The Book of Genesis: With Dr. William Lane Craig
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 кві 2020
- William Lane Craig is streaming in to talk about the Creation story. Craig is an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, historian, and apologist. He holds faculty positions at Talbot School of Theology and Houston Baptist University. Craig is know for his Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. Also He has also published work where he argues in favor of the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus. In this episode He Is looking back to the Beginning to discuss His understanding of Genesis. Michael and Josh discusses Craigs’ view of Genesis, as well as a number of topics surrounding the issue. The discussion deals with the age of the earth, with both young earth or old earth views are touched on. Most interesting his view of the creation of man which the scientific view as well as classical theological understanding are uniquely integrated in Craigs’ thought. Dr. Craig’s take on Genesis is intriguing as well as illuminating.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Help Support The Channel through a one time gift or a monthly contribution.
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Remnant Radio is like the Joe Rogan Experience for Christians
For real!
I literally said this just the other day. They're pretty fantastic
😆
Definitely!! 😆
Joe Rogan should be invited for an interview
Two of my favorite scholars are William Lane Craig and Michael Heiser. Could you please have them in discussion!?!?!? I really want to hear them interact. I was agnostic/atheistic. Craig is in my testimony by name. I owe him so much for showing me I could use my mind and have faith in Christ! Heiser's work is lacking in contemporary philosophical thought but his work has so much explanatory power! It's been so edifying.
And one area where I've always thought Craig was weak was on spiritual beings. Amazing philosophical defense of the Christian Faith. Great theological work on atonement. Scientifically adept. However, thoroughly disagree with what he said about Cheribum if I'm understanding the 60 second sound bit. And in all of the friction points here (image, cherubim, chaos, etc.) I'm realizing I've been influenced by Dr. Heiser.
Zachary Stewart Agreed! With you 100% on that one!
It seems to be that both Chaos theology and something incredibly scientific is going on in Genesis 1 tbh, as Hugh Ross has demonstrated.
Days in Genesis according to the Bible arent millions of years
(Exo 20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(Exo 20:11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
So do we have to work each day millions of years, I dont think so.
You always take the Bible literal unless it doesnt work. IMO WLC works for the enemy, they want people to bring back to faith but then lie about the Bible and in the end right into the arms of the world religion. Of course thats only my opinion after having observed this now numerous times with also so called "Christian" scientist (Behe is also a Roman Catholic, and ROME is behind the NWO).
@@crusher1980 The problem with your analysis is that time is not 'Newtonian' (absolute).
Since Einstein, over 100 years ago and proven experimentally time and again, the measurement of time is relative and depends upon the observer. To GOD the day is not the same as to an earth bound observer.
See Dr. Gerald Schroeder in this matter.
I see things quite differently: To insist that we are only about six thousand years from the start of the Universe is not possible to justify and subjects the Bible to ridicule. High Ross also gives excellent explanations of this model. It is not necessary to abandon basic science and believe in the truth of the Bible as consistent truth. BTW, I do not believe in either abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution!
Anyone who claims to believe the Bible 'literally' would cut off their right arm or poke out their eyes! I do believe the Bible with correct interpretation.
Matthew 5: 29 & 30
I'd love to see a formal debate between Craig and Heiser. Make it happen Remnant Radio!
Heiser would get bodied by Craig. He's the goat. Made Dawkins run like a coward from a debate with him, which got his ass hilariously Eastwooded by Craig for it. When he debated the most famous atheist thinker of the 20th century, Anthony flew, he whooped him so bad, flew converted to theism right afterwards, NO BS. Thats as gangster as it gets.. WLC is the Michael Jordan of debating Theism. He's the 🐐
@@lowkeyprodigy Heiser isn't an atheist, so the debate wouldn't be about theism. I think Steve Sampson wants to see WLC duke it out with an OT nerd.
@@pngballar24 I know
@@lowkeyprodigy Oh okay. In that case, Jordan wasn’t much good at baseball. It’s a different game! I’m with Steve then. I think it would be an interesting debate (:
Those are two great minds if they have something to disagree about I would love to see that debate
A bit too much of a reliance on secular positions on Craigs part. He’s come to these positions honestly and is much brighter than me. But sometimes being too heady can cause one to miss certain other simpler ideas.
I totally agree. There is no evidence for an old earth. All speculations and theory. Kt bountry and layering is out because there are pictures of saplings growing in what would be millions of years. How can a tree be a baby tree for millions of years? Its all flawed.
For once your show has left me absolutely confused 😂😂😂 thank God my salvation isn't dependent on understanding whatever you guys were talking about
I totally agree, found this video analysing this video. Here is a link I suggest you watch Mark Moore's Analysis on this video very in depth and in line with the Christ Centred model. Here is a link ua-cam.com/video/Bg7sfXplU9Y/v-deo.html
You don’t know how many times I thank the Lord that my salvation isn’t dependent on understanding complicated theology 😂 I think complicated theology is something God uses as a gift for those who He knows it will bring them closer to Him, but not for everyone haha!
@@breannat3765 I couldn't agree more. I study alot however I think it's because I give my kids a Bible study every night at the dinner table. Also to help with evangelism. I would say the people that I have seen that were the strongest believers and overflowing with the fruits of the spirit were those who were less gifted in theology. They were beautiful servants of the Lord who could not even read the king james. It is actually very beautiful to me. My son has autism and lags behind academically but he loves when I read the Bible to him. One time when I was upset with him and I was not practicing patience and I was being loud with him he put his hands together looked upwards and prayed to Jesus. It stopped me dead in my tracks and made me reevaluate how I was dealing with him that was a few years ago and now me and him are closer than ever. Sorry for the long share bless you sister.
Your comment is inspiring.... haahahaha
Excellent discourse! Bottom line: this topic has many acceptable angles which shouldn’t be discounted. Remembering our main commission is bringing people to Christ and being humble, as a child, is always sound advice.
Julie acceptable angles.... just not acceptable angels 🤣🤣🤣
It’s pretty obvious that people on here are misinterpreting, misrepresenting, and misunderstanding Dr. Craig here. I haven’t read his work yet but have seen home on a few UA-cam videos. I have read tons of Dr. Heiser’s work and it made understanding what Dr. Craig said a lot easier.
I was brought up in the christian faith and believed in it up until a few months ago.
I struggled for over 10 years with morals of the bible but now dont because i no longer believe in this religion.
Im still searching for truth and enjoy watching videos and found this one interesting.
May watch some more of your content as enjoyed this one.
So may I ask what it is that you believe now? 🙂
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews i really dont know tbh. I believe in evolution to a point but i cant believe everything came from nothing. So maybe there is a creator or something else. Maybe we are being tested in someway or were in a matrix type thing. I only want the truth so wont believe anything, unless im sure its true. But its taken me years to get out of the christian belief. It just felt wrong for so many years and now i feel i know why that it is, because it unlikely true. I wont say its not true as no one really knows. But im convinced no religion im aware of is true. Just man made stories and beliefs.
@@liveonce2102 thanks for responding. Have you found the arguments for the resurrection of Jesus unconvincing?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That is the reason i dont believe anymore as i took it to just be true. But my questions started when i started to read the old testament and found some very immoral things in there.
E.g. slavery, mass murder, human and animal sacrifies etc etc...
This was the start of me questioning and spent over 10 years like that. I more recently started watching debates with top christians and atheists. The atheists were also ex-christians or catholic. They had the same difficulties i had. Watching many videos and checking references in the bible, i came to the conclusion that an all loving, all knowing god would not have condoned all the suffering that went on. Things he supposedly commanded. No way would i worship anyone like that, even if he did exist. The most i read and saw, the more it was obviously man made stories.
My eyes are now open and see things i didnt before. I was brought up in the faith and the indoctrination stopped me seeing what was obvious. There was something that didnt sit right and never understood the concept of being 'saved'. As god made us so that it is impossible to not sin, we didnt have any choices about being here in imperfect bodies. So i designs us to fail and then wants to make out he is saving us from himself. Its barmy but sadly like many, i wanted to keep believing and made excuses or tried not thinking on it too much.
Im not saying there isnt anything out there or a creator. Who knows, but i certainly no longer believe in the bible.
@@liveonce2102. What about the Redemption from this when the Israelites turn back to God and when Jesus saves all of mankind? Try an exercise in logic: read the Bible pretending that Genesis being true is a possible option. That means all of the evil things are in a fallen state, and that Jesus will return and redeem all of creation in the future.
*Never remove the Bible being true as a logical possibility.* Where are you today? What happened?
This channel is so underrated.
I can relate to Dr. Craig’s anguish. Hearing his take has truly helped me today. I can say it was a life raft for me.
Huh....it has had the opposite affect on me.
@@SayWhatSuca I am sorry to hear that. What part? Or was it all of it?
@@charliep5072 I'm actually a big fan of Dr. Craig. And have been following his work for years - his book Reasonable Faith has a special place on my bookshelf. But I find his approach to Genesis confusing. It almost sounds like he is denying the creation story of Adam and Eve. Maybe I have that wrong, but if I don't, that's a pretty big issue.
The most concise answer to the creation story that I have come across, is Dr. Hugh Ross. He blows Craig out of the water concerning this aspect of apologetics.
That being said, I do find that Ken Ham can be quite rude. But....I have also been a fan of Answers in Gensis as well. It's a conundrum
@@SayWhatSuca I really enjoy Ross as well. I enjoy both him and Craig in all the debates I have seen. People have been rude and condescending to them on stage and both do what I couldn’t do and remain polite ( basically turn the other cheek). So few people in the world seem to walk the walk (including me) that I am so grateful when there are those that do.
I like Craig’s approach to most things because he presents strong arguments but never pretends to know for sure regarding these matters that don’t actually affect salvation. Of all the debates and videos I have watched (which is quite a few) of all the prominent apologists, Craig is my favorite.
I appreciate Ham’s desire to treat the Bible as inerrant in every way. I do the same. But there is a lot that is left up to the reader and I would try to avoid being too forceful with things that don’t necessarily affect salvation.
@@charliep5072 Me as well. Craig has been by far the most influential apologist in my life. And agree that both him and Ross display a patience and kindness that I don't feel is present with Ham. And what he said about Craig is really walking a fine and dangerous line - Romans 10:6-7
I feel you Dr. Craig. This stuff keeps me up at night too.
I don't know...I mean sure if Cherubim weren't real they could include them as images but why would they include them if everyone knew they weren't real? Wouldn't this also make the adversary into something that isn't real due to Isaiah 28:14 which calls him a cherub (alternately beside a cherub) Also the flaming sword, which is taken as a sign of it being mythological, are not as imagined. They are something that come with cherubim, later called torches of fire in Ezekiel 1:13.
Imagery does not mean UNREAL, WLC did not say that cherubims are unreal. HE says it is not as it is stated in a literal sense in the bible.. but we know rhat even WLC believes in angels
I don’t know why but this interview made me think of “Out of the silent planet” from C. S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy.
For those of us who agree or disagree with Dr. Craig, one thing is for certain. No man on this earth knows everything about the bible or scripture, and that many perspectives are subjective. Our Heavenly Father put certain discernment, intelligence, knowledge, and understanding in regards to his word, to the prophets and servants who interpreted his word and who still do to this day, because he chose each person to interpret it to those of who don't quite understand it. In other words, man will never fully understand God's word and it's meant to be that way. I learned much from Dr. Craig and still have a long way to understanding scripture, but as long as I'm washed in the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, do what he says, live my life as he wants and as best I can, then that's enough for me..
Interesting conversation. Can’t say I agree with everything but at least it gave me some things to think about more deeply. Like the cherubim myth thing. Never heard of that but the image prohibition law and the ark of the covenant thing does make some sense. Have to ponder on it some more! Oh and that’s awesome that Tom Wright is gonna be on! Can’t wait!! Keep up the good work!
Lots of WLC hate in this thread. Wow. I suggest you read his work. He's in the top tier of scholarship without any question.
I don't really see hate in this thread of WLC. I see people questioning his premises. It seems more like that Eden was a supernatural place here on Earth as Genesis is describing rather than a purely natural place that would even require anthropomorphism. Also whenever people question the plain reading of the Scriptures they need to be the one that come up with a working explanation and it shouldn't matter what level of scholarship they have attained, because at the end of the day we have to simply agree that the Bible is the final authority, that is the truth that we stand on.
That being said it is clearly revealed to be as a supernatural book on many aspects to it. Even the names of the genealogy of Adam and Kain are messages The genealogy of Adam down to Christ is a message that reveals Christ. These names have meanings. Also there are a lot of very amazing hidden meanings in the scriptures. It's like for example if I wrote a book but it also happened to be a manual of some kind and it also happened to be and it also happens to be a treasure map. This is the amazing thing about the Bible is that the more you study it the more it opens up with the various aspects of it and we don't have to just study it by ourselves although we need to know it by ourselves we can enroll the help of many many godly scholars throughout the ages to help us. But we should never rely solely on these people as they are only people.
@Edan Well if that is happening I cannot condone such behavior. These people know something about him that I don't, did he claim to be a prophet? I haven't had a chance to read all the comments.
Been there done that, taught that, believed that, have ton of t shirts.
Wlc is always taking liberal views
Maxime Boucher it depends what you mean by liberal. If you mean that he is straying from orthodoxy, that is far from correct. If you mean that he is saying some passages allow for a more liberal (the definitional meaning) interpretation, sure. But that is trivial. Everyone agrees that some passages allow for a more liberal reading and some passages don’t. That’s far from straying from orthodoxy.
Guest suggestion. John Lennox on the topic of theistic determinism vs. human free will.
Lennox is a pathological liar who has never say anything true or factual . All the bullshit he claims is nothing but wishful thinking, because as with any Christian he and you so badly want the fictional nonsense from the Bible to be true.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w thank you for you honest thoughts. I pray that your eyes would be opened and your heart softened. much love and best wishes.
Ναζωραῖος that just your arrogance and ignorance and pride and denial of not being able to admit I’m right , because that would displease your imaginary friend and than he have no choice to send you to hell, which why you deny anything that is what your cult says.
William Phelps my eyes already been open. There’s nothing wrong with my heart, it’s you that needs your eyes opened and your heart softened. Because once it does happen you realize just how immoral god is. Instead of making bullshit excuses like he our creator so it isn’t wrong if he kills.
The dude has a PhD in philosophy and a separate one in theology, and was educated in a German seminary for his doctorate. I think many are misunderstanding him. Even if one disagrees with his conclusions you can entertain his speculations without adopting them.
Yes. I consider seriously anything he says.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews well that's the healthy thing to do
I see Genesis 1 as a description of days 1-6 and Genesis 2 is a more detailed description of the 6th day.
Yea that's possible. I've always thought God created the earth first, and then he created the garden after. Just because it says he made plants/animal's/etc in chapter 2, doesnt mean it wasnt in the rest of the world.
It's like me saying I have finished building my house. Then a week later I say now I am building my kitchen. You wouldnt say, wait didnt you just tell me you finished your house? Just because I'm working on something in the house, doesnt mean the house itself isnt built
Now I dont have to say it. Thanks, KissTheSon
Very interesting.
I wish you would have spoke more about the flood story.
I admire WLC, but i dont understand how is that he denies the existence of cherubs, but he later affirms the existence of angels.
Same here. If you come across later work of his that explains or clarifies let me know:)
I agree, and his reasoning didn't quite make sense to me either. I mean if God sends angels as messengers, isn't that also making an image of something in heaven like WLC said about Cherubs? I could have also just misunderstood his line of reasoning.
So he is saying that "cherubs" are not real because they were not allowed to make images of anything heavenly. But angels are not "cherubs" and the bible is very clear that Angels exist. Idk why in your mind you have to have bolth.
I think the Best explanation of Genesis 1 is the RTB creation Model
The brilliant William Lane Craig threw me for a loop at the 32:48 mark when he posited that Adam and Eve lived “around 750,000 to 500,000 years ago.”
If we use the more conservative 500,000 years, then on average our biblical couple doubled the human population 31 times by 1979 to approximately 4,294,967,296. That computes to a doubling once every 16,129 years. That is far longer than the last 44 years in which the earth's population has doubled.
But wait, if we take into account Noah's family of eight in 2350 BC, when factoring in the great flood that leaves room to double the world population 29 times before reaching 1979. That averages to a doubling population once every 151 years.
When factoring in wars, famine and natural disasters, what is more plausible, Dr. Craig? A doubling every 16,129 years or a doubling every 151 years?
On another note, I must add that I'm indebted to Dr. Craig for his explanation of Molinism. I credit him for arming me with an explanation of how God's middle knowledge resolves the mind bending paradox of predestination, foreknowledge and free will.
I know this is an old comment, but I just wanted to point out that your math is completely wrong, because you are assuming linear growth in populations. The reality is that populations have natural barriers such as resource availability, climate, cultural norms, wars and dozens of other factors that dramatically alter the growth rate of populations. We actually can see how this works since the earth didn't hit 1 billion people until the 1800s, not because people needed that much time but because the industrial age was needed along with world commerce to allow population sizes to grow to the scale we have today. So it isn't as simple as saying the population had to double every 16k years and that's the analysis, you would need to show that despite primitive conditions the population should have exceeded the world population in say 3000 bc and 2000bc by a significant margin, which I doubt can be shown.
@@jonathanw1106 Jonathan, thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. It is true that I didn't mention all the factors, such as cultural norms and resource availability, yet I did touch on "wars" and "famines," the latter being fairly synonymous with with your reference to "resource availability," at least when it comes to food.
I think the contrast between average is still a valid argument when looking at what is a more logical, average population growth timeline - approximately 6000 years between population doublings or 150 years. And remember, ancient birth control wasn't as impactful as it is today.
@lancevoorheestapestrichann9740 that's fine as an opinion but it is simply not true. Population growth as been most significantly mediated by wealth and technological advancement. You simply cannot say it is more logical that humanity would have reached x population number in this amount of time versus a much longer amount of time without actually doing the math, which as I pointed out, you are incorrectly using a linear calculation. You say you considered some factors... how did that impact your 16000 doubling/year figure? The reality is that given the primitive nature of society and increased mortality/volatility in the environment, it is not at all implausible for the earths population to hold at very low numbers for thousands of years. There's nothing logical about extrapolating based off of unfounded assumptions
At 1:01 you said you do not have to affirm a nonessential issue in order to present it to side step it and get the the cross. I absolutely agree.
before time began we call it the dream time,only the spiritual realm existed,then the Creator began time,then the land,fauna,animals then us,our culture resembles the scriptures,we still keep the circumcision,but our ancient laws are hindered by modern laws and ideals,my people still are abandoning our ancient knowledge at a frightening rate for the traditions of men and modern life which is full of sins,Dr William Lane Craig is a genius,much respect from Aboriginal Australia
Good stuff.
You guys brilliantly deal with his orientation. Thanks for pressing him often.
I'd like to see a Biblical perspective on Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, Robert Shock theories on Earth's geology caused by cataclysms. Also analysis on the idea that the pre-flood Earth was possibly far more advanced than we think. Finally, did the pre-flood Earth have much more unsubmerged land than now?
It may also be noted that Dr Craig hit the bulls eye with modern cosmology, the intial conditions of the universe were highly ordered, entropy is at its highest now, its lowest at times beginning.
I love Dr Craig, but... on this issue of 1:1 and 1:2 I couldn't disagree with him more.
I have studied ancient Hebrew, Greek and Old English along with the cultural and linguistic idioms of the times in which the Bible was written and then translated.
Dr Craig has a habit off interpreting with a common, contemporary version of languages and culture.
To the Hebrews, writing about the power of evil things is to speak them in to existence and honor them. The reason 1:1 and 1:2 are written as they are is because the tradition of oral teaching, father to child, would have given the knowledge of events between the verses to avoid WRITTEN glorification of evil.
Also, this explanation of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is very useful in explaining to non-believers who constantly bring up carbon dating. We obviously have relics and findings that are tens of thousands of years old.
If we remove the truth of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 from existence, then the Bible becomes suspect because science has got cookies in the cookie jar to show and substantiate that there was something before the Bible.
Today, in modern Israel, you will find that many many Jews believe that this space between those two verses is the area when Lucifer reigned.
Clearly the Earth was in some way shape or form given to Lucifer as his kingdom, but the Bible does not explain that event happening. We see in the Book of Job that the Lord acknowledges that the Earth is Lucifer's Kingdom.
At some point he was given rulership and princely status over the entire world and had offended the Lord in some way (even Jesus himself confirmed it in the New Testament by saying satan is the god of this world and also in his parable about the vineyard owner sending his servants and then his son who were all killed) caused him to create man.
Once again, referring to contemporary Jews, if you ask them to describe what Adam was, the first thing they'll tell you is that in Hebrew it is written "let us create a new man who blushes". Why would you have to create a new man if there had never been a creation before?
Additionally later on in the Genesis account, the Lord tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the Earth. How can you replenish something that's never been filled up before?
Later on in the scripture, there is a description by the Lord himself of how Lucifer tried to establish himself as God, seating himself on the Mountain of God and calling himself all powerful, seeking to overtake the Throne of the Lord. Yet there's no description of that happening in previous chapters or even books of the Bible.
Also in another book of there is a description where a prophet is seeing in a dream things laid to waste. The way it's described in the Hebrew is not a future event but it's a previous event.
He describes that there were Chimera and all sorts of evil things going on where there was a mixing of animals and humans and the Lord found it completely abominable and came and destroyed it.
Again, his vision and its description is not a future future tense scenario, it's a past tense scenario, something that he had seen almost as if the Lord was saying I've done it before and I'll do it again.
Additionally, Dr. Craig saying that the Lord did not embody a human form is ridiculous. Jesus says that he is the beginning and the end the Alpha and the Omega, the same in the beginning as he is in the end. When he came to us in the flesh, he had already inhabited flesh.
Nebuchadnezzar himself looked into the furnace and saw a fourth person in there, with a body, and said that he looked as if he were the son of man. Abraham came face-to-face with the traveler, and went back and told Sarah to prepare food because the Creator was going to "eat" with them. Spirits do not eat.
In the New Testament Jesus walked on the water, not because he was trying to show off, but once again because he was dealing with Jews who require a sign, he was trying to show them that he was the GOD of the Old Testament whose Spirit was upon the face of the waters. He was Father Son and Holy Spirit from the beginning, Mind Body and Spirit.
Somewhere in there, he always had a flesh body able to transcend physical limitations as exemplified when he walked through the wall when appearing before the disciples after his resurrection.
Again, I want to stress I love Doctor Craig, but he's just a man just like any of us. And his interpretations are an understanding that he has gained over many years of study, but there is only one all-knowing being and that's the Lord God in heaven.
I pray that people take this issue straight to God, and ask for the SPIRIT to be upon them, to give them a knowledge of Truth and understanding. The Bible isn't even a scratch on the bigger picture, it's simply an instruction manual on how to get there.
vdgitaliano
Is it possible to ask God for a knowledge of truth? The reason I ask is because Genesis, ostensibly the inspired story of creation if found to contain contradictions which contradict its supposedly factual account of the beginning.
Continue studying, you have some wild ideas especially that Jesus had incarnated prior to his Birth from Mary. That is straight up heretical
I may make some comments throughout the interview, they are notes I will use to review it myself, hope they are useful to others. First @7:20 the description as an ocean on a dark night (according to occams razor this is the most natural translation, however we may also include stormy nights since the spirit/wind brooded like a hen over chicks. In hermeneutics this is called the law of first mention; it determines how the "waters" in Revelation are "seen", where they are peoples, out of which mountains(kingdoms, nations) come.
As for his understanding of what things meant for the original OT author vs how the NT authors saw them, it seems to me that it's possible to talk about two different (complementary) meanings based on the dual human/divine authorship. Even if Moses did not see the fuller theological meaning of the serpent or the protoevangelium, etc., it would still be fair as Christians to say the larger Christological significance.
Exactly, I'm sure half the old testament prophets didn't know the glory of what they were prophesying in Jesus, but the truth was still in their words, hidden until the right time
Brother Darren and Dr. Craig in 24 hours wow, ya'll must be jet lagged (meant that poetically not literally) :] That is the beauty of this podcast, bringing a diversity of viewpoints within our community. Yes, much of what he sounded to me was "off" to my ears, but that's because I am not use to hearing those viewpoints. It's important to hear Dr. Craig and other Academics like him because they serve as healthy "sparring partners" to get us to see, listen, and tune our minds to differing viewpoints. If Dr. Craig got under your skin, then you are not currently ready to go out and minister. Keep in mind our Evangelical community is only a small part of Orthodox Christianity. As he said at the very end, he's had to wrestle with these ideas , we too should wrestle as well. Learning is a labor of love gentlemen. Lets Teach Truth but also Love well ! (inspired by my school's motto there).
Andres O only a Christian would be stupid as fuck believe anything a pathological liar like WLC claims. All he does Is pander to the audience.
Ναζωραῖος that’s because you been brainwashed to only accept what a Christian says.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w Evidence that he's a pathological liar rather than simply mistaken, please?
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w Show us evidence that he was brainwashed to only accept what a Christian says rather than he followed the evidence where it lead and came to the conclusion that Christianity is true on that basis!
bbryant0620 everything he say is evidence he a pathological liar, claiming there would be no good if their was no god, claiming we wouldn’t know the the difference between right and wrong are proof he a pathological liar. He believes what he been brainwashed to believe. Him being an apologetic is the evidence he a pathological liar.
I just feel you are removing the finger print of God from the Genesis story when you say this is mythological speech which was common of the time. It’s as though Gods inspiration has been removed when you say that.
Yup, that's the point... The end-goal of Satan from the beginning: "-yea, hath God said...?".
@@jesussaves7938I hate it when people misuse this quote.
It depends on what you mean by inspiration. If you believe the biblical authors were possessed and basically functioned as human pens to author the books then woke up and saw a completed work, then yes these ideas would be in conflict. However if you understand inspiration to mean God using human authors with their own background knowledge culture, temperament and style and through the Holy Spirit caused them to write the Scriptures to convey God's infallible truths, then it is not in conflict because God uses different genres and elements of language to convey truths. Like Jesus and parables
Dr. Craig may not always be right but he is never in doubt
Because he studied a lot and prepared so much studies here...
To say that it’s deceptive of God to create a young earth with a mature look and yet not think it would be deceptive of God to give us a creation story that isn’t meant to be taken literal although it’s referred to by the apostles and Christ himself as if it’s literal is called inconsistency.
Trying to find my comment where I said that WLC made up a source. That was inaccurate I found the source he qouted and Nahum Sarna did say what WLC qouted him saying I just forgot oops
I just want to say, I deeply respect you for issuing this correction, and I mean deeply. I think that this evinces an intellectual integrity and humility on your part that is most often lacking in discussion of theological and philosophical topics. I strive to act in a way that is similar to how you've acted here when I'm discussing things with others. Good on ya, mate! You are a great example to others.
I couldn't agree more!
@Liam O'Brien I couldn't agree more!
Thanks for sharing,God bless
I don’t know about this Dr Craig
He's incredibly smart in christian theology but his opinion of a millions of years earth would be somthing id have issues with.
Thanks, this was thought provoking at worste.
Guys, thank you for pressing him on certain issues. There was a few things I found interesting but disagreed with and you read my mind and asked him precisely what I would.
If God is the author of 100% of scripture, then He would know what He meant in the old testament when authoring it
Check out Mt St Helens
Haven't watched video yet, but as an atheist I LOVE William. I disagree with him a lot, particularly on the cosmological argument, but its always a pleasure to watch an actually educated person talk on the bible lol
You’re totally mistaken. There are many many brilliant minds who are people of the faith. The stereotypical view of Christians as illiterate that you propose shows how egoistic and ill informed you really are. Go research for yourself and make a list of scientists, physicists, mathematicians and great philosophers who are Christians. You will be surprised.
@12:20 I agree that myth can be used. Moses divides the Torah, days of old years of many generations. The 7 is the backbone order. Michael Hieser also points out that the myth is ordered as a polemic against the other ancient gods, and a correct scientific order would also be such a polemic. I would also review Gerald schroders work in support of Dr Craig.
Not going to lie I am a bit shocked that Craig seems to think Cheribum do not exists.
Frigging love Bill Craig
It is unprecedented in the extent ancient literature to CHANGE literary genre in the middle of a literary work.
I have to disagree with you on that point-many of the books of the Bible shift between different genres. Take Ezekiel as an example: apocalyptic-visionary sections, historical narrative, prophetic, and didactic genres throughout the book. The same certainly could be said for Daniel and several other OT books if you think about it. What genre would you even assign to Genesis?
True there are several nuances within in a genre of literature. But a book of prophecy doesn't contain fictional narrative. Genesis is clearly in the same genre as 1 Samuel or chronicals. This switching if genres even between the verses is like saying the nightly news is going to run a story on Godzilla in New York.
Jt Huff I have to disagree. To compare Genesis or the books of the prophets to our concept of modern literature or the nightly news is not an apples to apples comparison. Genesis and most books of the OT were written over the span of many years and contain collections of passages developed over time before someone put them together in final form. These individual sections are genres within themselves. No one sat down to write the book of Genesis start to finish with a single genre in mind.
Jeremiah is a good example of this. Because of the use of historical narrative in the book we know that his scribe Baruch wrote different scrolls over a span of years that contained the prophecies given to Jeremiah. One was even burned and had to be rewritten! There are clear sections that contain different genres that were put together as a collection which comprises the book in its final form.
This is far more than “subtle nuances”; it’s the way the books of the Bible were written, directed by the Holy Spirit.
Ok you've convinced to revise my statement there are certain genres that don't mix or change. And yes the Bible is not too be understood through modern eyes. But your point dismisses the Hebrews from telling a simple historical account if what happened
Who said that Genesis 1-11 is the same author as the rest of Genesis? The idea that Genesis has one author is debated.
That is ring!
Yes Sr. The genealogy yes does sustain the account of the flood and the creation perfectly balanced numerically and clear!
William Lane Craig : Cherubims are imaginary
INTERVIEWER: 😒 where the hell did pull that out from
Me: LOL
He seems he has fallen off hasn't he. He is trying his best to define these things in a circular manner which is quite sad. They are obviously complex questions but they are definitely better answers than these. Please see this video analysis I suggest you watch Mark Moore's Analysis on this video very in depth and in line with the Christ Centred model. Here is a link ua-cam.com/video/Bg7sfXplU9Y/v-deo.html
I love Dr. Craig's writings but I agree with you; he seems to have confused this point and is using a narrow interpretation. Jews and Jewish scholars and philosophers NEVER considered cherubim were imaginary. They had maintained that the cherubim in the ark were not to be worshiped; they represented God's presence. This belief continued to the early Christian church and thereafter: "After outlawing the idolatrous worship of false images, God began to depict the secrets of his kingdom in images" (The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life).
You honestly think there were actual, literal angelic lion creatures with flaming swords? Come on man. Craig is being real here. Let go of your silly notions and understand the meaning of the text rather than trying to view it as if it's some kind of science book. he Bible is NOT a science book nor should it be treated as one.
The Quran tries to be one in some parts and fails miserably, which is one of the many things proving Islam is just a silly ripoff.
@@GA-rn9ik The view of the cherubim as representing the Presence is also somewhat wrong. It's very close, though. The accurate view is that they participated in the Theophany, particularly they appear to have participated in the Spirit/Presence, the whirlwind/fiery whirlwind. But they were definitely viewed as real creatures. The Levites carry the ark of the covenant just like they carry the merkabah, and the ark of the covenant is clearly modeled after the merkabah so the Levites also model the cherubim.
@@greg77389 Nobody said that they were literal angelic lion creatures with flaming swords. That's a caricature. However they weren't remotely imaginary. They're class of celestial being whose actual appearance we don't know. Just as the angel/glory of YHWH, the second member of the echad-YHWH, is described with symbolic language related to stars and fire etc. And YHWH the Father is depicted with a certain color hair etc etc as the Ancient of Days. Symbols but still real figures.
Two fine OEC works examining the tight Bible-science correlation in the early part of Genesis are NAVIGATING GENESIS/A SCIENTIST'S JOURNEY by Hugh Ross and GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH/2nd ed. by Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips, and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr.
@57:48 I prefer young earth creation with the appearance of age, the bedrock for which is Gerald Scroeder's use of Einstein's General relativity equations in which from the big bang perspective the earth is only 6-24hr days old while from our perspective its 13000000000 years old because it expanded at the speed of light, (or faster? I dont know if "faster" can be applied if time stops at the speed of light, in that frame of reference,"eternity", SPECIAL CREATION would occur) It would seem then in our reality "stretching the heavens" and "General relativity" are dynamically equivalent terms. Dynamic equivalence is a principle in linguistics where the best approximate fit of a word or phrase is found. Its FREAKY how dynamically equivalent Genesis is to "science", you can fit relativity, evolution, and special creation into it, I dont of any other myth that even remotely accommodates that, and at the same time Genesis is very specific in order and subject and object.
In Ezekiel 28 the Lord pronounces a judgement against the King of Tyre... Midway through He transitions to pronouncing a judgement against a fallen cherub who had previously made an appearance in Eden... Not only do cherubim exist but Satan is one of them.
Symbolism & poetic imagery can be used for rhetorical effect without ascribing or demanding ontological status with them.
I don't think the interviewers were quite prepared with a good understanding of Craig's view
While that may be true, I appreciate that precise fact, because it feels like like that's how a layman with scarce knowledge would approach Craig
I respectfully disagree. They seemed to know the questions that pushed Dr. Craig into the controversial aspects of his research that you can tell he, a) still struggles with and b) is basing the crux of his research on.
@@zacace *"They seemed to know the questions that pushed Dr. Craig into the controversial aspects of his research that you can tell he, a) still struggles with and b) is basing the crux of his research on."*
Then why did they keep making elementary errors which Craig had to keep correcting? The questions don't really push Dr. Craig anywhere. They are just based on ideas that aren't correct. You cannot say that myth means falsity, that is a false assertion. Just because you deny that man is in the physical image of God, that doesn't mean that you deny an ontological interpretation of the phrase image of God and, therefore, accept a vocational interpretation of the image of God. Just because you believe that it is scientifically consistent to believe that Adam and Eve were created de novo, that doesn't mean that you believe that they were. The only thing I saw Craig struggling with was the effort to wrangle in the presumptive hosts to keep them from error.
*"that you can tell he, a) still struggles with and b) is basing the crux of his research on."*
I just don't see what reason there is for thinking any of what you've said here to be true. Why should we think these things?
Some of this lines up with Kenneth R. Miller's Finding Darwin's God
Have you read it?
@@benreid9523 Kenneth Miller's book? Yeah. What's up?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.
I’d love an interview with joel richardson!!
What are you hoping to accomplish?
Really? The guy who makes a living off sensationalistic futuristic nonsense?
Simply put, it seems clear to me the oldest deceptive strategy in the world is still smiling and at work, undermining and calling into doubt the clear Word of God: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?””
Genesis 3:1 ESV
Rather, I believe God is clear in His Word. Rewriting it to mean what we want it to mean, or what the current realm of thought finds more palatable falls for the oldest temptation in the Book. “For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”” Romans 3:3-4 NKJV
Im new to you channel.
Excellent discussion!
God bless you all.
It has always puzzled me that we think science can say what happened, when all it actually says is what happens. Also, anyone who has ever grown a plant knows that a few days between their planting and their appearance is not shocking.
What mic are you using guys?
Seems like a lot of private interpretation and theistic/evolutionist compromise here. After listening to this video, I have a deeper confirmation of Psalms 118:8 - “it is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.“
But the issue is still there.. rhe interpretation of Genesis, which is which?
I have to agree with you. I think it’s the danger of taking apologetics too far. Apologetics is a small part of the Bible. It’s way out of balance in our evangelistic strategy. People are blind to the danger of apologetics. What’s mythical is the idea that people come to Christ by being convinced intellectually. They think if you come to Christ because he fulfills needs you have then it must be solely blind faith.
Some that "profess to be wise" need to be shown what fools they've made themselves to be, and what more glorious way to do it than taking them up in their "intellectual" challenge?
Very confusing 😕 regarding the way man was created from dr. Craig's perspective. I'm not sure I agree nor that his perspective was agreed by the interviewers.
Remnant Radio I appreciate you having on people of all different views and thoughts.. even this guy.. he has a few good points, but seems to be on the road to wanting to outthink everyone and just be different...
No, he doesn't want to just be different. In fact, he's in line with the vast majority of orthodox Christian beliefs. He simply holds a few differing beliefs because he isn't afraid to follow the evidence.
I suggest you watch mark Moore's analysis of this video very in depth and in line with the Christ centred model. Here is a link ua-cam.com/video/Bg7sfXplU9Y/v-deo.html
@@latona3078 I started the video but quit after he made his first point, starting at around the 4:45 minute mark, because it was not only so bad but had been dealt with in this very video. Dr. Craig mentioned that there is a time and place for interpreting in light of other books of the Bible, such as interpreting Genesis in light of the Book of Revelation, but before we can do that, we need to know what the text itself was saying.
Nobody reading the Torah would have read Genesis as having anything to do with Christ. While it is true that sometimes we are to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, that is not at all what you want to do when studying the historical matters in the Old Testament. When involved in that project one merely wants to find out what that text was saying in its own context (i.e., from some author such as Moses, to the Jews around the time of the Exodus, in the context of the other writings of that time and from that author, that is, the five books of the Torah, according to the genre of the writings which seems to be Mytho-History, Myth not to be taken as meaning false, for Genesis 1-11 and part of Exodus, and so on...) so that once we know what the text was originally saying, we can determine what would have most probably originally been understood to be historical in a literal sense and what would most probably not have been by the original author and audience. That is doing the historical project.
When we turn to theology, we take this data, and do Biblical theology on it, which interprets it in light of the broader context of other Biblical texts. Finally, after having done that, then we turn to Systematic Theology where we bring in what we know of reality, from things like science and philosophy, and determine how reality is when all the data is taken together being careful that we don't fall into Concordism, read science and philosophy back into the text, or adopt any view truly, and the word "truly" is key there, incompatible with the Biblical data.
If you want to see Dr. Craig address this briefly in this video, then watch the section here where Dr. Craig mentions it in response to a question at around minute mark 44:30 - 45:30.
I hope you don't take this criticism of the video that you suggested I watch the wrong way, and I do seriously thank you for your suggestion. I think that Christian brothers and sisters should look out for each other as you do, and as Moore does (I don't know if he's a doctor or not, so I didn't append such a title). You guys exemplify traits that I desire to have, and I deeply respect you both for it.
Sincerely,
Thank you, brother/sister!
P.S.
I'm not trying to end the conversation. Feel free to reply all you want. I will do my best to respond to you. If you feel that there are any points in the video that you would like me to interact with, then you can just express them here for me or give me a timestamp to that part of the video, so that I can avoid wasting time by watching the whole thing, and I will do my best to give a thoughtful response.
Oh my goodness, I heard this video trying to find some wisdom/knowledge to add to my Genesis teaching, but all I found was a scholar who has his own strong ideas that aren't based on Scriptures or scientific facts.
I didn't hear answers to the bunch of questions that were presented. I think I wasted my time.
Totally agree 💯
We had a teacher with the same views at our church this past Sunday answering questions about Genesis. Now I'm wondering if any of the Bible is true
Bible says it didnt rain pre flood. Just a dew on the ground in the mornings 🤔
You guys need to read the books of Enoch. He was the scribe of the Most High God. His books were written for the current generation and should be known.
Lost me at, we have to let modern science guide our interpretation of the Bible. The devil has been counting on that one and has used that to blind minds since birth
Is your audio out of sync or is it my device/connection?
If you are using bluetooth then it will be off.
The two usages of without form and void are used in opposing ways. Genesis-= God's presence hovering over a lightless, landless,lifeless deep as the precursor to GOD speaking them into vibrant existence .
Jeremiah = The presence of GOD hovering over a rebellious people to dispel light,drive out life and destroy land and the works of men's hands . GOD speaking into existence violent execution of judgement and destruction.
Same phrase different context and application. One a step in creation the other a kick in the hinder parts for correction. The sameness is only in the words used.
Really enjoyed the conversation. Some might not like where it went and the conclusions Dr. Craig made... much of what he is talking about is not new and is not fringe thought. It was essentially a YEC/OEC discussion. Anyone with questions about this is in good company. One cannot simply disregard conclusions without looking at both sides of evidence. Luckily we have a lot of material on the topic.
This is the first time I’m hearing such intellectual speech concerning the Bible without a hint of the Holy Spirit guiding his speech. I sense zero filling of the Holy Spirit which I trust is the most significant part of addressing the Word. Does anyone agree or disagree? I really would like to know. I don’t desire to bash him, and he obviously has done more and longer studying/research of the Bible than I have, but this is the first time in a long time that I’m listening to someone speaking of the Word of God and not buying the intellectual speech because this entire conversation is incredibly carnal and dealing with making absolute sense when obviously it’s not working because you’re leaving too much room for open interpretation. Which, when you’re actually filled with the Spirit, much of that room is dissipated. Because as the Word says, there is a broad path that leads to destruction. The narrow path leads to light. This also brought in a sense of confusion rather than clarity. And God’s truth only produces clarity. This sounds confused… not a spirit of God. And the amount of room being left due to pushing down the Spirit in order to understand things from carnal intellectualism, is incredibly dangerous when discussing a book that is spiritual-created from a spiritual being. There are few points he made which I can understand and get with, but you’re missing a lot of the point when you fail to discuss the spirit at all. These are my thoughts as of today. I’m sure I have much to learn still. I just would rather not learn it under this context. But thanks for the video and allowing me to come to the conclusion that majority of this pissed me of lol.
Let me also say, I am unfamiliar with Dr. William’s teachings and I don’t want to claim that he is not a spirit filled believer. I am just stating that this is not a spirit-filled teaching.
I respect each of you and the time you spent to put this video and conversation together nonetheless. I’m not a hater! I simply do not agree with the majority of this.
I agree! You want to learn from a scholar that glorifies the Lord from beginning to end of discussuon or seminary? Michael Heiser and Hugh Ross are very smart, educated and all about Jesus ♥️
I believe there are layers and depths to the word but it's good to nail down the actual language sometimes and hear other wise possibilities from believers who love the word as well. God is living and all the people who were called by God received a deeper understanding of the word and who God is based on relationship not tradition or belief (John the Baptist vs Pharisees). Christ said I am the way.. Paul told us not to lean on our own understanding... God wants to challenge our perception of him as we study and walk with him.
Dr John Dickson agrees with William Lane Craig's genre classification and has even more poetic information that reveals how it all fits together. It's more like we are reading Shakespeare than Darwin. Would Richard Dawkins read Shakespeare's line "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun." and complain "What nonsense! There's no way any truth is being conveyed in this nonsense because Juliet is obviously not a giant ball of fusing hydrogen millions and millions of miles across!" Sorry, but truth can be conveyed in poetry - and sometimes is the *best* genre to explain certain truths!
Here's a taste of the evidence for the creative literary narrative that Dr John Dickson unpacks in the link below:
"In Genesis 1, multiples of seven appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of seven conveyed a powerful message. Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. Its omnipresence in the opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself. Consider the following:
The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused;
The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing;
The word ‘earth’-one half of the created sphere-appears in the chapter 21 times;
The word ‘heaven’-the other half of the created sphere-also appears 21 times.
‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.
The refrain ‘and it was so,’ which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times;
The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times;
It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.
The artistry of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of art, sharing in the perfection of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: short of including a prescript for the benefit of modern readers the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is being conveyed through literary rather than prosaic means. What we find in Genesis 1 is not exactly poetry of the type we find in the biblical book of Psalms but nor is it recognizable as simple prose. It is a rhythmic, symbolically-charged inventory of divine commands."
www.publicchristianity.org/the-genre-of-genesis-1-an-historical-approach/
More at his podcast: undeceptions.com/podcast/six-days
Definitely get another opinion.
The Gospel of Luke, chapter 3, has a genealogy of Jesus going back to Adam.
If Adam is a myth, why does Luke list him in a historical lineage that leads to Jesus?
If Luke is somehow blending ancient myth and real history in the same long sentence -- a chain of ancestry -- his credibility as a reliable historian is in question, is it not?
Luke's Gospel and his book of Acts have more historical references than any other books in the scripture, right? Is some other writer of scripture more historically based?
If Luke is not reliable as a historian, then the rest of the Gospels and New Testament books are even less historically sound, since they're written with even less historical references than Luke's contributions.
From that premise, you unravel the historicity of the New Testament and the historical Jesus and the historical reality upon which our faith is based.
And you do all that, just to not contradict the central atheist belief of our age, so you might not be mocked as much by the atheists and agnostic scholars.
That's a poor exchange. And despite this compromise approach people raised in Christian families continue to disbelieve the Bible and leave the faith in droves, because they can think more logically from that same false premise than well respected PhD historians and Bible scholars.
I am seeking for Noah's ark explanation. Local flood or entire world flood?
I have a suspicion, that bereshit, THE BEGINNING is a Title for YHVH-Yeshua, I AM THE-Alpha, I AM THE-Omega, THE Beginning.... In this since YHVH-The Beginning , Created-bara, Elohim-the gods-angels(see psalm 82, EL judges the Elohim, and the writer of Hebrews translating "elohim" psalms as "angels", It also points to M. Hieser's hermon solution: Psalm 22 "my El, my El, why have you forsaken me" which ties the Israeli elohim-judges, to the angelic Elohim which did not save HIM because was hanged on a tree,i.e. cursed, and relates DIRECTLY back to psalm 22 in how they treated the son of man. On this generation the judgement of the unified ELOHIM occurred. Then midway in Psalm 22 it says that YHVH-THE Beginning did not turn HIS FACE from HIM, because as a man HE had no original sin-virgin born and did not break the law so death had no right to hold HIM, and psalm 22 ends with Yeshua's last words on the cross, It is finished. Now our sin problem, and the hermon problem are solved in one fell swoop, because the MAN Yeshua now has the right to judge man and the elohim-both human and divine for how they treated the Son of Man.
Good talk but right away assumptions of some facts which frame other thought based on assumptions..or trying to fit the bible with what science tells us is truth..not that they can't coincide or agree.cuz u can't escape the truth or necessity of God but most things that are given the title of science r in fact not and merely a hypothetical story..but everyone is entitled to believe certain things..hes right about the core message
I love and appreciate Dr.Craig. But I have a totally different understanding of Genesis. I can uphold the straight forward reading which accounts for the little details that people point to think they suggest it wasn't 24 hour days.
And it makes more sense of those details which are extremely important for an underlying divine/prophetic secondary teaching.
I know what your thinking....No, it is not ad hoc. Yes, it is undeniable to think it is not intentionally part of the text. How do I know? This theme is weaved throughout all the bible in incredible ways which were surely the Providence of God.
All those details are waiting to be confronted with faith and stand in the breach until kingdom come. And that is soon my brothers and sisters. Jesus IS COMING SOON! And who shall be able to stand? The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" And any person who is thirsty may come and drink from the fountain of the water of life. Even so, come quick, Lord Jesus.
Man I was a literal six day creation believer, but I've never thought about that argument. If we already know God is outside of time and one day for us doesnt mean one day for God. If the sun was only created on the 4th day, then how did the first three days count as a day? If you say it was a day for God, then how can we say that one of Gods days means one day for us?
One day = one rotation of the earth = approx 24 hours
Yea but that's one rotation around the sun. Still left with the same problem.
Why do people think God, or anyone, cant tell time if the sun doesnt exist? If the sun was erased we could still keep track of time. Time is a duration. 24 hours is 24 hours regardless if the sun is there or not.
Time as we know it (24 hours) is solely based on night and day. If you were placed in a dark room with no windows and no watch, you would not be able to tell how much time had passed. Also we are created beings, how can you put limitations of man on God? Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I am". We also get in Revalation: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
@@I3lackVeNoM911 Sorry but you're just wrong and seem to be contradicting yourself?
Put me in that dark room and I could still tell time if I was really determined to. I can count. If I count to 86,400 I can say 24 hours has passed without any sun or watch. I'm just a man, God can do that with ease.
Limitations on God? Really? Didnt you do just that by saying that basically God cant tell time if theres no sun? How it's a "problem?" I'm the one saying God is NOT limited by the sun and it's no problem for him at all. You're not making sense to me here.
God said let their be light. A day only requires a spinning ball of water and a source of light. A star is not required….
Jesus referred to Genesis as historical history. Those that believe it’s not historical call Jesus a liar….
I wonder if Neanderthals were destroyed in the flood🧐. Just a thought.
Update: don’t stress yourself, Dr. I agreed with we can’t take the age of Adam as how old the earth is.
The bible, a book that's been translated from dead languages that we can't fully translate because we're missing allot of definitions of words. The stories of the modern bible don't even line up with the stories in the dead sea scrolls(the oldest known version of the bible. oh and there are 12 books missing from the bible, because some people along time ago decided they didn't belong in there for reasons nobody is sure of.
He needs to read Dr Heiser's works 🤣
Completely agree. He needs a copy of The Unseen Realm. I would also suggest to him Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns for a better understanding of "borrowed" material in the old and new testiment. Until this video I've never disagreed with WLC on anything. Typically I love his stuff.
He lost me on Cherubim aren’t real. Like I understand that the portrayals of them might be figurative, but it’s a stretch to think that ancient Jews didn’t think there were some sort of reality to these, imho
He is right, cherubim is an imagery.. they are figures they do not look exactly what the bible say, cherubim has a face of a lion, with 4 wings, with sword and more.. those are imagery that do not tell what the angels really look like..
@@metnasopar8861 but you do think that they are real, right? You don’t think they are merely imagery do you? The description of them could be symbolic but don’t you think there is something ontologically true about them?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews i honestly think they are true angels... WLC does not deny they are true angels..
@@metnasopar8861 I could buy that. I've always thought of Cherubim as a particular type of heavenly being. But I'm not particular about the physical appearance, if physical is even the right word. Blessings!
apparent age? He told us! Dating methods have built in assumptions. There is no way around that. People speak AS IF this wasn't the case. Whatever the age is,(it is young imho)
no matter what you think, there are assumptionS in the common interpretation of geology etc.
I guess you didn't understand his point. His point was precisely that because these ambiguities do exist we need to be careful not to use that to try to justify the beliefs that we want to be true; otherwise, as he said, we can just claim that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age, and that would be as reasonable as claiming that it was created 6,000 years ago, especially when the Bible doesn't comment on the age of the universe. Instead, we need to follow the evidence to the most likely conclusion, not the conclusion we most desire to be true. Now, biblical evidence of the age of the universe would be of supreme import; however, we sadly don't have any such commentary on the age of the universe in the biblical text.
@@Real_LiamOBryan true, that is our post-enlightenment concern (historic, mathematical-scientific accuracy & precision), not the concern of the ancient near-eastern 'mosaic' text.
Assumptions can be reasonable & warranted. Test them. The results will help determine if a starting point is good or bad.
@@kilroywashere2162 Absolutely!
And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Could this be a day in Heaven and not Earth?
Thats too orthodox for him apparently lol.
When is a day not a solar day in ancient literature (including Gen.1-2:3)? Even early Christian expositors & thinkers (e.g., Origen, Augustine, etc.) realized there was something special about the creation week of days. The ancient text is not about historical chronology or the mere 'scientific' matter of the age of the cosmos. From the ancient near eastern comparative studies it is evident that a creation week of indefinite + definite climax days, starting with a negative description & ending with a completed order (the same literary form as Gen.1) was the way the creation of divine temples were described. Do the research, see for yourselves, then by the grace of God seek to be his representative images in his creation temple.
Cant mean a solar day because the sun wasnt made yet.
This makes no logical sense because apparently there was light, day and night but not sun.
Even the plants that need sunlight for photosynthesis was made before the sun appeared. This is likely because the bible is man made stories.
You don’t realize that God knows how long it takes for a day? So God said it was a day because that’s how long it took he didn’t need the sun to show him how long it took. What is wrong with Christian people today who just are decimating the Scriptures
This right here! Thank you! I loved to listen to him until the Lord opened my ears for what he is doing! Wether the earth exists for million of years, God created Adam from the dust! Period! WLC is almost taking the miracle of creation out of the bible. God is a supernatural being and He wresled with Jacob. The angel of the Lord! Eve was literally taken out of the mans rib!
@@NicoleSerreli1974 it’s sad that men today think they know more than the apostles and prophets of the bible. The Jews new ones say was one day. Jesus affirmed in Adam and Eve. WLC over steps his bounds often thinking himself to be quite smart. He is so smart that he has figured out the thousands years of the doctrines of the church need him to correct them. it’s sad
How come a fundamentalist preacher who preached God puts out videos saying people like Ravi Zacuriez is now burning in hell ? He preached that he was a false prophet because he said he said God bless to the Mormons I don’t understand he also said the same about Billy Graham any idea what the preacher is talking about ? Nick
cherubim are not the same as seraphim are not the same as the angels who deliver messages. it's not all "angels." it's not going to be a problem if it turns out that like the beasts in other visions, that the cherubim are literal creatures you will see in heaven
Who was cain scared would kill him? Who was in nod?
The descendants of Seth, seeing as people were living to be over 900 years old.
Most common understanding of The Serpent is that it is existing outside the woman, but the serpent is existing within Eve, where a voice or thought rises within you, questioning something, is this true or is it not true, everyone lives with this kind of Voice Within them self, it has to do with a spiritual condition, when man and woman come into being, it is speaking of man and woman in a general sense, when Adam gives names to the animals it is revealing' man's spiritual position, his maturity, like a young child when you give them a book with pictures in it, dog, cat, cow, horse, and so on, you do not get Adam and Eve as individual beings until you get bloodline. The scripture concerning the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent and the serpent bruising the heel, has to do with the relationship of man and woman, it has been there from the beginning, man being violent against woman crushes her head but woman in her attack bruises he's heal, this exists because man is physically violence against women, but women cannot be physically violence against man, what she does is drive a knife into his heart, and this is the relationship between Cain and Abel, where Abel drives a knife into Cain's heart, then Cain kills Abel.
@Ναζωραῖος no, because the serpent is not woman, just because I say The Serpent is within Eve as something new to look at as opposed to The Serpent being outside Eve, does not make Eve The Serpent, if I have the light of the Christ within me, it doesn't make me Christ, The Serpent also can be unseen, and not necessarily the one that you find written in Genesis, because Eve was already deceived, because she lied to The Serpent, if Eve is already deceived then the serpent is already in her life, that is the devil, the prince of Lies.
The point of view changes between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In 1:1 God creates the universe. He is transcendent to the universe. Then in 1:2 the point of view changes to the watery surface of the earth where the Spirit of God is hovering over the surface. It is dark because the Earth is under a thick cloud cover. Then when God says, "Let there be light" the opaque cloud cover becomes translucent and light penetrates to the surface of the Earth that as the Earth rotates there is day and night. When the sun moon and stars are seen on Day 4 the sky is now transparent. On Day 4 God says, "Let there be the sun moon and stars" "Let there be" is a different term than the word for create, bara, that means create from nothing ex nihilo. If you understand the change in point of view for 1:2, everything lines up with modern cosmology.
15:01 great break down
28:01 "cherubim don't exist"? Really? Did the creatures that John saw not exist? I don't think so. If the creatures around the throne exist than anything can.
35:25 Neanderthals in heaven; that sounds completely ridiculous. Heaven will be an eternal geiko commercial
44:20 the snake isn't satan. Its just a snake.. that talks and seemingly is quite charming & intelligent
46:20 of course it's speaking of Christ but wlc doesn't know. "He will crush your head" of course is talking about Christ
Water does symbolize chaos in Hebrew. Just like you said, feel like the credibility for the rest of the video is lost on WLC for me, Unfortunately 🙄
Tolema is the word used, and the language being used is mythological, not that it's a myth.
The maiden had a visual detail in the original Hebrew that conveys the letter in the word to suggest a pregnancy and virginity. Its related to a letter similar to a "b". Or something along that line. I shouldn't say such things with such a poor defense and explanation but I can't hold my tongue. I believe it is dangerous to think NT authors used the OT texts in a way that doesn't have some kind of textual evidence for the interpretation. It doesn't have to be the straight forward reading, but something in the text to justify the connection to Christ. God had them just preach to the fellow Israelite until Stephen was killed. All part of Daniel's 70 weeks BTW. Which is a doctrinal lay out of the last days and the overview of creation to recreation.
The chiasmus of His-story. Whos pinnacle and focus is Calvary. In the midst of time and space.
Where is the line drawn for this blessed man? I really respect him so much but I am dying a little inside after this.
Am I hearing theistic evolution? Did God use an evolutionary process to go from simple life forms, to complex life forms? How do Adams and Eve fit in? Would the Jews have interpreted Genesis chapter 1 in this manner? Would they think that Adam and Eve were mythological creatures. Did Jesus represent them as mythological when referencing them. I love Dr. Craig but I think that he is way out in left field on this one...
The OT (Old Testament) is the conglomeration of books that detail the true story of mankind's relationship with God. (The entire history of mankind, from beginning to end. But, only as it relates to God... and prior to Christ's saviorship).
The OT tells the true story of mankind's relationship with God, but it is told through allegory, using archetypal characters whom represent aspects of mankind. Telling the entire literal story would take far too long since it covers the entire history of mankind. So, it is told through allegorical stories, using archetypal characters.
Adam and Eve are [archetype characters], meaning, they [represent] the entire history of mankind (as it relates to God), but without Christ's saviorship. This means that what we see happen to Adam and Eve, is the story of what will happen to mankind, as a whole. The story in Genisis tells us that mankind (Adam and Eve) will walk away from God and embark on their own path and seek their own understanding, instead of maintaining faith in God and Gods wisdom. And, they will become misled, and lost in confusion and sin, and they will never recover. (This is why Christs saviorship is necessary).
This is illustrated in Genesis when God tells Adam that he can eat of any tree except the TOK (Tree of Knowledge). This represents God granting man [free will]. He can "choose" to follow God/Gods council/Gods wisdom and not eat of the TOK... Or.. he can choose to reject Gods council and instead put faith into himself and eat of the TOK anyways. Choosing to eat of the TOK is to put more faith in "self" than faith in God. Thus, it is a "self"-centered path, rather than a God-centered path. To disobey and reject Gods wisdom and eat of this forbidden tree requires rebelliousness, prideful arrogance, and self-centeredness. These are all the characteristics which caused "sin" nature. By Adam and Eve (unsaved mankind) choosing to reject God, and put faith into themselves, they tainted mankind with "sin nature" (rebelliousness, self-centeredness, prideful arrogance). Today, we call sin nature the "ego". It is self-centered, rebellious and prideful. These are also the trademarks characteristics of the Biblical Lucifer, (whom becomes Satan, mankind's adversary and the root of evil).
However, although the OT is allegorical, I believe it simultaneously also includes real, historical human beings.
What's on the ark of the covenant???
Michel Vallee I guess nothing is on it. It is no longer in existence
Gene Williams the apostle John sees in and his surprised by it ... mentioned in revelation if I remember...
Am I missing something or did Dr Craig say the creation account is not historical? Without the fall off man in the garden the entire New Testament is bunk. Without the fall of man why did we need a savior?
You missed something. He calls it Mytho-History. He explains that the New Testament retrospectively offers further explanation to the accounts in the "fall" in Genesis. He addresses your question in the middle of the podcast in an indirect way when he discusses things that Paul said about Adam, which refers to romans 5:12-17 that deals with the "fall".