe other scientists who also have access to the same data and evidence but came to a different conclusion. Draw your own conclusions by looking at both sides.
The main problem with the belief in creation is not that any particular and peculiar set of humans were suddenly brought into existence, but rather that the physical acts of creation and destruction in the observable universe is an ongoing process and not a linear event. If we choose to continue to believe in the validity of a communion between ourselves and a God, who has been perceived as benevolent and caring in some parts of the scriptures; and vengeful and cruel in other biblical stories, then we must be willing to accept that such beliefs are best expressed in the way we treat other people and our helpful toward one another. Such determined civilized behavior has to be a conscious choice of accepting the best of religious tradition and rejecting those parts of that tradition which has been used to cover multitudes of human sins and failings. If a living faith is to have any value, then that compassionate behavior must not only be extended to members of our families, those with whom we live with in our communities, and congregations with shared religious outlooks; but must be exhibited towards those who are considered outsiders, strangers, and foreigners. Recent history, to include all the wars and crimes against humanity of the 20th century, sadly still occurring in the 21st, challenges the core and continued utility of ancient religious belief systems much more than either any philosophical questions about human origins or scientific theories concerning the beginning and ongoing development of the universe.
A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.
"What intelligent person can imagine that there was a first "day", then a second and a third "day" - evening and morning - without the sun, the moon, and the stars … Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden … I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen." church father Origen on Genesis in the 2nd century Origen was also one of the few church fathers that knew Hebrew.
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" - Matthew 24:29 Please explain to us how you believe time will cease to exist, timekeeping will be impossible, or that days will no longer pass during the 2nd coming of Christ.
Yes. Origen was also later declared a heretic (and, later, the church backtracked), and he took a very strong “spiritual” (symbolic) view of Scripture that very few have held, throughout church history, and led to certain problems (which led to being labeled a heretic).
@@houmm08 So you think passion for this subject is something worth feeling embarrassed about... Okay. What subject are you passionate about pursuing knowledge of?
The failure of Craig is he acts if God somehow missed on telling us what happened. It's actually pretty sad. We have to not take it literally and the genealogy is somehow wrong. Sad... sad indeed.
Is Aesop's Fables meant to be taken literally? How about a talking snake or a tree that provides fruit of immortality? You can't seriously believe that these were meant to be a literal historical account of ancient history.
These are just nonbelievers. It is circular reasoning depending on how one defines myth. Also, why only the first eleven chapters? It is only foundational to the whole of Scripture. Joh 5:46-47 KJV 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
I honestly feel if Creation was meant to be taken figuratively, then there should be some sort of indication that isn't found much later in the Bible that it is.
@@danielcristancho3524 So you think they are real because they are not fictional characters ? What ? You understand that it isn't biologically possible for two humans to populate the Earth ? Did she have sex with her sons ? Or did her sons and daughters have sex ? Yuck !
@@caryfrancis8030 Yes, that's kinda the logic. If you're not fictional, you're real. But that wasn't the point. The point is NOBODY SANE USES FICTIONAL CHARACTERS IN THEIR FAMILY TREE. Luke would not have done that to his Lord. As for two people starting the world's population, that couldn't happen today. Our genome, supposedly evolving according to the Macrotards, is too corrupt. But Adam and Eve had no such problem. No, Eve did not have sex with her sons. That's adultery. Her sons mated with her daughters for the FIRST generation. After that it was cousins, second cousins, third and so fourth. But the genome was still brand new. It hadn't had time to be corrupted. Normal children between brothers and sisters was possible. Abraham married his half sister, Sarah. That practice would be a disaster today. By the way, you'd have brothers mating with sisters with your take on origins too.
It amazing me that both of them think there's strong evidence for evolution. It seems so flimsy. For example when talking about humanoids, why believe they are biologically less developed than us? I would have thought the reproductive system that requires a male and female would need to be fully operational at the start. Not something that wasn't predetermined to work before it was in acted. Everything observed in science strongly points to predetermined systems that acts or responds in a predictable way. Not a blind chance way.
I mean this in a friendly way, but what you say makes it clear you don't understand evolution nor the theory of natural selection. If you read up on it you can see that it is not predetermined, and just watch Dawkins' youtube video on the eye for an explanation of how organs and processes do NOT need to be complete from the start. Not blind chance at all.
@@nicolab2075 On the contrary, I'm well aware of what has been presented on evolutionary step-by-step philosophy. It has to explain a progressive historical journey for all life on earth and how each life forms became what we observe today. At some stage each features had to have an original formation when once there wasn't one. Blindly creating novel features with no forethought or aim. In order to believe nature did this, the lowest common denominator for the belief is an original archetypal self replicating cell. Life is predetermined to exist in the male and female by a designer, who exercised forethought, intention, knowledge and the ability to implement it. This is by definition intelligent design and teleology. Nature selection would only works at the level of reproduction. It needs to retain the novel features stopping them from becoming extinct. I've read a few Dawkins books. He spreads himself thinly across to many fields and has become a reporter and commentator. An anti-theist, an atheist, who is militant. I'm not impressed by Dawkins and don't agree with his interpretations of the science he thinks supports his view. His presentations on the evolutionary development of eyes aren't convincing at all in my opinion.
@@watchman2866 I don't understand a lot of this I'm afraid, but one thing that seems odd to me is when you say natural selection 'needs to retain novel features...' - well it does do that. Are you saying it doesn't? If not please explain again. Thanks
@@watchman2866 Btw I wasnt recommending Dawkins per se, only that I know he's done a video with the standard textbook explanation of how complex organs can develop from simple beginnings. What do you mean by 'militant'?
@@nicolab2075 Natural selection, is an umbrella term to save explanations of real fine details. It needs to be qualified by explaining what the change was, what it's changed into, how it is retained, and how it passed on to the next generation. I've read so many articles where the reporter just use the term 'natural selection' but found not actually explanations what it was. The term is used to cover a multitude of dead-ends, blind spots, and a lack of knowledge.
How does one accept the resurrection as literal, but yet conclude that Genesis' description of moulding/inspiration of Adam as a figurative account? Particularly since William claims he is not appealing to contemporary scientific hypotheses around available evidence?
Since you can easily distinguish between a historical letter and a founding myth. Historical fiction didn’t exist until recently, so it’s implausible to think that the gospel letters about a verified person added impossible elements for no reason + a lot of other factors within the gospels that make them reliable testimony like unintended coincidence, unexplained allusions, and trivial details.
Different writers, different era, different purpose of writing. To ask this question without actually considering the posibilities of ancient text is rather ignorant. How does one conclude that the story of king arthur was not a purely historical account in comparison to the battle of hastings?
Indeed - how does one interpret different genres? It’s impossible! There is only one genre, LITERAL LITERATURE, and thus I am confused by books like *Pilgrim’s Progress* or the Book of Revelation.
He's also appealing to the similar accounts of Genesis in the Babylonian creation accounts to explain how ancients did history. Genesis does seem to belong to an ancient Mesopotamian oral culture.
Isn’t Genesis 1-12 in essence a beautiful, poetic illustration of God’s love, the goodness of his creation, our frailty and his plans to rescue us. We don’t really need to get all worked up about genetics, genealogies, neanderthals etc do we?
@@vincentsheehan3193 It is completely beyond me what you can find so beautiful in this story. An all knowing god sets up his own creation to fail. Not only those two but all of human kind falls into the peril of death. The joy doesn't stop there. Your god adds into the mix eternal fire and brimstone in an atrocious fiery conscious torment. But then your god become the hero by sending his own son to save us all. Your god sends himself to himself for a debt we somehow owe. What would you call a fireman who sets a house on fire and then runs back into the building to save the people inside? Then afterwards calls himself a hero and accepts the praise of the onlookers. What a crock of shit you're selling. Moron.
If Adam and Eve were believed to be historical by the earliest Hebrews, if every man and his dog knew that Adam and Eve caused all our woes, we'd expect them to be mentioned all over the place in the Old Testament. However, they're nowhere to be found. They're not in the psalms, or in the prophets, or in the wisdom literature. It seems reasonable to conclude the stories of the Garden etc were written after the psalms etc, and were never intended to be taken at face-value. Just as I would not expect to see dragons rising up out of the Mediterranean any time in the future, I would not expect to see talking snakes any time in the past. The distant future is hidden in mist and myth. So too the distant past.
Evolution could be considered a modern myth of the past then. Also, you fail to realize that when everything was perfect in the beginning, why couldn't Adam and Eve communicate with animals. Also, Satan was the talking THROUGH the snake.
So because there isnt Scripture name dropping Adam and Eve after[[only in the later OT ofc, cuz new testament]], that means they didn't exist. God help us.
Man is not just body and soul. Watchman Nee describes well the tripartite nature of man, being body, soul and spirit. Many animals have elements of a soul i.e. emotions, intellect and will. but these are enriched greatly in mankind. The Spirit is our conscience and ability to commune with God, spiritual awareness. Our tripartite nature reflects the tripartite nature of God.
Craig states his primary position; he is a Christian theologian. Thus whatever he does he “reverse engineers” his work. Not an objective exercise at all. So what’s the point? He always has a point going in. So wish Hitchens was still around!!
We all try to understand things within the confines of a worldview that we accept for other reasons when considering a particular philosophical or scientific question within that worldview (i.e. you can think Christianity is true for other reasons and look at this problem with a view to reconciling it with truths you accept for other reasons). However, Craig also states that he didn't go into this unwilling to abandon his preconceptions.
Those words refer to gnosticism, which claimed to have a deeper knowledge ("gnosis"; here translated as "science") of the world. We cannot refute arguments by just saying they are false!
"The body derives its origin from the earth, or as עפר aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; נשמת חיים nishmath chaiyim, the breath of LIVES, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding."
Interesting what Billy Craig said about original sin being dependant upon a literal Adam & Eve which is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul and that Jesus Christ also mentions Adam & Eve. Others believe that both Paul & Christ were operating in a cultural framework which took this for granted as historical fact but they were limited to the understanding of their day. The idea that Christ could operate in his divine omniscience at all times from the confines of a human brain is "Unbelievable" (to use the theme of these broadcasts) and use of Adam & Eve as representative Man & Woman is valid regardless of original sin being a "thing". Christ offers us righteousness & blessing as an alternative to selfishness and curses, so who cares about how we became bad in the first place?
@Re L The Catholics and the Church of England both accept evolutionary science since there is revelation through nature and also revelation through scripture and we have to carefully harmonise both of them to get the fullest view of reality. We exploit good science to enjoy the benefits of technology. In the same way good Theology can vastly improve our quality of life. If the church claims to preach the truth but denies the proven realities of science then it cannot be fully in the truth. In the same way man cannot live by science alone. We need the best of both worlds!
Im an atheist and I have always thought WLC seems like a real nice guy who truly is seeking truth. Apologists like him are more likely to make me consider his arguments than the literal interpretation type.
Well said. Pursuit of the truth requires a humble heart and mind.
lets see truth and be biasless and yet someone makes you think in some perspective simply because they are nice,be humble so you wouldnt follow someone just because you like them becauss you believe yourselves are wise
An apologist by definition is not seeking truth. They defend a preferred narrative & typically do so NOT by providing objective evidence, but instead by demanding evidence AGAINST that preferred stance.
As an example, I have no evidence that Big Foot exists, but u cannot prove he doesn’t exist. This is the opposite of science. Religion starts with a supernatural claim & then demands we cannot prove it to b false. An apologist is always finding creative ways to square the Bible (or Torah or Koran, etc) with current times & against scientific fact (claims supported by objective evidence).
I point my evangelical friends to William Craig because I respect his education as a theist & feel he is a wonderful communicator. In my opinion, a religious person who seriously pursues theism is much less dangerous than the average church goer who shows up to a giant shed church each week & is brainwashed into prosperity preaching, Christian Nationalism, & often….bigotry as it is personally embraced by that particular pastor/organization. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Craig has never put forth any work that started from a blank slate. He is always defending Christianity & the belief in God.
Seeking truth in a fan fiction story by analyzing Spiderman, Hermione, Harry Potter mud man and rib woman is a strenge endeavor.
@@TorianTammas Jesus mythicism is a fringe theory not respected by any serious scholars.
I am 100% convinced that William Lane Craig and David Lee Roth are the same person.
It's uncanny!
@@ArmorofTruth I think he's a great philosopher, but maybe he lives a double life :)
LOL
I saw an old photo of William Lane Craig from 84 singing in a band called Van Halen
I knew he look familiar
I really appreciate Josh's humility and intelectual integrity. These traits are incredibly refreshing within the larger christian debate/conversation within this space.
Josh seemed receptive of this new information
Agree with Rob. Check out some prior interviews. B ut maybe he's learned to be more reserved in recent times. Still digs Biologos, it seems, a lot.
@@Polynuttery Based on this interview and his book, I do genuinely believe that Josh has strong convictions but a charitable posture towards those who disagree with his positions. It's a difficult thing to balance, our opinions and our humility. Sometimes we tip the scale of that balance too far in either direction. Based on your comment here, i'm assuming you also hold strong opinions and find it difficult to give people with opposing views the benefit of the doubt. So, all kidding aside, I do stand by my position, and if Josh, in future interviews, presents himself as an arrogant and uncharitable guy, I will adjust my opinion.
Yes, I agree. I have read his book and interacted with him on his website and I am deeply impressed by the way he tries to build bridges with people of different perspectives, and by his openness in admitting when he has made a mistake. Of course like all of us he is only human, and the way he was treated by biologos is obviously still a sore point for him.
@@Polynuttery why ? How did Josh behave as you watched him in other videos ?
Does anyone read their Bible's nowadays??? _1 Chronicles 1_ literally starts with Adam in the genealogical account and continues to show how king David eventually descends from that whole line of mankind!!! It's very simple:
_Before Flood_
*Adam* (Progenitor of mankind)
*Seth* (Jesus would descend from him)
_After Flood_
*Noah*
*Shem* (Semitic Ancestor)
_Ancestor of Hebrews_
*Heber* (Hebrew Ancestor)
*Abraham*
*Isaac*
_Founding Father of Israel_
*Jacob* (Named Israel and its Father)
*Judah* (Father of the Jews)
*David* (King of Israel and Judah)
*Jesus Christ* (Heir to David's throne)
*Shem = Semitic Ancestor*
*Hebrew = Ethnicity*
*Israel = Nationality*
*Judah = 4th son, and 4th tribe of Israel/Jacob, and tribe of the Jews.*
Haha y’all gettin wild with this in depth lore.
Exactly. It is the Bible´s own teaching that is being ignored, sidetracked, or contradicted, so that men might indulge in intellectually stimulating "speculations," rooted in naturalistic assumptions, that are clearly incompatible with what the Bible says. Craig needs to realize that God does not give us the option of choosing between two Christian "faiths"-- a simple, literal, exoteric faith for the ignorant masses, and a more sophisticated, metaphorical, esoteric faith for the "initiated" Phd´s. There is only one Christian faith, its contents revealed in a book which is not only inerrant but also perspicuous (clear) in its fundamental teachings. However, to receive those teachings, one must humble his mind and accept those teachings with the simple faith of a child, and hold fast to them as the underlying, unwavering presupposition of one´s investigations into ALL areas of knowledge. Thus, the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the parents of the entire human race, who lived thousands, but not hundreds of thousands of years ago, must be accepted BY FAITH. There is no honest way one can insert two hundred thousand years of history between Adam and Noah, in light of the genealogies given to us in Scripture. To subject the clear and unequivocal teachings of Scripture to the guns of skeptical, higher critical thinking, as Craig seems to be doing, is a sure path to agnosticism and the erosion of faith. One simply cannot harmonize the teachings of Scripture with theories, assumptions, and conclusions about natural history based on post-Enlightenment Deistical thinking about the natural world and what we find in it.
@Richard Fox You are misinformed.
Yes , they simply won't take God at his word .
@Richard Fox That's reprobate thinking.
Ever learning all that is consistent with their presuppositions but never coming to knowledge of the Truth.
Amen , Greg !
?
Or reality or even honesty
Amen .
Justin tips his hand in his massive agreements with Craig. Good did it, science isn’t infallible.
I have a lot of respect for both William Lane Craig and Joshua Swamidass. I do have some questions about the references to the "mytho-history" in the New Testament. Dr Craig handled the problem with having a figurative Adam (by providing a real Adam), but there are other historic references as well. In Hebrews 11, Noah and Enoch (also mentioned in Jude 1:14) are mentioned in a list of heroes that includes people from outside Gen 1 thru 10. The flood is also mentioned in a couple places (Matthew 24:38 and 1 Peter 4:4). Furthermore, the genealogies list people from before Gen 10 as well as after. It seems odd that the authors would knowingly mix figurative and real persons. There isn't even a hint that the authors are not referencing real people. For instance, in Hebrews 11:7,8 -- Noah (v7) and Abraham (v8) are commended in the same way. "By faith Noah...", "By faith Abraham..." I am also interested in knowing how the flood (apparently a historical catastrophic event in the minds of the N.T. writers) fits into the narrative. Could a local flood, that wiped out all mankind except Noah & family, have occurred also about 700K years ago? If so, how would that impact his hypothesis? Finally, 2 Peter 2:4-6 references the fallen angels (of Genesis 6) and the flood. To me, the issue is bigger than Adam and Eve. We must also reconcile the other people and events mentioned in the N.T.
Great questions!
It’s quite disappointing especially he calls himself an apologist.
@@johnchristiandeguzman5295 i didn’t mean to imply that this idea is not worth exploring- only that pushing Adam so far into the past brings a whole history with it that needs to be reconciled with the Biblical record.
science above scripture Keith. that's what it's all about for these guys
@@hondotheology that's ridiculous. They're throwing ideas out there. Maybe you didn't even watch the video, because right of the gate Craig clearly states that scripture comes first. I suspect it's more comfortable for you to think of your faith in total simplicity, that anything outside your comfort zone must just be coming from Christians less committed than yourself. It's pure intellectual laziness. I don't even agree with these guys, but to claim they don't have first loyalty to scripture is absolute nonsense.
First, this is a fascinating discussion. I also highly respect Dr. William Lane Craig. That said, my biggest question is why are there such specific genealogies in the early Genesis account? Like how long each man lived and how old they were when they had sons? That seems awfully specific for historic mythology.
I also would say, WLC rebuttals to Adam and Eve being “in the beginning” was very weak. If a football team says “the beginning of our season was good” one would expect the first couple weeks. However, if they meant their final game, it would be absurd. In Big Bang cosmology, Adam and Eve’s arrival would start after 99% of all historical time has already passed.
You know the answer to your first question. It's that the Genesis account was written as true history. If we write it off as allegory, we blow apart the whole foundation of Scripture. It's not so simple to just interpret some verses as figurative speech. We must deny the historicity of God's actual involvement in the world and invent entirely new unscriptural descriptions of his involvement both in purpose and means - and write our own books about it! It's an intoxicating but fatal doctrine.
1. He didn't deny an Adam and Eve, did he?
2. I the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Not in the beginning God created Adam and Eve. So is there an argument?
@@ProfYaffle I believe in a literal Adam and Eve too, but they are organic cyborgs yet to be created in our time traveling future, which will have their consciousness downloaded from Meta. This is obviously possible because God is timeless and spaceless. I mean the differences between that story vs the one where God carefully fashions Adam with His own hands in the clay and breathes the breath of life into him are immaterial, right? The process doesn't matter. God will still be responsible. Can I write a book about that and debate somebody about it?
Like my joke, Craig has ceded so much Biblical ground to "appeal" to the carnal mind that it's a joke to attempt to call it Biblical in any way. 2 Peter 3 teaches that it is willful ignorance towards the reality of God and His judgement that leads men to accept gradualism and deny the global flood. If people wish to reject the inspiration of Scripture, fine, but don't claim to accept it while sacrificing the entire narrative arc and key story details at the altar of fallible human wisdom. That is something Scripture clearly condemns. Choose whether to doubt God's word or humanity's ability to flawlessly peer back into "deep time." I'll always choose the latter.
stories can be specific. Ever read Lord of the Rings?
@@michaelhenry1763 No comparison. Prov 30:5,6 Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.
This would have been a great debate to have heard between Ken Ham and William Lane Craig
Ham is chop liver!
Ham is not a good rep for young earth creationism. Daniel Faulkner and other scientists should speak in his place.
@@Whatsittuya407 no one is a good rep for YEC. It’s not even a debatable point. All young earth creationists are presuppositionalist crack pots.
@Whatsittuya407 There is no credible YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST scientists. The entire "science" of Creation Science is based on several falsehoods (this is kind I should have said lies!). Here is the problem with the entire YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM Worldview, and please note I am a PhD level Christian Physicist that won 2 International R&D 100 awards and I developed ionizing radiation dosimeters and detectors for nuclear weapons safeguards. The first problem is that Science isn't a WORLDVIEW, Science is a METHODOLOGICAL approach to understanding the Natural World. The primary objective with Science is TRUTH. YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS are master TRUTH manipulators and I don't care if the Scientist making the claims is sincere or if they are just charlatans trying to make a buck, it's still dishonest either way. Push back at ANY Creation Scientists that tries to claim Science is a WORLDVIEW, or there is such a thing as multiple varieties of Science, there is only one type of Science. There is no such thing as "SECULAR" Science as Ken Ham and others like to blather on about to DECEIVE people and most YOUNG EARTHERS just don't know any better unfortunately so I don't blame them. Science doesn't have a "secular" or Christian version of Science. People bring their WORLDVIEWS with them that do Science and therefore you can be an athiest and do great Science, just as you can be Christian and do Science.
The second major mistake of YEC is they created an entirely separate CREATIONISM JOURNAL to publish their "scientific " journal articles. Do you know why, it's because real Science Journals won't publish their nonsense.
Look Science is Science it's a method to understand nature and I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ and the Ressurection. You don't have to be an Athiest to understand the Earth is ancient as I do. Remember God is outside time, space, and matter and is therefore not bound by these. This is basic Philosophy and Theism.
Don't let Ken Ham and others cause you to loose your faith. You can be a great Scientist and also be a faithful Christian. I actually teach Worldviews and the 5 Basic Beliefs of the Christian Faith have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH GENESIS or a YOUNG EARTH.
Also Ken Ham makes his money selling ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos and I have watched every one with an open mind and they all have many major scientific untruths and all are absolutely garbage from a Science standpoint. If these give you a WARM FEELING by all means listen to them, but please don't make the mistake Ken Ham makes and start pointing a NASTY FINGER at PhD Christian Physicists and PhD Christian Astronomers and Geologists that understand the age of the Earth. My mother ALWAYS said if someone other than GOD or JESUS is pointing their finger at you , they have THREE FINGERS POINTING BACK AT THEM!!
Listen to Matt Walsh on WHY HE ISNT A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS. Matt is smart and non-Scientific and Matt trashes YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM very effectively!!
God Bless....
Just did a video on William Lane Craig’s position- it’s sad what he’s willing to compromise but he’s missing something important.
What do you think he's missing?
@@joelebert9767 that’s what the video is for 😂😂
I appreciate any intellectual discussion that is sincere. We will never “figure out” God and how he designed existence and played it out….
‘Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.
Once again though I do appreciate your works.
Oscar Cullmann once said that Genesis is a prophecy into the past. Just like we believe that God will resurrect us in the future and create a new world free of death and suffering, we can believe that he originally created Adam and Eve.
I need a debate between WLC and Ken Ham.
Yes. I think this I really don't like. Myth.
So you think we can decide whether what God's Word says it's true or not?
I don't think WLC would cope, all he has is philosophy, his theology is abysmal.
A massacre
I’d prefer to see Johnathan Sarfati debate WLC.
It doesn't 'take courage to take on these types of questions', if you are willing to subvert scripture, judging it through the lens of human reasoning. It takes courage to stand on the scriptures, subverting everything else to its authority.
Very well said
Completely missed the entire point of the discussion. The question is, what is teacher actually teaching given the literary genre in an ancient culture
I read the Dr Craig's book. To dismiss the events in Gen 1 - 11 because they are too fantastic doesn't sit well with me. My God can do anything just by commanding it.
William Lane Craig has such a distinct voice that is really fun to impersonate
It's impossible for me. Lol
I read this in WLC’s voice
Especially of you can make it PLAaaUSIBOooOWL! 😏
Job talks a lot about the Genesis of the world all books must be taken together.
The way I see it is what if there was no story of Adam and Eve and just a story of how man developed into a sinful nature slowly over time ? Imagine how much less profound and meaningful that would be. The story of Adam and Eve is a beautiful story of the creation of humanity and the fall of man that has so much depth and lessons to gather from it that we are blessed to have it around. God can do anything anyway so he could have made the world like that just like Jesus turned water into fermented wine. He could create a universe that appears fermented in a way.
Just a quick reminder that no theologian worth their salt believes Genesis 1-11 is to be taken as historical.
@@teachpeace3750 only serious theologians with proper discernment understand the literal narrative of the book of Genesis. The compromised theologians you speak of are only seriously clueless
@@teachpeace3750 just a quick reminder.
@@bwc6520 this isn’t really a debate outside of fundamentalist seminaries. As a graduate of a moderate seminary, I can assure you, this is a settled issue among serious scholars and theologians.
Well said truth is truth and doesn't care what you think.
Can we say that most of the Bible, including the new testament, is mythohistory, even the essential resurrection? When do we draw the line? Can you see why people will lose faith in Christianity? If you say the word of God in the be Bible is not inherent and not literal, then why can't people be justified in believing that the resurrection was part of the genre of the time?
There were multiple eyewitness accounts to the Resurrection and it absolutely transformed them and their life trajectory and humanity's understanding of reality. And much of it was documented. It's about as opposite of mythohistory as we can get.
then there is no basis for Christianity you draw the line when you get to abraham the basis of Christianity is Jesus in my opinion the adam and eve can be considered a parable
You clearly didn't watch till the end
@@lkae4 same as Mormonism, except with the Mormon religion it was better attested and is growing faster than any other form of Christianity. Your point doesn't make it true.
If Adam was created while other people were already existing outside of the Garden, why does Adam seek a helper among animals and not even consider any of the women that already existed? God then creates for him Eve, a woman, but women already existed. It seems this would blow a major hole in Swamidass' theory, right? Thanks in advance for answering.
It's amazing to me that learned individuals could be so earnest in discussing if Adam and Eve actually existed. How can these people be taken seriously.
I admire Dr Craig's intelligence and philosophical reasoning.
But I completely disagree with his views of Adam.
I don't see how you can believe death and resurrection of Christ but not believe in Adam and Eve.
That is true. You can't, therefore Jesus was not resurrected.
@@michaelhenry1763 huh? How in the world did you conclude that
@@gabepearson6104 you make an excellent connection between belief in Adam & Eve and belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a similar connection that Paul makes in Romans. Adam is the first human who brings death; Jesus is the first human that brings life.
I reverse the connection. Because Adam & Eve did not exist thereby original sin did not exist to condemn humanity; Jesus did not resurrect to defeat sin because there was no original sin to defeat because Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit.
@@michaelhenry1763 no one ever said Adam and Eve didn’t exist…
@@gabepearson6104 isn’t that what the original post is saying?
Of course Adam and Eve did not exist. They are mythical characters designed to illustrate deeper truths about humanity: our capacity to do good or evil, our desire to gain wisdom, etc.
If I hear the word "plausible" one more time this year ...
😂
Nicely put at the end: even though our view of Adam might be blurry, the resurrection of Jesus Christ has a profound weight of evidence for it. And I trust Jesus Christ.
There is no objective evidence for any supernatural claim in any religious text. This includes the resurrection of the character Jesus Christ.
At about 37:00, Dr. Craig states that it seems "plausible that this is a figurative account (of Adam and Eve) He also states that it just seems so implausible that God took an actual rib to make Eve or that He created Adam from dust. He states that the description of God in Genesis 1-3 is just anthropomorphic and his actions in Genesis 1-3 are figurative. But I've always taken the account to be a good example of a Christophany as in Joshua 5:13-15 and Genesis 18. So, Jesus (=God) could walk with Adam and Eve in the garden. The actions of God in Genesis 1-3 have parallels in the New Testament. So, to me, they're not so hard to believe. For instance, in John 20:19-23, Jesus breathes on his disciples to give them the Holy Spirit (spiritual life). This is similar to God breathing life into Adam. In John 9:6, Jesus spits on the ground and makes mud. He puts the mud on the blind man's eyes then instructs him to "go wash in the pool of Siloam." The man is healed. This is similar to God making man from dust in Genesis 2. Although I agree that Genesis only provides broad strokes of the creation events (and the timing is unknown), I also believe that the cast of characters and their actions belong on an actual time-line.
If the authors of Genesis were inspired by god, why didn't god inspire them to be more accurate in describing the origins of humanity? It wasn't necessary to talk about neanderthals and H. heidelbergensis, of course not, but the stories written in Genesis to explain human origins are utterly remove from reality, so much so that what we see here is complex mental gymnastics to give these stories some validity.
The validation of the story is found in the truthfulness of things like the envy of Cain and how it destroys him. The necessity of sacrifice. The evil desires of mankind to dominate and amass wealth for their own selfish desires. To look around at what was obviously a creation and be so determined not to be subjugated to a creator that you demand proof when deep in your heart you know there isn't a proof you will accept because really you don't want to be held to account for the sins no one knows about but you. You want to be the master of your world, because then it is you who decides who is good and who isn't, but really, you weren't designed to be that judge and it is actually a burden too heavy to carry.
These acounts are myths or legends. That Christians still seek to reconcile them with history is an obvious example of motivated reasoning.
@@davethebrahman9870 I think you should look up the archeological evidence.
How would you know what's accurate if you weren't there?
What do you mean by “accurate”? I think you mean “modern scientific” but expecting an ancient Hebrew to think and communicate like moderns is bizarre.
The Bible says, " Now, let us make man in our image". For this to be, man would have to be not in Gods image, pre-existing man in Gods image.
There were no men before Adam.
@@martinploughboy988 not Made in the imago dei
@@nathanmosqueda3185 Adam was made on the sixth day of Creation, there was no time for men to b made before him.
@@martinploughboy988 learn what the imago dei mean
@@nathanmosqueda3185 I know what it means, Adam was the first man, he was not descended from anyone.
I like the minimalistic approach Dr. Craig and others gives. This approach is where apologists usually defend things that most people can agree on and only push on the essentials, such as the resurrection. This is a great way to defend one’s position, but it makes for problematic theology if one forces this thought on the text of Scripture.
The issue seems to be instead of standing on the ground these apologists are defending, that is, these bare facts, some apologists want to line up the ground they gave up matching the little ground they apoplectically stand, say Genesis 1-11. In my view, It would be better if the minimalistic apologist stayed on their intellectual hill, where they seem to do well.
In my understanding, these apologists want to restructure Scripture into their image, to make Scripture line up according to the cultural likeness. They want to make for themselves and a biblical interpretation that reaches such heights that no argument can stand against it, but I think they do not weigh the cost of what they do. Sometimes it is good to step back and consider what one is fighting for and what one has to give up to appease the masses of the day.
@Richard Fox
Hey Richard, Thank you for your reply.
I like your statement; it is short and straightforward. The issue I have is that "intellectual honesty" is subjective.
It is subjective in that many Athiest have said that "intellectual honesty" requires that we reject miracles altogether.
And many Christians would say "intellectual honesty" requires that we reject the majority of the Old Testament as a myth, rejecting historical figures from Abraham well into the kings of Judah.
And as for the New Testament, the Jesus seminars, that had about 50 critical biblical scholars insist that "intellectual honesty" forces us to disregard or view with suspicion many of the Word of Jesus.
I am trying to say that "intellectual honesty" really comes down to each individual and the worldview they adhere to, or as the Joker put it, "Hubba, Hubba, Hubba, money, money, money, who do you trust, who do you trust?"
To be honest myself, I am a YEC, not because I ignore science. Rather, I believe science supports YEC, though I know most scientists disagree with this, and there is evidence to the contrary. Still, I do respect other Christians who disagree with this. But I would like for people to consider what they believe and why they believe it. I know that too many Christians young-earth creationism is a stumbling block, and to the lost, it is foolishness, but for me, it is true and has scientific credibility.
Thank you again for your reply, and God bless.
Richard Fox
2 hours ago
The simple fact is that intellectual honesty requires we acknowledge the Creation story to be a myth.
@Richard Fox Thank you, Richard
So you are a paleontologist? That is impressive; I know that it is hard work, but it is worth the effort.
Still, I think your statement that "not a shred of evidence for a young earth" goes too far. There are YEC paleontologists who believe that paleontology provides good support for a young earth.
You also said that "evidence from many many disciplines supports this view." I know this to be true also; that is why I said in the previous post that while "I believe science supports YEC, though I know most scientists disagree with this, and there is evidence to the contrary." Still, there are YEC creationists in many if not all of these other fields that believe the data does more than give sherd of evidence for the YEC position; it proves it.
Now, your last comment is, to me anyway, the best argument for an Old Earth, that being distant starlight. This issue is the one that I had my greatest struggle in, though I know you were speaking to the formation of stars. How does this starlight travel from billions of light-years away to Earth in only a few days, seeing that stars were visible on day four? Models have been proposed to solve this issue, one of the proposals is by Russ Humphreys. His model works well with the current understanding of science. The drawback is that while his model works well for starlight from other galaxies, the light from our galaxy exceeds the time frame of a young earth; Humphreys is still working on this model.
There are different models as well, but the point is that there are Ph.D. scientists from many, if not all, fields of research that claim that if they are to be intellectually honest, the area of study they are in supports a young earth.
Still, this assumes that our, the YEC people, view on Genesis is correct, but we may have that wrong. The more I read from scientists like Hugh Ross, the more I find that his view of the creation account does hold weight. In this view, the days were ages, not literal days, and God used progressive creation to make the Earth ready for human life. This could be the correct view of Scripture, but to me, the Young Earth view fits better.
Of course, I know of Waltons view, and at first, I had thought that this was a solid view that I could get behind. But after reading more on the subject and reviewing Dr. Craig's thoughts on the problems this view holds, I now think it carries little weight.
I have also looked at Theistic evolution, but this is not a great view of science or Scripture, in my opinion.
Recently Joshua Swamidass, who appears with Dr. Craig in this video, has released a book called The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. This is a differnt take on what it means to be descended from Adam, and I think it has value, but it has to be grounded in a good view of Scripture. I believe the Hugh Ross model and Swamidass can work well together, other than the fact Ross believes that there was a literal Adam and Eve while Swamidass believes in common descent.
Again, the only thing I do not like is how brothers and sisters in Christ can so easily disregard and belittle each other for honest disagreements. If we are to be intellectually honest, we must consider the other side, look at the evidence, and weigh it ourselves. This is where people like Ken Ham tend to wavier; they will say something dismissive about those who disagree and never really consider the other side. This is how I became a Hugh Ross fan; while I was on Ham's side, Ross seemed to act more Christian than Ham. Since then, I have picked up all the books Ross has put out and read most of them. My view of Ross's integrity as a scientist and Christian has only strengthened over the years. He always presents himself in a humble, very Christ-like manner in debates with YEC. Ross seems to be a good scientist as well, in that he seems to know his stuff, and he seems to be knowledgeable in Scripture, which makes Ross well worth listening to.
Thank you again for your thread and your work as a paleontologist, and God bless.
@William Billy Craig
The starlight is the equal problem for evolutionist. Universe is too big for light to travel through it as we observe it today. So you shouldn't really have that problem. And I think folks from CMI responded to this problem quite well.
Genesis 1-11 is ancient historical narrative, people. The story moves seamlessly from ch. 1 through 50 as indicated by the 10 or 11 unit markers "these are the generations of..." or perhaps translated, "this is the account of." It is an arbitrary tear in the weave of the Genesis tapestry to treat ch. 1-11 as another genre from ch. 12-50. If we stick to grammatical/historical exegesis, we remain true to the uniform interpretation of Genesis, unashamed that God "Elohim" is both Creator and "YHWH," the LORD of the covenants of Israel who sent His Son, the true Adam, the true Israel, the Offspring of Eve, who restores us to His image and crushes the serpent/Satan's head. Presuppositions of inerrancy in the original mss. and sufficiency of the Scripture are on the table, yes. Otherwise your presuppositions are like Craig, using recently discovered ANE literature (Gilgamesh, etc., etc.) to identify Genesis' literary genre by equivocation. This is a demotion of the Word of God. Jesus interprets the account of Genesis as historical, so do the OT and NT writers. Gen. 1-11 is foundational to Torah, the rest of Scripture, and the Christian faith. It stands against every effort to suggest by a hermeneutic of suspicion that God did not directly create "the heavens and the earth" or "the universe" (Heb. 11) simply by speaking it all into existence in six literal days. It will prevail even as the gates of hell make inroads through so-called science that presupposes millions of years before concluding millions of years. That's all for now, folks. Good day.
Hahahahaha
That’s right!
Appreciate the stretching this requires of me. Thank you all 3 gentlemen
WLC stated that he started this research unsure of where it would lead, but then stated that he starts with Scripture as the foundation and then see if modern science potentially aligns with what they uncover. My question is, what if they found that there still were very clear contradictory inconvenient facts that went against what was laid out in scripture. Would he be forced to change his stance and throw out the Genesis account altogether? If even then he still disregarded inconvenient findings, what would the point be of the research in the first place?
Always learning but never arrived to the knowledge of the Truth.
Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through ONE man. So it seems at least Paul thought that Adam was one singular person, hence taking the genesis account literally in that regard .
According to bible mythology sin entered the world via the creator of everything, bible god.
@@MrAuskiwi101 that too!
Good point. If you affirm Biblical inerrancy you probably have to affirm a literal Adam
@@jasper2621 I think it's more to do with taking the bible literally or allegorically, rather than being inerrant. Paul took Adam to be a literal single person going by this verse .
@@jezah8142 exactly. Just looking at genesis, it’s not clear whether it’s literal or allegorical, but add in Paul’s commentary and you clearly have to read it as literal.
WLC is finally breaking. He is just as confused about the book as the next novice. And I thought he had all the answers all these years.
He’s a fallible human being who made the mistake of trying to insert evolution into the Bible. We are to seek the Holy Spirit for all the answers, not man.
@@Keesha_Hardy Thank you Kesha, for your response. It is not easy to have all the dialogues we are all having about God and how we validate the "revealed text".
I think a good number of believers today, perhaps including yourself, would never think it is okay to enslave other people, or stone witches or gay people to death. I think most people realize that those actions are immoral, even if they are sanctioned in the bible.
So, for me, I do not have a problem with people believing as Christians. However, I keep my eyes open and engage in conversations and dialogues, to keep me aware of when believers start using their belief as a weapon against people. It is how dangerous that believers can easily become that worries me the most, and it is the reason I listen to religious stations and talks, in order to know when the temperature of believers start moving in the direction of real harm to real people.
I'm sure it must be obvious to you that one of the main reasons why dogmatic believers insist that the Bible is inerrant, is so they can justify horrible things they are doing or want to do to people.
By the way, I do not think you are like this at all, since I don't actually know you. But, I've seen a lot of believers who hold terrible views about other people, and do horrific things in the name of the book.
Perhaps, you can help me understand what your thoughts are about how we can make sure that believers DO NOT use their beliefs as weapons against the populace.
So appreciate your interaction with me. Thank you
Why would one man have all the answers? A man who makes a mistake in one area doesn’t invalidate his previous good work.
@@Keesha_Hardy "seek the Holy Spirit for answers.." of course, and you get tens of thousands of christian denominations worldwide with their founders claiming to receive all their teaching from the Holy Spirit...
@@Keesha_Hardy Sounds like you really know what the smart people told you to believe.
Good job not thinking for yourself.
I see a lot of people are in the same club as you.
Good work... !
I must say on the one hand I have tremendous respect for the work of people like Tour and Dr. Swamidass have committed themselves to and share their findings with us. I love knowledge and could have never come to the info they're dishing out. On the other hand, I ask myself if they're listening to themselves with statements like humans outside of Adam and Eve, and whether God really made mankind out of clay as taught in the Bible. Some of these things they're questioning seem to be the bedrock of Christianity and salvation.
If you think salvation is based on whether you believe humans were literally molded out of clay and popped into existence as adults, you need to go back to the drawing board
@@thucydides7849 What have I done to you for such personal attacks and disrespect?
I don't understand why three well-educated people are having this discussion. Humans evolved from other species. They weren't created whole. What am I missing?
I'm not arguing for literalism on genesis. But if Dr. Craig believes in creatio ex nihilo, it's strange that he would be so flabbergasted at creation from dust de novo.
I think he does not believe in genesis because the way its written. After all we are star dust, acording to science. But genesis is very similar to other mithological explanations for natural fenoma and not consistent with the nature of god
Dr. Craig is a philosopher that relies on empirical evidence and everyday experiences. So if the evidence for the beginning of the universe is that it is the beginning of spacetime, then it would be reasonable for him to believe the universe was created ex nihilo. But with regards to biology, no one has empirically seen any humans coming out de novo. Just to clarify on Dr. Craig's epistemology.
why are people debating this in the 21st century....humans trace back to at least 200.000 years...homo erectus 1.8 million
He’s not flabbergasted at de novo creation. He’s talking about whether the biblical account is literal or figurative. And given that it anthropomorphises God as having hands to mould clay and a mouth to breath into Adam’s nostrils WLC views this as a figurative account.
@@paulrichards6894 Good luck with putting facts on this comment feed, most of these people don't deal with facts, it hurts their religion too much.
"Magical tree"? Your words, not Yahweh's! The church cannot and should not be comfortable with your view. So Packer, Wenham & others are comfortable with this doesn't make it correct. The bottom line is this, for someone who claims to be a Christian and a defender of the faith, your unbelief is astounding!
My belief in a literal 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve stems from this question.
Is it more compatible with the nature of God as understood by Christianity to believe He;
A. Gave us a historical text that is not literally reliable, but only meant to be taken figuratively?
Or
B. Gave us a literally reliable text that requires faith to believe in spite of the broadly accepted scientific paradigm?
My Bible says over and over again to have faith, and to believe when it's difficult to believe. I'm not aware of a single text that says that God speaks in mythology (unless you take the parables of Jesus as such. Since they are plainly labled as parables, I don't think that fits.).
@Richard Fox at one point there was clear evidence that the earth was the center of the universe. And if there is a God, then there is definitely also a devil whos goal is to deceive.
There is scientific evidence on my side. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (microbiologist), Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysicist) and many more whos names I can't remember can explain that side better than I can, but from a purely philosophical point of view (as that is the specialty of Dr. Craig) it is more consistent with the character of God to believe that His word could be easily understood in a plain sense reading, than to believe He would leave us with a riddle that must be read with a key in the form of a specific literary genre.
@Richard Fox Not to be rude, but you're simply wrong. The belief that the earth was at the center of the universe was based on a mathematical "model" that accurately predicted the path stars would take across the night sky. It was the very best science and mathematics had to offer at the time.
Look up the Ptolemaic Model.
@Jaron Hooten - surely the question you should be starting with is whether a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve is consistent with scientific evidence. In both these cases the answer has to be no, for all the reasons that the most cursory review of the evidence would show. But this does not mean the stories are untrue - they are myths - they carry a truth, but are not true in themselves. Promoting a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve will kill the Church, as they are so demonstrably false.
@@Faust2Dr I wholeheartedly disagree with not only your assessment of the available scientific data, but your conclusions about the Bible and the Church that you draw from them. I have taken more than a "cursory" look and have seen enough to know that the science is far from settled on the age of the earth and the genetic evidence of an ancestral pair at the top of our family tree.
@@Faust2Dr I have been told my entire life that science has proven that God is unnecessary to explain life and origins. The accepted scientific paradigm says there is no God. Accepting that paradigm is what will "kill the church".
Interesting.
I think the first part of eternal life after catching up with loved ones, will be asking God all these questions like how many years BC was Adam created etc etc. Or maybe God has a long movie for us all to watch explaining everything to us????
My take was God created the Solar system, The Earth and sea, "Life" that evolves into all the animals and "Mankind" (sixth day).
Then the Garden of Eden (either on earth or heaven) including the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life AND the serpent, Then Adam (The first Hebrew) was created.
It can be debated that since the serpent got Eve to eat then cinvince Adam to eat of the fruit of Knowledge then it is plausible that the Serpent used the fruit of Life to fashion an agent of Sin that was sent amongs Man.
Jesus does say "They are of their Father the Devil"
I'm partial to John Walton's understanding, that the creation narrative is about God putting His creation in order and setting Adam and Eve as priests over the creation. I think it fits really well with the NT narrative of God establishing His kingdom on earth, and also answers the question 'where did Cain get his wife?'
,
Pick and choose the bits you like, a cafeteria if you will!
@@rob-890 I'm not sure how respecting the work of an ANE scholar who is interpreting an ANE document or seeing a cohesion between his interpretation and the gospel is 'picking and choosing'. (ANE = ancient near east)
@@danielcartwright8868 The believers keep throwing random, esoteric concepts and their spokespeople at a wall to see if they stick better than spaghetti.
Christians love to water down what it is they claim to believe in the first place.
It's so easy to witness the weakness of their position exposed... (just get them talking amongst themselves and see how little they are up to speed regarding their supposed "beliefs").
Comical, really.
Sad too.
Adults... pretending to know what gods think and desire.... all the while denying the actuality of what they are able to substantiate.
And, still, without good evidence for their personal, opinion based fairy tales.
Don't you agree?
@@seawolf7649 You're the one putting out the opinion-based fairy tale founded on pure ignorance.
1. When God said: "Let us make man in our image" WLC thinks God wanted to make a couple of homo heidelbergensis members around 700K years ago? Wouldn't that mean modern humans (homo sapiens) aren't made in God's image then?
2. Adam and Eve's first born was a farmer and their second born son was a sheep herder. Does he not know that agriculture and domestication of cattle wasn't a thing 700k years ago?
The intellectual gymnastics being played here is unbelievable.
I got up to 7 and a half minutes.. The blatant ignorance and misrepresentation of science is astounding. Religion poisons everything.
If you read between the lines, Craig suggested in this interview that everything up through the story of Abraham is part of the mythic history, which he says is not literal. He seems to be being very political about how he’s saying this, but that would make sense since if one accepts Noah as historical than ultimately THEY are the family from which everyone descends. But I agree, it does seem a little ad hoc for him to be so diehard about an actual historical Adam if he’s going to also go out of the way and say Genesis is mythic history. He seems to be trying to walk a fine line.
1. Umm no WLC groups together H. heidelbrgensis along with Neanderthals and us as all the same "humans".
2. WLC is pretty clear that Genesis 1-11 is mythohistory, he hardly cares about the historical accuracy of this section.
Thus there is no "intellectual gymnastics".
@@everyzan-m2q Jimmy's assessment is correct. I don't know if I would say that there are no intellectual gymnastics however, lol. I think there most definetely are some gymnastics going on here but that shouldn't be a criticism of any worldview. Any serious worldview is going to requite intellectual gymnastics.
@@everyzan-m2q Ummmm...... so according to WLC the events described in Genesis 1-11 which includes the original sin narrative is nothing but mythohistory and a nonbeliever shouldn't care about its historical accuracy.
So why should a nonbeliever care about Jesus and Christianity?
Paul says in Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
If original sin is mythohistory and not accurate historically then Paul's original sin theology goes out the window.
Also, do I really need to mention the NT scriptures where the authors relied on mythohistorical passages within Genesis to double down on their own arguments? Well actually, you know what I will...
Exhibit A: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9:
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man (from Adam's ribs).
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
If the whole story of Eve being created from Adam's ribs is 100% non-historical as WLC claims, then tell me why am I reading this passage in 1 Corinthians 11?
What else was Paul and other NT authors wrong about?
Exhibit B: Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:13-14:
13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Again I ask, what else was Paul wrong about? Heck, why should any nonbeliever care about what any NT author wrote about Christianity and Jesus?
I find all of these men to be highly intelligent, reputable, and full of integrity; however, Dr. Lane Craig said something that was startling to me. Why would the resurrection and person of Christ be into question, or Genesis and God's character, because it may not fit into your understanding of creationism??
Science requires interpretations of data, however interpretations are given by fallible men, therefore may be the issue is your either misinterpreting scientific data or just wrong? Especially if you begin with attempting to line up Genesis with your understanding of evolution. Seems like circular reasoning to me! It should always begin with God being the ultimate authority
If your having trouble fitting the story of Adam and Eve into Darwins hypothesis of evolution, because theories are proven accurate and evolution has not been scientifically proven; than surely the issue never lays within God's divine inspiration of the scriptures, but with you.
Thats a dangerous mindset. God is always right and constant, just as math, and we compare that data with that reality.
If our mathematical calculations are inaccurate we would never assume the math is wrong, rather our calculations of the math.
Some scientists believe something came from nothing with the same accurate data another scientists would conclude there is intelligent design!
Amen! For God everything is possible, even a 6 day creation week! Jesus belived it. And so do I. Darwins theory is not proven on the macro-evolution. The question is how Great a God we have. Hard to understand with our micro-brains. People always tend to lower God to human standard thinking. Science should be to study creation as most God fearing scientists used to do before they were shut off the room by darwinist faith. Christianity and Darwinism is not able to unite. Totalt different and not anything for christians to mess with. Let each faith stand alone.
I have always felt it was irrelevant as to whether the genesis story was literal or figurative. The point is the truth that is realized about our standing with our creator. All of us live for a very short time on earth. 10,000 years or 10 billion years. It's all the same unimaginable amount of time to a finite being
I'd say it's quite important, because if it's literal, it is demonstrably wrong, meaning that at least that part of the Bible is wrong.
@@Zeus-bn3nc it is only important for people looking for a reason not to believe in the truths about humanity. If you are looking for a reason not to believe they aren't hard to find. If you are willing to admit your personal falability, personal unholiness, unworthiness, when you realize you cannot be good enough to stand before the holiness of God, all else becomes less than. Grace is unmerited favor. Meaning I have it because of what God did. I don't have all the answers, but I have the ones that matter.
Well, it might be important whether or not you actually believe God. Do you think the Holy Spirit was mistaken or lying when He inspired the author to write the words in Genesis 1 - 3?
@@nooncecares But how do you know that if Genesis is literal and thus wrong? We can't get that from the Bible. What is a 'truth about humanity' that requires God or so? And what does 'unholiness' and 'unworthiness' even mean if we can't apply the context of what's said in the Bible? Additionally, why would one care about the 'holiness of God' if we can't trust his book?
@@rubiks6 you and I probably have a different concept of what inspiration is/means. I am often inspired. I can't know anything for you. You can't climb in my mind and think my thoughts. I know God is real.
With respect to Bill's quest in understanding the Genesis chapters, among the texts that he consulted, there is an astounding absence of ancient Jewish texts such as the Talmud, Midrash, Mishna, Maimonides and the other medieval Rabbinic sources, not to mention the host of contemporary Jewish scholars who have extensively dealt with these issues. This is quite outrageous, frankly, for a scholar such as Craig. His conclusions, in my opinion, given the serious lacuna evidenced here, cannot be taken seriously.
Do you have any idea what those say?
William Lane Craig made a blunder mistake by classifying the Genesis 11 chapters as Mythohistory b/c What happened to Adam on a day he ate the forbidden fruit is reversed in the New Testament, meaning Adam passed over from eternal life unto death & the same is reversed through Jesus, and now it's possible to Passover from death unto Eternal life as/John 5:24. Therefore, would WLC say John 5:24 is also Mythohistory as these scenarios are similar in nature?
Did you make it till the 38 minute mark when he touches on original sin?
@@Kingoflettuce Thanks Ryan.
Yes, I listened Dr.WLC classified Original sin is based on Romans 5 as fact while rejecting the historical Adam & Eve described in Genesis 2 isn't literal. I don't think he understands the foundation of the Holy Bible, he along with Joshua may entertaining but not helpful any way to hasten the kingdom of heaven.
You sound crazy 🤪
@@bilbobaggins4403 Not a surprise, John 10:20 is true.
It's great to have possible alternatives, but to be honest, science changes all of the time and it won't surprise me a bit that further study of population genetics and new discovery, will open the door for an original Adam and Eve as the 1st people.
Indeed. Why should we rule it out?
It's understandable that we try to find scientific basis for the Bible, but keep in mind that God is not limited to the scientific rules that He set up, and He breaks it throughout the Bible to demonstrate that He is God. Also, remember Jesus's made wine instantaneously, and if we scientifically measured the age of the wine, the results would not be zero time, so God is not even limited by our concept of time.
Yeah. Santa Klaus has the same rules to exist in children's mind. Gifts or eternity, but always something to fill our human ego.
So basically magic
Science can’t disprove God. From what we observe the origin of the world is sound from a biblical perspective. There was a creator who is outside of time, space and matter. Nothing doesn’t create something.
Answer: Yes!
Plain reading of Scripture is the primary reading lens.
What a great conversation!! Thanks for coordinating such a valuable discussion.
Evolution process is extremely slow - addition of minute DNA changes over 100s of thousands of generations. Asking the question "Who was the first human?" is as absurd as asking "How old were you when you were growing up?".
A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.
Lane Craig is a good philosopher and an appaling exegete and theologian. I'd go as far as to say he is heretical on issues like innerrancy, creation and Molinism. Jesus and Paul both clearly believed in a literal Adam, and Paul taught in Romans 5 and Romans 8 that creation is suffering because of the fall and death is because of Adams sin. You are either in Adam and still fallen or in Christ and redeemed. The only "evidence" that prevents people from accepting a young earth is radiometric dating and the speed of light argument. All other evidence points to a young earth and universe and a global flood which Jesus also believed in.
Wow, you have to be one complete and total moron to believe the nonsense you’re selling.
What is all this other evidence of which you speak that points to a young earth? You’ve been sipping the kool aid way too long.
A mature earth at creation deals with these issues. Also the holographic element that Chuck Missler deals with.
If Adam and Eve were not the first Man - the crowning jewel of creation - then everything Christ accomplishes in the new covenant is for naught. To reject the creation account of Adam and Eve dissolves the foundation of the entire Christian faith.
no it doesn't
@@jayd4ever thorough refutation. I stand corrected
Yep. You need to reject it.
The gospel is foolishness to the perishing. The deflation of the biblical narrative does nothing to promote or extend salvation to a damned people. We are failing being the image of God as we continue to seek contrary explanations for the biblical authority.
I don't see how the salvation of humanity via the blood of Christ can be reconciled in the heart of one who refuses to believe in the creative authority of a God who cannot be the light until day 4, when he has chosen to craft the sun.
Consensus is not science, especially as we grow further from true science. Our biases are becoming more deeply deceptive to proper science. As we move further from truth and heap up bad knowledge it becomes less likely that we will accept findings that prove opposite.
When Christ appeals the Genesis Adam and Eve, When the ten commandments appeals to 6 day creation, you must either accept it, or reject it.
@Richard Fox There are equal bodies of evidence for a young earth. The pre-bias we use to interprete the evidence will lead us to the conclusions we choose. We come to the evidence with certain assumptions, mostly seeded by those who preceded us and our contemporaries. We acquiesce to authority because, after all, who should we trust. However if you look into the bodies of knowledge handed to us it is evident that they had an agenda. Critical thinking has long been lost in the academy and replaced with preprogrammed conclusions. It is uncouth to challenged what the professor declares to be established science even when it is still a theory.
How is it certain ideas need be protected to the point of litigation? Shouldn't said ideas be strong enough to hold their own? It is also interesting how in flames a person gets when the ideas they hold come under question. As though the very person is under attack. Then mis apply this deference to the one with the challenge as a simple person might do. Symptom of a lack of accurate critical thinking. Please, do be challenged to not make shallow assumptions of someone because they choose to observe and weigh out faith, even in the face of scientific inquiry.
Godspeed, in Christ.
@Richard Fox do you really ask your students that? What do you teach?
@Richard Fox There is no such evidence, nor is Evolution science.
@Richard Fox The Earth is clearly not thousands of millions of years old, the evidence is against it. On the other hand, we have genealogies going back about 6000 years.
Without the Bible, you would still have no evidence of thousands of millions of years, but plenty of evidence of thousands.
@Richard Fox I'll answer both of your posts here, if I may.
"The mountain ranges are still forming in the Alps - their rate of rise can be measured and give us a period of about 300 Million years between the initial tectonic collision and their current height. "
So how do you know those rates have not changed, how do you know they were not faster in the past? You don't.
"A young age of the earth does not give any time for coal or oil to form in the quantities we have, let alone the millions of years it took to make it."
So where are you measuring the length of time taken to form coal? You're simply assuming.
"It does not account for erosion of canyons (no, a 40 day flood does not make 1 mile deep canyons)"
The Flood lasted for about a year, the amount of water that would have gathered to create the Grand Canyon would have been quite sufficient to form it in a fairly short period, since canyons require water rather than time. One thing is certain, it wasn't created by a river.
"for the ancient super volcanoes that have exploded in the past, over 600,000 years ago in the case of the most recent Yelowstone erruption. "
The Flood was a period of great seismic activity, no great time scales required.
"And, of course, radio metric dating of moon rocks and earth rocks show that the earth and solar system are 4.5 Billion years old."
RM dating shows no such thing. I is based on assumptions and has never been tested or calibrated.
"Evolution is most definitely science"
So demonstrate it, reproduce common descent.
"says 25,000 Evolutionary biologists . . . have a chat with one about how they know."
Maybe I should ask them if they feel guilty for being paid to do a job that involves pretending Evolution happened.
"Remember, it is YOU that wants the facts to fit the Bible - scientists don't really do that."
Oh yes scientists do that. When they have a hypothesis that they are convinced is true but their testing fails to give the required result they most certainly do. Do a search on scientific fraud & you may be unpleasantly surprised. Much of the fraud involves biology & medicine, which makes me very uneasy about the claims around COVID and the vaccines.
Thanks Justin... nicely edited - good flow!!! Ｂｌｅｓｓｉｎｇｓ！！！
My question is: Since Jesus and the NT references the first Genesis chapters on occasion: Adam and Eve, the serpent, Pauls speaks of Eve’s deception, “in Adam everyone died”, and the NT also uses those chapters as a premise for arguing justification throughout (especially Romans), do we have reasons to believe those references are about mytho-poetic-history? Like the NT seems to refer to them as literal events.
If Jesus was both fully human and fully God, then perhaps his full humanness results in him believing in what his Jewish tradition believed in, even if that belief was not literally accurate. In addition, how do we know how Jesus actually interpreted the Adam and Eve narrative? Perhaps Jesus viewed that narrative a non-literal story that pointed to a larger truth.
@@ayurajanyamaka9255 Fair. But he refers to the text a bit literally. He timelines the institution of marriage, that “in the beginning, God made Adam and Eve.” Next, he forbids anyone to “asunder” marriage. Like…would Jesus base an argument about creation and marriage using a historic legend?
Like, when has Jesus ever described God’s activity in terms of legend? What other mytho-historical references does Jesus allude to in the Nee Testament?
Amazing really that people could stretch such a silly question into a full hour of content.
Facts!
I think William Lang Craig is still sweeping theological anthropology under the rug. WLC is avoiding the question of why he begins with his assumptions@29:16 because he has to admit he is primarily committed to a different starting position than a true Biblical Worldview, which for him comes from his Philosophy. That is not how you reach a good hermeneutic, which is why he doubts the doctrine of original sin, and does not know what Adam and Eve's sin even is. Without DE Novo Creation/Historical Adam and Eve we lose Federal headship for humanity, as he admitted, nor do we even understand what a Creator God even is. Mesopotamian myths exist because an event occurred that many cultures reported on, which is also a clue in how recent they are. The very presence of genealogies in Genesis 5 is implying actual history, not a myth genre. He keeps saying plausibility, why is the Biblical account not plausible? It is because of his starting places. The question remains, does God get the last word through his revelation, or are we committed to another system of Macro Evolution that is not by any means settled science? I like WLC but when your worldview is Philosophy first your theology won’t be Biblical.
Very well said. Still too nice though. WLC is a man to be avoided by a mile when it comes to theology. Good debater and philosopher for sure. It is him, who starts with myths. Myths of 19th century fool. It is a blasphemy to say, that there are myths in the word of the Living God. And if he won't repent he will bear the consequences... 😔
Remember, it is not necessarily a genetic Adam and Eve, but a genealogical Adam and Eve, that is argued. There is a difference.
What?!!! So all that history of original sin that made me a sinner isnt real? Thans! Im free!!! Hahahaha
I said nothing of that sort Arsenne. What do you mean by original sin? Are you Catholic or Protestant? And how would you explain original sin in terms our genetics? Can we see sin in the human gnome?
I hope not. I dont believe in god or anything. I believe in what i can see.
@@wernerlottering8848 our genetics dont carry sin but carries a lot of identical parts with monkeys. ;)
@@arsennelupin8561 I am not necessarily in disagreement with you concerning our ancestory with apes.
And to say that you believe in what you see seems to me not a good enough reason not to believe that God exists, to be honsest. How do you come to such a conclusion? There is no good reason to say that just because you have not seen something that it is not true. I mean, you did not see the Big Bang and how it looked or the formation of the earth and how it took shape. That does not mean that those things did not happen. We see the workings of God in the universe and posit that God exists. There are volumes of good evidence that points to the existence of God and along with that numerous evidences for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth to validate Christian beliefs.
I always find it very bizarre that people like William and others struggle with this 😢. But the son of God didn't nor did the apostle Paul. Like I said, Ken ham and tons of other creation ministers have been giving faithful biblical answers to these issues for decades. I know coz iv bn looking in to this subject early on after I got saved 🎉❤. Adem was not some knuckle draging half man half ape that Got put a soul in. The historical Adam is tied to the Historic christ ❤🎉. In Adem we all die but in Christ we are made alive ❤🎉😊 please check out Answers in Geneies your get the Answers you seek 🎉. God bless 😊❤
Interesting, but people can go down so many rabbit holes. Sometimes we get too close to the wall and can not see the bigger picture. Faith is a balance of seeing but ending up in what we do not complete understand. We see in a mirror dimly now.
I'll never understand why Dr. Craig lends legitimacy to swamidodge
Shut up, ❄
I am impressed that Bill was willing to tackle such a project and to actually reveal the insights he’s gained as a result even though such insights challenged his long standing convictions… Since he is an apologist, I was expecting to hear him make more theological excuses for the Biblical representation of Human Development via expounding on their existing creation myths… But Bill pleasantly surprised me…
For folks that are Christians, developing this more reasonable scientific aligned perspective of human evolution may cause more reasonable people to stick with Christianity instead of continue forcing myths as facts down their throats…
As the conversation was progressing, I could see Justin struggling with what was being revealed. There definitely was some internal struggling going on with him, but overall he handled it well.
Very interesting conversation. Thanks for sharing.
The gospel is foolishness to the perishing. The deflation of the biblical narrative does nothing to promote or extend salvation to a damned people. We are failing being the image of God as we continue to seek contrary explanations for the biblical authority.
I don't see how the salvation of humanity via the blood of Christ can be reconciled in the heart of one who refuses to believe in the creative authority of a God who cannot be the light until day 4, when he has chosen to craft the sun.
Consensus is not science, especially as we grow further from true science. Our biases are becoming more deeply deceptive to proper science. As we move further from truth and heap up bad knowledge it becomes less likely that we will accept findings that prove opposite.
When Christ appeals the Genesis Adam and Eve, When the ten commandments appeals to 6 day creation, you must either accept it, or reject it.
Maybe it’s best if people that have to have a scientific faith keep moving past Christianity , it may be too hard for them 😉 kidding sir it’s for all but I’m curious if your a Christian and do you find the Bible to be mythological ?
@@Mellownius ... Yah, I wonder why folks may have a hard time with talking snakes, donkeys, etc... Haven't they seen Shrek (Lol)... Nah, in all seriousness... No, I'm not affiliated with any Religion... I do; however, can see the usefulness in Religion (if properly executed)... I also think it would be useful for Christians to utilize the Mythological nature of many parts of the Bible... I think the Religion would do better than what it's already done and the longevity of it may be more easily sustained. It may be easier for the more scientific minded folks to buy into some of it.
I believe that Dr. Craig's book actually comes out on September 28th. At least that's the date I kept seeing when I looked on various websites (Amazon, Christian book, Apple Books).
His Adam book? Man that book is expensive though.
Can't wait to ignore it...
There you go. 20:50 is basically what every Christian theology needs to start talking about. Nothing else. Swamidass nailed it. That is the most important question. "How do you know what is figurative vs how do you what what is figurative and with historical reference. "
Why does Bill have to say “genre” like that 😂
He thinks it makes him sound smart
64 minutes is a long time to say the word ‘no’
It's quite a reasonable amount of time to say that genetics cannot provide an answer to a question like that.
What a fascinating and relevant discussion. Hillsong's "So Will I" prompted my interest in this topic.
Also I would like to see Justin play a solo on the congas in the background.
How did this song lead you to this topic? I also like that song.
The answer is no. It is a creation story. A very important story that is used to convey a message
For a better understanding of Scripture I recommend "The Mystery" by Joel Finck and/or "Things That Differ" by Cornelius Stam.
No, let's keep it moving
“ForGod so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,(JESUS CHRIST)that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”-JOHN 3:16
OMG..such wonderful claims! LOLOL
Meeh!
God has a son!!!
Why not daughter?
Does he has a wife?
God all great all power all wise , eternal, omnipotent will never has a son or daughter or wife.
He is almighty the creator of all creations.
Jesus peace be upon him is just a prophet and messenger like his brothers before him starting from our father all Adam , Noah , Ibrahem and so on.
@@aboalighazali9597 i agree with you partly. He has none of that because there is no good reason or evidence to believe that such a being exsists.
WLC is a brilliant mind, but he's simply wrong on this, imo. Any other reading of Genesis other than literal is a huge stretch and I can't even begin to fathom how damaging it is to other verses throughout the Bible that explicitly say it so. I suppose WLC doesn't believe in Christophonies, either. Goes without saying that Jesus interpreted Genesis as historical narrative. Not one time does Christ hint at it being figurative or read any other way other than literal when HE quotes it...same with Paul. Love WLC, and his ministry has blessed me tremendously, but he has this wrong, imo.
William Lane Craig’s problem is he wants to dance on two weddings at the same time or better said serve two masters simultaneously and you already mentioned the coffin’s nail to WLC’s position:
Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve as historical persons. Finito la musica. No other proof and argument is needed.
How to much studying can make you dumb. Keep it simple and believe the Bible
@@williamofbaskerville359 I agree with this. Jesus spoke about them as if they were real people. I don't need any more evidence that they in fact existed
@@stevedjuric8474 Not dumb. Sometimes too much intellect causes one to overthink. WLC is convinced of this, so it's obvious he's thought it through. He's just come to the wrong conclusion, imo. Definitely not a dumb man. A thinking man? Yes. Sometimes we ALL have a tendency to over analyze or analyze from pressupositions.
@@LetsTalkChristMinistries I can number you thousands brilliant minds who are heretical. Rather to be simple and take god at his word.… nobody questions his salvation but living in this time and age especially requires sounds doctrine so not to lead simple mind like me to error. I maybe a doctor and not a brilliant one …but I can see more errors of him which is not worth debating. I did followed him for long time …
Genesis is history. Careful to what you say and preach. Everyone will be held accountable by what they’ve said.
Agreed to an extent; Genesis is an accurate historical account but it's not a history book.
However, I agree on what Dr. Craig is stating is dangerous!
I love Dr. Craig but that disturbed me when he stated if science led him to believe that Adam and Eve was not true basically what would that mean for the resurrection of Christ and the Bible.
That's scary and your one of the only people to speak up! Modern scientists postulate something came from nothing, therefore, science as the study of the natural and not metaphysical; data is always interpreted by a fallible man! This seriously bothered me.
@antitoxin Respectfully, no where does the Bible state or even infer that we evolved from earlier life forms. Not even an implication. God is very clear about keeping everything with its kind; the entirety of the beginning of Genesis makes this very clear. He is meticulous and organized. It is an abomination according to Him to mix beast and man. The very idea that we came from earlier life forms is absolutely erroneous, which is why for the entirety of the history of mankind women do not breed with animals. Even in the wild it is rare if not impossible for animals of the same species to intermingle unless mankind has a hand in breeding them.
Furthermore, I agree with you! Science is a great tool in the study of the natural as that's its very definition. However, science is limited. According to science there is no God, something can come from nothing, and the earth used to be flat, spontaneous generation, static earth, expanding earth, Pluto is a planet, not a planet that is
The question.
Science Is a tool to study Gods creation not the litmus test that we measure all of reality by.
We never came from earlier life forms.
Also human reasoning is the reason why mankind fell; remember that. God says in man's wisdom they became foolish
It is not history. It is myth.
@antitoxin science doesn’t equal Absolute truth. There are many people studying and researching in various scientific fields and they never have come to a consensus about *anything* - There are many brilliant scientist who believe: 1) The natural world is evidence of a Creator, 2) The evidence we see fits the Bible narrative. 3) Genesis is history and can be proved by scientific evidence.
The thing is, everybody have access to the same evidence, but their conclusions differ from each other. You rather believe the Bible or you believe those who contradict scriptures. And I’m not saying we should believe in the Bible even if the evidence contradicts it. I’m saying that there are so much evidence that proves that evolution is a lie, the world is NOT millions of years old but thousands, mankind is unique, we are not related to animals but created in God’s image. There’s even evidence that fits the flood narrative. Either you believe “scientists” (some of them - enemies of God) or you believe other scientists who also have access to the same data and evidence but came to a different conclusion. Draw your own conclusions by looking at both sides.
Genesis has been proven to be full of falsehoods.
The main problem with the belief in creation is not that any particular and peculiar set of humans were suddenly brought into existence, but rather that the physical acts of creation and destruction in the observable universe is an ongoing process and not a linear event. If we choose to continue to believe in the validity of a communion between ourselves and a God, who has been perceived as benevolent and caring in some parts of the scriptures; and vengeful and cruel in other biblical stories, then we must be willing to accept that such beliefs are best expressed in the way we treat other people and our helpful toward one another.
Such determined civilized behavior has to be a conscious choice of accepting the best of religious tradition and rejecting those parts of that tradition which has been used to cover multitudes of human sins and failings. If a living faith is to have any value, then that compassionate behavior must not only be extended to members of our families, those with whom we live with in our communities, and congregations with shared religious outlooks; but must be exhibited towards those who are considered outsiders, strangers, and foreigners.
Recent history, to include all the wars and crimes against humanity of the 20th century, sadly still occurring in the 21st, challenges the core and continued utility of ancient religious belief systems much more than either any philosophical questions about human origins or scientific theories concerning the beginning and ongoing development of the universe.
A theory explains a process based on evidence at hand. Theories can be modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. Fossil & DNA evidence prove evolution to be a fact & the evolution theory explains how it works.
"What intelligent person can imagine that there was a first "day", then a second and a third "day" - evening and morning - without the sun, the moon, and the stars … Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden … I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen." church father Origen on Genesis in the 2nd century
Origen was also one of the few church fathers that knew Hebrew.
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" - Matthew 24:29
Please explain to us how you believe time will cease to exist, timekeeping will be impossible, or that days will no longer pass during the 2nd coming of Christ.
Lol, this argument always gets to me, where do you think the sun and moon got their light?
Yes. Origen was also later declared a heretic (and, later, the church backtracked), and he took a very strong “spiritual” (symbolic) view of Scripture that very few have held, throughout church history, and led to certain problems (which led to being labeled a heretic).
@@nooncecares You DO understand how the sun works correct? You do understand where the moon "gets" its light? Please tell me you do.
What a crazy lot, these people are definitely a danger to society.
Incredible conversation.
mad to be debating something that never happened
@@paulrichards6894 The evidence, your existence, is plain that it did.
I cringed hard for as long as I could watch it, which to be honest wasn't long. I felt kind of embarrassed for everyone involved
@@houmm08 So you think passion for this subject is something worth feeling embarrassed about... Okay. What subject are you passionate about pursuing knowledge of?
its the 1 of those things in the bible where we have 100% proof it never happened
pleasant, amiable, learned, and interesting conversation.
But of no value from a Christian POV.
It seems like both atheists and Christians seem to be upset with this video lol
If the question is: “did you get that Tom Rabbitt?” The answer is: Yes.
The failure of Craig is he acts if God somehow missed on telling us what happened. It's actually pretty sad. We have to not take it literally and the genealogy is somehow wrong. Sad... sad indeed.
I was truly hopeful Craig would bring clarity but he didn’t.
The genealogy is unaffected by anything he said.
Is Aesop's Fables meant to be taken literally? How about a talking snake or a tree that provides fruit of immortality? You can't seriously believe that these were meant to be a literal historical account of ancient history.
@michaelinsc1644 why not? What's more fantastical, believing this or believing God working through an evolution process involving macro evolution?
@@inbetween2trees smh... not what scripture says about anything. The whole basis of the story is meaningless.
These are just nonbelievers. It is circular reasoning depending on how one defines myth. Also, why only the first eleven chapters? It is only foundational to the whole of Scripture.
Joh 5:46-47 KJV 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
?
I honestly feel if Creation was meant to be taken figuratively, then there should be some sort of indication that isn't found much later in the Bible that it is.
WLC always takes modern science into account. That's great 👍
lol WLC is a clown and king of misrepresentations. I'd love to debate him. His BS wouldn't last 5 mins.
@@MrAuskiwi101 I'm sure he'd love to debate some rando on the internet
@@jasper2621 I'd love to do it is his home town. WLC is an embarrassment to humanity.
@Souvik if he did, this video would not have been there.
@@MrAuskiwi101 uh dude are you talking about the Kalam because that shit is sound 😂
What was it like for them to be raised by their parents? To interact with their cousins?
Interact...and other things
A desperate attempt at rescuing Genesis from the ravages of modern science. Unfortunately, no first man, no second Adam.
Why does he pronounce genre like that lol
Yes, Adam and Eve were real. They're in the genealogy of Christ in the book of Luke.
Exactly. Case closed!
Why do you believe that ?
@@caryfrancis8030 Why do I believe Adam and Eve were real? Because NOBODY uses fictional characters in their family tree. Especially the ALMIGHTY.
@@danielcristancho3524 So you think they are real because they are not fictional characters ?
What ?
You understand that it isn't biologically possible for two humans to populate the Earth ?
Did she have sex with her sons ?
Or did her sons and daughters have sex ?
Yuck !
@@caryfrancis8030 Yes, that's kinda the logic. If you're not fictional, you're real. But that wasn't the point. The point is NOBODY SANE USES FICTIONAL CHARACTERS IN THEIR FAMILY TREE. Luke would not have done that to his Lord. As for two people starting the world's population, that couldn't happen today. Our genome, supposedly evolving according to the Macrotards, is too corrupt. But Adam and Eve had no such problem. No, Eve did not have sex with her sons. That's adultery. Her sons mated with her daughters for the FIRST generation. After that it was cousins, second cousins, third and so fourth. But the genome was still brand new. It hadn't had time to be corrupted. Normal children between brothers and sisters was possible. Abraham married his half sister, Sarah. That practice would be a disaster today. By the way, you'd have brothers mating with sisters with your take on origins too.
It amazing me that both of them think there's strong evidence for evolution. It seems so flimsy. For example when talking about humanoids, why believe they are biologically less developed than us? I would have thought the reproductive system that requires a male and female would need to be fully operational at the start. Not something that wasn't predetermined to work before it was in acted. Everything observed in science strongly points to predetermined systems that acts or responds in a predictable way. Not a blind chance way.
I mean this in a friendly way, but what you say makes it clear you don't understand evolution nor the theory of natural selection. If you read up on it you can see that it is not predetermined, and just watch Dawkins' youtube video on the eye for an explanation of how organs and processes do NOT need to be complete from the start.
Not blind chance at all.
@@nicolab2075 On the contrary, I'm well aware of what has been presented on evolutionary step-by-step philosophy. It has to explain a progressive historical journey for all life on earth and how each life forms became what we observe today. At some stage each features had to have an original formation when once there wasn't one. Blindly creating novel features with no forethought or aim. In order to believe nature did this, the lowest common denominator for the belief is an original archetypal self replicating cell.
Life is predetermined to exist in the male and female by a designer, who exercised forethought, intention, knowledge and the ability to implement it. This is by definition intelligent design and teleology.
Nature selection would only works at the level of reproduction. It needs to retain the novel features stopping them from becoming extinct.
I've read a few Dawkins books. He spreads himself thinly across to many fields and has become a reporter and commentator. An anti-theist, an atheist, who is militant. I'm not impressed by Dawkins and don't agree with his interpretations of the science he thinks supports his view. His presentations on the evolutionary development of eyes aren't convincing at all in my opinion.
@@watchman2866 I don't understand a lot of this I'm afraid, but one thing that seems odd to me is when you say natural selection 'needs to retain novel features...' - well it does do that. Are you saying it doesn't? If not please explain again. Thanks
@@watchman2866 Btw I wasnt recommending Dawkins per se, only that I know he's done a video with the standard textbook explanation of how complex organs can develop from simple beginnings.
What do you mean by 'militant'?
@@nicolab2075 Natural selection, is an umbrella term to save explanations of real fine details. It needs to be qualified by explaining what the change was, what it's changed into, how it is retained, and how it passed on to the next generation. I've read so many articles where the reporter just use the term 'natural selection' but found not actually explanations what it was. The term is used to cover a multitude of dead-ends, blind spots, and a lack of knowledge.
How does one accept the resurrection as literal, but yet conclude that Genesis' description of moulding/inspiration of Adam as a figurative account? Particularly since William claims he is not appealing to contemporary scientific hypotheses around available evidence?
Since you can easily distinguish between a historical letter and a founding myth. Historical fiction didn’t exist until recently, so it’s implausible to think that the gospel letters about a verified person added impossible elements for no reason + a lot of other factors within the gospels that make them reliable testimony like unintended coincidence, unexplained allusions, and trivial details.
Different writers, different era, different purpose of writing. To ask this question without actually considering the posibilities of ancient text is rather ignorant. How does one conclude that the story of king arthur was not a purely historical account in comparison to the battle of hastings?
Indeed - how does one interpret different genres? It’s impossible! There is only one genre, LITERAL LITERATURE, and thus I am confused by books like *Pilgrim’s Progress* or the Book of Revelation.
@@randomperson2078 Wait until you meet Star Wars
He's also appealing to the similar accounts of Genesis in the Babylonian creation accounts to explain how ancients did history. Genesis does seem to belong to an ancient Mesopotamian oral culture.
Genesis is literally a book of History, it LITERALLY records history as it happened.
Isn’t Genesis 1-12 in essence a beautiful, poetic illustration of God’s love, the goodness of his creation, our frailty and his plans to rescue us. We don’t really need to get all worked up about genetics, genealogies, neanderthals etc do we?
It's a bullshit story about your capricious god. You're an idiot.
@@sidepot you seem awfully invested in this judging by your overly emotional response😂
@@vincentsheehan3193
You seem more of an idiot than originally perceived.
@@sidepot 👏👏😂
@@vincentsheehan3193
It is completely beyond me what you can find so beautiful in this story. An all knowing god sets up his own creation to fail. Not only those two but all of human kind falls into the peril of death. The joy doesn't stop there. Your god adds into the mix eternal fire and brimstone in an atrocious fiery conscious torment. But then your god become the hero by sending his own son to save us all. Your god sends himself to himself for a debt we somehow owe.
What would you call a fireman who sets a house on fire and then runs back into the building to save the people inside? Then afterwards calls himself a hero and accepts the praise of the onlookers.
What a crock of shit you're selling. Moron.
If Adam and Eve were believed to be historical by the earliest Hebrews, if every man and his dog knew that Adam and Eve caused all our woes, we'd expect them to be mentioned all over the place in the Old Testament. However, they're nowhere to be found. They're not in the psalms, or in the prophets, or in the wisdom literature. It seems reasonable to conclude the stories of the Garden etc were written after the psalms etc, and were never intended to be taken at face-value.
Just as I would not expect to see dragons rising up out of the Mediterranean any time in the future, I would not expect to see talking snakes any time in the past. The distant future is hidden in mist and myth. So too the distant past.
Evolution could be considered a modern myth of the past then. Also, you fail to realize that when everything was perfect in the beginning, why couldn't Adam and Eve communicate with animals. Also, Satan was the talking THROUGH the snake.
So because there isnt Scripture name dropping Adam and Eve after[[only in the later OT ofc, cuz new testament]], that means they didn't exist.
God help us.
@@JosiahFickinger why do you believe any of what you just posted?
@@Glasstable2011 Because it's perfectly logical if God is real.
@@JosiahFickinger That "if" is the foundation of every holy book ever written.
Additionally "if' god is not real then it is substantially illogical.
Funny...if Adam & Eve were created, how come all the paintings I've seen, they have belly buttons
You could call that the ‘argumentum de umbilico’ :)
They were once attached to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
@@user-vw6xp5nl6t Who's that ?
And they had stem cells. What's your point?
Man is not just body and soul. Watchman Nee describes well the tripartite nature of man, being body, soul and spirit.
Many animals have elements of a soul i.e. emotions, intellect and will. but these are enriched greatly in mankind. The Spirit is our conscience and ability to commune with God, spiritual awareness.
Our tripartite nature reflects the tripartite nature of God.
Craig states his primary position; he is a Christian theologian. Thus whatever he does he “reverse engineers” his work. Not an objective exercise at all. So what’s the point? He always has a point going in. So wish Hitchens was still around!!
We all try to understand things within the confines of a worldview that we accept for other reasons when considering a particular philosophical or scientific question within that worldview (i.e. you can think Christianity is true for other reasons and look at this problem with a view to reconciling it with truths you accept for other reasons). However, Craig also states that he didn't go into this unwilling to abandon his preconceptions.
Do you your dad and your mom exist? It take man and woman to have more men and women; it’s stunning we still have people struggling with obvious.
Comment section looks like a time warp into cringe new atheism
What is new atheism?
@@MoNtYbOy101 it's that thing that everyone understands what it is and have spilled gallons of ink on
when people talk about adam and eve being historical what do you expect....along with the flood they are the easiest to debunk in the bible....
@@billj6109 do the same as new Christianity?
This is why the bible tells us to stay away from oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20
Those words refer to gnosticism, which claimed to have a deeper knowledge ("gnosis"; here translated as "science") of the world. We cannot refute arguments by just saying they are false!
"The body derives its origin from the earth, or as עפר aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; נשמת חיים nishmath chaiyim, the breath of LIVES, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding."
Interesting what Billy Craig said about original sin being dependant upon a literal Adam & Eve which is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul and that Jesus Christ also mentions Adam & Eve. Others believe that both Paul & Christ were operating in a cultural framework which took this for granted as historical fact but they were limited to the understanding of their day. The idea that Christ could operate in his divine omniscience at all times from the confines of a human brain is "Unbelievable" (to use the theme of these broadcasts) and use of Adam & Eve as representative Man & Woman is valid regardless of original sin being a "thing". Christ offers us righteousness & blessing as an alternative to selfishness and curses, so who cares about how we became bad in the first place?
@Re L The Catholics and the Church of England both accept evolutionary science since there is revelation through nature and also revelation through scripture and we have to carefully harmonise both of them to get the fullest view of reality. We exploit good science to enjoy the benefits of technology. In the same way good Theology can vastly improve our quality of life. If the church claims to preach the truth but denies the proven realities of science then it cannot be fully in the truth. In the same way man cannot live by science alone. We need the best of both worlds!