Whoever may disagree with Craig or with someone else on this comment section... it's ok. The doctrine of creation is not a doctrine that affects a person's salvation if he holds young or old earth creationism. We're all still sinful and needful of God's amazing grace. Let's keep loving each other!🙌
@@ScottRoberts-el2jn Yes, we're all sinful, meaning that we sin. We weren't created sick, we were created with a choice, free will. We can decide whether we want to obey, please, and love God or not. It's just the truth, man, whether you like it or not. Since we're all evil and inmoral by free choice, this morally perfect God has to punish us due to His own perfect nature, being just. But you know what's the great news, that this God loved you so much, that even if we didn't clearly deserved it, He took the curse and punishment of sin Himself with His own life in Jesus Christ. Since Jesus, God in the flesh, lived a perfect life, meaning with no sin, the time He was on earth, He became worthy of any blessing due to his sinless status. When Jesus went onto the cross to pay our debt, we were not only forgiven of the punishment we as sinful human beings deserved, but we were clothed with Jesus' righteousness, with Jesus' sinless life, meaning that now, when God looks at us, He sees the life of Jesus Christ in us, He sees as if he had done everything right in our entire lives, everything Jesus did. That's radical! Therefore, when one becomes a Christian, he doesn't have to live a righteous life anymore, because he already has Jesus' perfect moral record in him, but since he's so infinitely grateful to God and loves Him, he wants to obey, please, and love God. The beauty of the gospel, my friend. And remember... Jesus did not only die for me and other Christians... He died for every single one on this earth... no matter how evil or fallen they may be... including you. He loves you and cares about you. So, what do you say, would you give Him an opportunity? If so, I would recommend to you to listen to a sermon by Tim Keller. The one I suggest for u to listen first is called "No one seeks God," and you can find it on any podcast platform, like spotify or google podcasts. Next you can listen to "Justified by Faith" and "By the Blood of Jesus Christ" by Tim Keller. Anyways, I hope you have a good day, and I hope you come to the truths of Christianity and to the realization of how much He loves you. Amen!
@@user-zv5nk4dn3b Do you not understand that when you say we are given free will, you abolish that category all together. If it's " given" it isn't free! I say we have free will because we have no choice. And yes, you said all that to affirm what I said, born sick and commanded to be well. Why do you have a slave mentality? Neither you or I did anything worthy of an eternity in hell. Stop believing these horrible fairytales and live as a free thinking person. Life is short, enjoy it. You are gonna be dead a long time!
Your sense of humor made me roar with laughter. Those metaphors and allegories, are the main source of misunderstanding, confusion, false beliefs and doctrine. The born again obsession is a good example. Jesus talked actual, apostles talk it metaphorical.
@@eltonron1558 Jesus was absolutely speaking metaphorically when using the phrase “born again.” He wasn’t talking physically, but spiritually. Otherwise, I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make here.
@_mark_3814 I mean, the first comment is correct. Metaphor, and allegory are used by individuals in the Bible. Because of it, different understandings are derived, and surmised. My example was about how Jesus had to explain to Nichodemus, that being born again, is actually becoming born again, as an immortal spirit, to enter the kingdom of God, while being born again as described by the apostles, is metaphor for changed ways, enlightenment, becoming Christians. Do you get the rub? Being born again according to Jesus, IS actual. Being born again according to apostles, is conversion, not being an immortal spirit. Thus, those who boast, or claim to be born again, are liars according to Christ, just converted according to apostles. It makes the Bible full of glitches, not necessarily contradiction. There are more than plenty of glitches. Need another example? Paul, at some time claimed. "Today is the day of salvation", while Christ said when salvation occurs, and it ain't today. Are you understanding my assertions? The Bible may be without error, however, error in understanding, is unavoidable, even from one version to another, as different versions are different. Different by omission, addition, and punctuation.
@spencergsmith Small problem. Read it over and over, until you realize, what is flesh, (US), is flesh. What is spirit, (resurrected Christ, and us at the appointed time), IS SPIRIT. That's not spiritualism nor metaphor, it's ACTUAL. You have to actually be an immortal spirit to enter the kingdom, NOT JUST BE SPIRITUAL. Those who boast, or claim to be born again, are liars according to Christ, just converted according to apostles.
@@TheBoredTheist Also that Eve was the first female, born from Adam. What chapter 2 implies. Thus there is no geneology before Adam in this logic, from a classical historical hermeneutics.
@@TheBoredTheist chapter 2 implies Eve was the very first female to exist. Chapter 1 says God made man male and female. Geneology starts from Adam and Eve thus. Statement 1: Eve is the first female, born from the rib of Adam in God providing a partner that suits man which God created instead of all the animals Statement 2: In chapter 1, God says He made human, male and female, in His image Statement 3: male and female is required to produce offspring Therefore: The geneology of the human kind starts with Adam and Eve
@@TheBoredTheist the female kind was literally named for the first time when Eve was formed. Also, look how God formed man out of dust and put him in the garden of eden. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. You are doing some serious mental gymnastics to get around this. Don't build your basic beliefs around arbitrary conventional paradigm that is dominant in science and history. Everything from the past is based on unprovable assumptions, no matter how much evidence there is, and if you ask me, the only trustworthy evidence is eye wittness documentation, which we have in the Bible, God Himself being wittness about creation. From observing the present you cannot know if there was a global flood, which had extreme impact on our geological landscape as of today. But if you start from that theory you can discover some new things, and a new paradigm is formed. If something takes X amount of time to change in the present, does not mean that it was the same was in the past. Also, the theory of relativity made things weird when it comes to time and lightyears distance problem, but just like plants grew sped up on day 3, there is nothing impossible for God in terms of bringing light faster than what should be possible. Note that it's problematic if dead and suffering was a major part of life on earth before the fall. I do not think this would be part of what God called "good" which most definitely would be the case if we are to take an old earth, evolutionary stance on the past. "Is Genesis History?" is a nice high production documentary on youtube and it's a great start to delve into this topic. Be strong and courageous!
@@ThethomasJefferson Genealogy can trace back to the beginning of human history, providing a rough estimation (assuming every generation is listed). However, this says nothing about the age of the earth. In any case, I think the age of the earth is irrelevant.
@@Messianic-Gentile when you add the Genealogy listed in the Holy Scriptures, you get around 6,000-7,000 years going back to Adam and Eve, so from there go look at what day Yahweh created man on and there you can add the dates of the earth.
God doesn’t create the sun, moon, or stars until the 4th day . . . hard to have literal 24hr days without a sun . . . Maybe just maybe the Bible wasn’t written to you, but for you.
God created the earth on day 1 and also light on day 1. It wasn't the sun, we dont know what it was, but it definitely was a source of light. So....a source of light and a rotating earth = day and night, right?
@@Jwarrior123 Right . . . but days are 24 hours because the spin of the earth as it rotates around the sun. If there is no sun how long were the days? Did God time the light and darkness to match eventual 24 hour days? Why? The text doesn’t say, but the point is simple: Genesis wasn’t written to satisfy a 21st century theory, rather it was designed to address the cultures of the Ancient Hebrews and their neighbors. Personally, I’m more interested in how an ancient Hebrew, Egyptian, or Babylonian struggled when they encountered this story.
Correct. The Bible doesn't match the theory of evolution or any conceivable interpretation of modern cosmological theory. What does telling us the order of created things mean metaphorically or allegory? Nothing. It means nothing. Craig doesn't want to be called a "Creatard" and lose the respect of his acedemic peers. We can only worship God in the Truth which is the earth is young. He made them male and female In the beginning.
@@paparu Sure. It still does not answer why the “day” prior to the creation of the sun, would have to be a 24 hour time period. The problems with a hyper-literal interpretation of the earliest chapters of Genesis abound. It negates what the original recipients understood in favor of addressing our categories and questions . . . . categories and questions which would not exist for thousands of years. Peace. A hyper-literal interpretation could be correct . . . it most likely isn’t, but that’s ok one day we’ll have the opportunity to ask the Father in person.
Not necessarily, Dr.Hugh Ross is an old earth creationist but believes the Book of Genesis is a Historical account and takes a literal reading of Genesis, Dr.Gerald Shroeder is also an old earth creationist and believes in a literal reading of Genesis.
Well thank God Jesus mentioned Adam as a literal historical figure, because that means we know for sure everything that surrounds Adam im the narrative is free game to be "mytho-history." We can just X off what Jesus literally refenced as "untouchables", and mythologize the rest. Ezpz hermeneutics.
So the “infallible all knowing god of the universe” makes mistakes…? Biblical literalists are nuts, yes, but they are far more logically consistent than the cherry pickers who realise that the Bible is filled with erroneous claims and contradictions.
i respectfully disagree. the hebrew "yom" can mean a day or an indefinite period of time. HOWEVER, whenever yom is used with a number (i.e. "on the third day") it means a DAY. if you disagree, how would YOU have rewritten Genesis to clearly indicate a six day creation?
There’s a lot more too it. You have to look at genre style, and the creation narratives in the ancient cultures around Israel. Not to mention, there is another creation narrative in psalm 74.
I am naturally inclined toward a young earth reading of Genesis, but I admit this is not a topic I've studied deeply. That said, I find the yom argument uncompelling because of the fact that our day is reliant on the earth's rotation in relation to the sun, both of which were not yet formed earlier in the creation narrative. The notion that God would've adhered to a 24-hour period prior to the creation of the earth seems like an odd one to make.
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nra lot more to it… in other words, It’s not as simple as what it may seem, Did God really say that if you eat the apple you will die… we can’t just simply take God at His word, it’s better to allegorise it and come up with our own meanings.. The Bible clearly states that God created the earth in 6 days. What part of that is so hard to understand?
@@InsatiableMonkeyexcept that the Genesis account was written after God created the Heavens and the earth to an audience using language we all understand. If God is able to create the heavens and the earth, then God is quite capable of knowing a 24 Hour period without having the sun and moon. And if the Genesis account is not enough, then exodus states that for 6 days you shall work and on the 7th day rest, for in 6 days God created that heavens and earth and on the 7th day He rested. I honestly think people complicate scripture way too much and it’s easier to take it as it is written.
@@ZandJ12345 The fact that everything in Genesis 1-11 if paralleled in ancient near eastern culture. You are not taking God at His word, you are relying on a particular translation.
You are both right, an old Earth is problematic to the account of sin, death and salvation since it implies death occurring over millions of years before Adam who supposedly ushered in death by his sin
The Genesis account does not imply young earth creationism. Genesis 1:1 simply states that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The six days of creation do not begin until Genesis 1:3, after the earth was already created.
While I am a young earth believer, all I ultimately have to say is what Paul basically said, if in the end your faith is in Jesus as the Messiah and acknowledge your sins before God, there is no point or problem in what a person believes beyond that. Let everyone find their own path towards salvation : in other words, let them rationalize out the rest as long as they are in the faith.
But he also warned us of the aposty of other gospels in Galatians--being bewitched into trusting in your works again instead of in God's grace and faith in Christ while still thinking you are a Christian. So there are certain things a Christian be deceived into and still be a Christian in deception while other things make you no longer a Christian.
@@tannerfrancisco8759 True. There are things a Christian can be deceived into believing like tryna attain salvation through one's own works. But that is not what I have meant. I meant, as long as a person lives according to the laws of Jesus and follows in his ways, then the rest does not matter, cos living according to how Jesus has told us to live is the path to salvation. Therefore if I or anyone else believes in a young earth or a earth millions of years old, it makes no difference to my faith cos it won't change how I live. And cos of that, it makes no difference to God either cos he desires what's in my heart and how I live my life and not my knowledge of science or history :)
It seems pretty accurate so far to me and perfectly explains why space travels faster than light and why we see spiral galaxies already fully formed just a few hundred million years after the big bang..the Christian gets the time frame wrong from our perspective but so does the academic the difference is one continuously gets affirmed while the other just changes..
@ScottRoberts-el2jn you think so, huh? You must not be aware that the Bible is continually affirmed, huh? For example, they find new archeological evidence to support the Biblical narrative just about daily. That's ok. If you don't study it, you don't know. Most people won't take the time. I'm sure you know already that science changes often. Man.. you can't place too much faith in our knowledge, can you.
@@trevelleryan1866 No, you are right. It's not faith at all. It's called empirical evidence. Faith is believing without. And what discoveries are you talking about. Must be something very vague. If not, it would be all over the news! Here is the difference, show me evidence and I'll change my mind, show you no evidence, and you will believe.
@@ScottRoberts-el2jn you can easily look around and see the open conspiracy to keep those discoveries in the dark, for example in 1995 a T-Rex bone was found with elastic skin and red blood cells still attached.. for her ground breaking discovery she was fired and the discovery was buried, she didn't get her job back for 10years.. only after at least two more cases were found disproving the long fossilization process, as one fish found looked like it died from it..
Packer lol. Dr Craig appeals to a calvinist when it suits him. Inerrancy DOES imply YEC IF the early chapters of Genesis are history which they are as proven by the fact that God inscribed on the tablets 'six days you shall work for in six days did the LORD God make the heavens and the earth". Furthermore, WLCs take leaves us with a God who creates a world of death, suffering, predation, and cancer etc .
The idea of an old earth was born out of naturalism. Before then, geology was interpreted through a biblical worldview. You cannot reconcile the biblical account of Genesis with a naturalistic, uniformitarian worldview. This is also a problem for the Gospel since it places death before the fall, casts doubt on God's character who called Creation very good after creating Adam, and makes Him to be a liar if He didn't create the way He said He did.
Genesis is contradictory anyway. In genesis 1:20-23 God clearly made animals and then Adam, but in Genesis 2:19 He created man and then animals. It could be interpretation/translation issues but that just shows how much the Bible relies on man's input and shouldn't be taken literally.
Even taking genesis literally - how long was Adam and Eve living in perfection before the first sin? Exactly. Either way it’s not a science book 🤦🏻♂️.
I believe that Adam fail at the same age as Yeshua at crucifixion and this is where the count started, my reason is that I believe 6000 years of earth and Yeshua returns, 4004 in the First covenant and now 2023 in this New covenant so 6000 plus the age of Adam and Yeshua and I also believe that Isaac was the same age when Abraham took him to sacrifice him, and remember that Yeshua was born 5 or 6 bc and his ministry was not 3 and half years it was 1 so do your own counting, But you brethren are not in darkness so that this day should over take you as a thief, 1 Thessalonians 5
The first sin, of course, being the eating of a fruit that would give them the moral knowledge necessary to sin in the first place. The whole thing's full of holes...
Rejecting young earth creationism brings a big problem though with the narrative of the fall in my opinion. Before man sinned, there shouldn't be any death, or any type of suffering or evil in the earth. God created the earth and it was GOOD, everything about it was good. If animals lived and died before the creation of the first man, then there most definitely was a lot of death and suffering before man even set foot on earth and before the original sin. That doesn't seem to fall within GOOD definition of God in my opinion. God gave authority of the earth to man and due to man his sin, everything got distorted, thorns, death and suffering became part of the earth as a result. This doesn't fit in the old earth model. Or does it?
Bible science 1 Numbers 5:11-31 describes a practice of making a wife who has been accused of adultery drink a mixture of water and dust from the floor of the Tabernacle in order to prove her guilt or innocence.
God went WAY out of his way to express in multiple places that the creation took 6 days, and yet these "wise" folks are more beholden to unprovable millions and billions. The height of foolishness. Do you believe the Bible or not?
Mmmm yes the allegorical book that lists genealogies, exact measurements, exact people and places, times of day, uses the same words for things like "day" in other places that explicitly talk about a 24 hour period, and referenced in numerous other places in the Bible as historical fact (including Christ himself).
What a mess, this is supposed to be the word of the creator of the universe, and yet it is so bad you can't agree on whether or not it says the earth was created thousands or billions of years ago. Stop holding humanity back with these childish beliefs.
Graig is wrong on the matter. The old earth(or old universe) implies death and decay that precede the existence of Adam and his disobedience. This is problematic to salvation because Adam’s sin is supposed to be the object that ushered in death and decay into creation and which necessitated the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. If death and decay occurred over millions of years before Adam then God imperfectly created a world that was already experiencing death before the sin of humanity. This is a salvivic problem.
The inerrancy, has alot of glitches, and stuff said in zeal that doesn't jive, thus, correction is required, when reproof is misunderstood, after the initial instruction. That instruction, is the savior, the messiah, the boss, the chief cornerstone, Emanuel. Here's the other caviat. Solo testimony to an event, isn't good enough.
It’s impossible for the bible to be erroneous because when its demonstrated that it isn’t correct about something you can just say this particular part was ‘metaphorical’. There is no indication of what is and what isn’t metaphorical in the Bible so there’s nothing stopping you. The gospels say Jesus was crucified- that’s literal, thats true. The same gospel says at the same time the graves of Jerusalem opened and dead people rose to greet their neighbours throughout the city? well that’s obviously a metaphor for… something
No man is without sin (missing the mark.) The Bible is written by men. If the Bible is written by men that make mistakes then the Bible has mistakes written in it.
@estok918 the Bible is an inspired record written by sincere witnesses of a people's failure to know God. it's a guide pointing us to a higher relationship with the creator of the universe through christ. We fail God when we make the Bible our God instead of seeking a deep communion with life through prayer, meditation, and right action.
@estok918 the Bible, and all inspired text, was written by people looking at perfection through the clouded glass of the time and culture they lived through. God clearly doesn't want us to know everything all at once, or else the game would be over, the play ended. Have you read Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh?
@@Michael-vt8yr No, and I don't care about his delusion either. Thousands of different christian denominations, millions of people killed in religious wars..... But your god choose to be vague otherwise the game would be over?
Yes, Dr. Craig has always maintained that God has the ability to create the universe and all manner of biological complexity in six days. He just doesn't think the Bible teaches that in a literal sense due to his research into the genre of the creation texts. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos so....let's imagine the first six days represent 6 billion years ....a unique six billion years....each day compromised of a half billion years of light followed by a half billion years of darkness.....each day has only two parts.... evening and morning....day and night.... light and dark.....an earth rotating very slowly.....so many details the story becomes a lie rather than poetic.....you can embellish only so much....has Dr Craig considered this line of thought...can you share this with him....I have benefitted greatly over the from his ministry....I am thinking he has been bewitched, and is in danger of falling from grace.... very sad
@@drcraigvideos He can't know anything about a god character that has never been demonstrated to exist in reality unless he's talking about his imaginary version of the bible character. That is the case.
The Bad News- You are naturally born with a sinful nature and have broken at least one of the law (10 commandments) at least once in your life (Example: a lie) (James 2-10 says if you break one of these laws, its the same as breaking them all), so because of this you're on your way to hell already, everyone is (Romans 3-23) The Gospel (Good News): JESUS, Who is GOD in the flesh, came into the world and died for us, to free us from the curse of the law (10 commandments) and ressurected on the third day so that whosoever BELIEVES in HIM will not perish but have everlasting life! GOD said this! GOD cannot lie (Titus 1-2, Hebrews 6-18) we can lie because we are sinners. JESUS saved us already (Colossians 2 13-14) Just BELIEVE and TRUST in HIM! HIM ALONE, anyone who gives you another Gospel, whether an angel or one of us, let him be accursed, like it says in (Galatians 1 6-9) JESUS ALONE! Not religion, Trust in HIM and you will receive the GIFT of THE HOLY SPIRIT. GOD HIMSELF! JESUS said "Repent ye and BELIEVE the GOSPEL" (Mark 1-15). AMEN! Praise GOD, thank YOU JESUS
The curse of the law, is not the ten commandments. It is the 600 plus laws AFTER the ten commandments, as the NEW covenant is the ten commandments MINUS the 600 plus laws through Moses. " I will write my law on their hearts". Why is the vast majority of Christianity, the subject of 1John 2:3-4? I cheated, and went to the end of the Bible for to see who is blessed. It is those who KEEP the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ. Revelation 12:17, 14:12, 22:14. What did Jesus say concerning the ten commandments? From the beginning. Mt. 4:4, 19:17, 22:36-40. God and Christ, are BIG on the ten commandments. They are ALL the law, and not even works. Not even rest is work.
@@eltonron1558 I'm sorry but your wrong! Galatians 3-13 CHRIST has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree
@TheCabin777 You have a problem. The Bible is FILLED with contradiction to your premise. As I cited the very end of the Bible, I also cited LIARS concerning the commandments. Does 1 John 5:3 mean anything? Why do I have to cite passages that CONVICT the lie, that the commandments are trash? Not even the word DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST to keep the commandments impresses you? Your opinion carries ZERO weight against scripture, unless we have found the GREAT CONTRADICTION, of the Bible. God and Christ are BIG on the commandments. It's the OTHER laws through Moses that are bogus, as the commandments didn't even come from, nor through Moses. They are the ONLY laws not through Moses. The ten commandments, are valid, holy, good, and written on the hearts of the truly converted, unless you have another idea of the new covenant. The new covenant, IS the ten commandments written on the heart. YOU ARE WRONG, and I don't get any pleasure from it.
@danstombs5697 how do you know he is trying to be inoffensive? I would be careful about assuming and declaring the motives of peoples hearts. He seems to me to be very willing to say what he believes is true, regardless of the pushback he gets.
@@veronicaelise5120 I'm trying to extend as much courtesy as I can because I love his debates against atheist, so I hope you and he can forgive me in that.
People who teach that the creation is not as written in the Bible are going to be held accountable for this sin. They call God a lied and deny that death was the result of Adam’s sin. If Adam’s sin is not the reason we need a savior then when did Jesus die on the cross.
@@drcraigvideos excuse me. Death. Death is the result of Adam’s sin. If the world existed for billions of years with animals living and dying before Adam then death was part of what God called good.
@@beefsupreme4671 Why think that? The things that God called good were the creations themselves. But that says nothing of what he thought of what was going on with the creations once they were made. He called Adam and Eve good, but then they sinned. Surely you don't think that God considered their sinning good in virtue of having created them. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos are you not reading the Bible? It was good before Adam and Eve sinned then he cursed them and creation itself. You believing that death was a part of the perfect creation are denying the need for a savior.
@@drcraigvideos would it matter to you if I could prove to you that the science has no idea how old anything is and that evolution is impossible? Because you are saying God did not tell the truth when you try to make evolution fit with the Bible.
Dr Craig, you asked how should we interpret it. If you knew the word of God you would know that God never gave any man the right or authority to interpret what he means, scripture interprets scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. ---- These false teaches with doctorates think that gives them the right to be authoritative on a subject that they got a nice printed document of certification for. You have no authority on the word of God Dr Craig. Use scripture to make your case. If you cannot find any keep quiet. That goes for all others who attempt interpret what God means.
First, pull the log from your own eye. Calling on Craig to be silent on this topic while speaking yourself is the height of hubris and hypocrisy. If he’s wrong about Genesis provide the Scriptures that plainly say so, otherwise be quiet; you fail your own standard. Remember, it is by your standard you will be judged. Pot meet kettle.
@Cole-wv4eo I addressed the fact that he asked how should we interpret the passage. I pointed out that God never gave man the right or authority to interpret it, then provided the scripture for it. You actually just did what you accused me of. Maybe read comments twice before responding to make sure you got it right.
@@DanielJosephPaul However, at the end of your comment you referred back to the primary issue concerning Genesis and the creation. You have no more authority (Scriptures which explicitly state the age of the earth) than he does and therefore should remain remain silent on the issue (which is your professed standard). Had you left off that bit at the end you would have been fine. Cheers.
@Cole-wv4eo This is really a good example. You are interpreting what I meant, and that's all I was trying to point out is what William Craig is doing, interpreting what God means. That was the whole point of my message, nothing more.
Id categorize it as propagandanized history. Its history with a specific focus. Details are chosen and zoomed in on while others are left out to convey theological points rather than unfiltered for general news reporting.
"What kind of literature is this" approach only works if you're not making a one-off category that applies to a single chapter of the bible that you find hard to believe literally. This type of hermeneutics could lead to virtually any type of interpretation of any part of the bible simply by framing it in a one-off "this type of literature" box. Given that the chapter in "literature type" question is in fact the first chapter of the Bible (no prior context), I see no reason not to believe that it is literal history. I love Dr. Craig, but would challenge him on this point which he keeps getting hung up on. By ignoring the literality of Gen 1, you miss the eschatological meaning. What do you gain by accepting it as mytho-history? A cozy position beside secular scientists?
@@adamduarte895 how am I begging the question? How is that not what he's saying? He says if we read it as poetic language then it doesn't mean 7 days which is literally begging the question because it presumes the truth of its conclusion in its premise.
@@carriebrooks432so if I say “seeing my lover kiss someone else put a dagger through my heart” should we take that literally? No, of course not, I’m being hyperbolic and metaphorical. It’s very important to interpret the Bible in the context of history, culture, and the type of literature that is being written in that book or chapter. Song of Solomon, Revelations, even the parables of Jesus have many allegories and metaphors in them, yet almost argues they should be taken literally.
@@spencergsmith there is a difference between metaphor and retroactive reinterpretation. If you had read "god created the earth in seven days" not knowing anything about the actual age of the earth you would think "oh God created the earth in seven days" as everyone who read it before knowing did. By this logic you could deny all miracles in the bible unless you had some criteria for what's metaphor and what's statement of fact which you don't. It's called a cold read and it's how people pull all kinds of scams.
@@carriebrooks432 except do you know what the term used for "day" in Genesis is? It's "yom" which is a Hebrew word that can mean day, days, or even just a period of time. Therefore, you could read it as "God created the earth in seven lengths of time" so we don't really KNOW how long that could be. Plus, as someone else pointed out, even if the earth WAS created in seven days, how long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? We have no reference point for this. We assume they were only decades old, but they could have lived for thousands if not millions of years by then, which would make their punishment MUCH more impactful, as their death in a few hundred years would have seemed much more imminent compared to the millennia of life they had already lived. It's important to know the translation, literary style, and historical and cultural context of the passage, chapter, or book of the Bible you are reading, otherwise you WOULD take everything literally, and therefore many other passages in the Bible wouldn't make sense at all.
Whoever may disagree with Craig or with someone else on this comment section... it's ok. The doctrine of creation is not a doctrine that affects a person's salvation if he holds young or old earth creationism. We're all still sinful and needful of God's amazing grace. Let's keep loving each other!🙌
Amen
Sinful? Created sick, commanded to be well. Who wants this to be true? Tell me.
@@ScottRoberts-el2jn Yes, we're all sinful, meaning that we sin. We weren't created sick, we were created with a choice, free will. We can decide whether we want to obey, please, and love God or not. It's just the truth, man, whether you like it or not. Since we're all evil and inmoral by free choice, this morally perfect God has to punish us due to His own perfect nature, being just. But you know what's the great news, that this God loved you so much, that even if we didn't clearly deserved it, He took the curse and punishment of sin Himself with His own life in Jesus Christ. Since Jesus, God in the flesh, lived a perfect life, meaning with no sin, the time He was on earth, He became worthy of any blessing due to his sinless status. When Jesus went onto the cross to pay our debt, we were not only forgiven of the punishment we as sinful human beings deserved, but we were clothed with Jesus' righteousness, with Jesus' sinless life, meaning that now, when God looks at us, He sees the life of Jesus Christ in us, He sees as if he had done everything right in our entire lives, everything Jesus did. That's radical! Therefore, when one becomes a Christian, he doesn't have to live a righteous life anymore, because he already has Jesus' perfect moral record in him, but since he's so infinitely grateful to God and loves Him, he wants to obey, please, and love God. The beauty of the gospel, my friend. And remember... Jesus did not only die for me and other Christians... He died for every single one on this earth... no matter how evil or fallen they may be... including you. He loves you and cares about you. So, what do you say, would you give Him an opportunity? If so, I would recommend to you to listen to a sermon by Tim Keller. The one I suggest for u to listen first is called "No one seeks God," and you can find it on any podcast platform, like spotify or google podcasts. Next you can listen to "Justified by Faith" and "By the Blood of Jesus Christ" by Tim Keller. Anyways, I hope you have a good day, and I hope you come to the truths of Christianity and to the realization of how much He loves you. Amen!
@@user-zv5nk4dn3b Do you not understand that when you say we are given free will, you abolish that category all together. If it's " given" it isn't free! I say we have free will because we have no choice. And yes, you said all that to affirm what I said, born sick and commanded to be well. Why do you have a slave mentality? Neither you or I did anything worthy of an eternity in hell. Stop believing these horrible fairytales and live as a free thinking person. Life is short, enjoy it. You are gonna be dead a long time!
Well said
Translation: just because the Bible is without error doesn’t mean it can’t be metaphorical or allegorical.
Your sense of humor made me roar with laughter. Those metaphors and allegories, are the main source of misunderstanding, confusion, false beliefs and doctrine. The born again obsession is a good example. Jesus talked actual, apostles talk it metaphorical.
@@eltonron1558I’m not sure what you mean can you elaborate, thanks
@@eltonron1558 Jesus was absolutely speaking metaphorically when using the phrase “born again.” He wasn’t talking physically, but spiritually. Otherwise, I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make here.
@_mark_3814 I mean, the first comment is correct. Metaphor, and allegory are used by individuals in the Bible. Because of it, different understandings are derived, and surmised. My example was about how Jesus had to explain to Nichodemus, that being born again, is actually becoming born again, as an immortal spirit, to enter the kingdom of God, while being born again as described by the apostles, is metaphor for changed ways, enlightenment, becoming Christians. Do you get the rub? Being born again according to Jesus, IS actual. Being born again according to apostles, is conversion, not being an immortal spirit.
Thus, those who boast, or claim to be born again, are liars according to Christ, just converted according to apostles.
It makes the Bible full of glitches, not necessarily contradiction. There are more than plenty of glitches. Need another example? Paul, at some time claimed. "Today is the day of salvation", while Christ said when salvation occurs, and it ain't today. Are you understanding my assertions?
The Bible may be without error, however, error in understanding, is unavoidable, even from one version to another, as different versions are different. Different by omission, addition, and punctuation.
@spencergsmith Small problem. Read it over and over, until you realize, what is flesh, (US), is flesh. What is spirit, (resurrected Christ, and us at the appointed time), IS SPIRIT.
That's not spiritualism nor metaphor, it's ACTUAL.
You have to actually be an immortal spirit to enter the kingdom, NOT JUST BE SPIRITUAL. Those who boast, or claim to be born again, are liars according to Christ, just converted according to apostles.
The Bible states that “in the beginning “ God created the heavens and the earth. There is no reference as to when the beginning was.
It does say that man was created on the sixth day, and we know the geneology since Adam, as well as how old Adam and his first descendants became
@@TheBoredTheist Also that Eve was the first female, born from Adam. What chapter 2 implies. Thus there is no geneology before Adam in this logic, from a classical historical hermeneutics.
@@TheBoredTheist chapter 2 implies Eve was the very first female to exist. Chapter 1 says God made man male and female. Geneology starts from Adam and Eve thus.
Statement 1: Eve is the first female, born from the rib of Adam in God providing a partner that suits man which God created instead of all the animals
Statement 2: In chapter 1, God says He made human, male and female, in His image
Statement 3: male and female is required to produce offspring
Therefore: The geneology of the human kind starts with Adam and Eve
@@TheBoredTheist the female kind was literally named for the first time when Eve was formed.
Also, look how God formed man out of dust and put him in the garden of eden.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
You are doing some serious mental gymnastics to get around this. Don't build your basic beliefs around arbitrary conventional paradigm that is dominant in science and history. Everything from the past is based on unprovable assumptions, no matter how much evidence there is, and if you ask me, the only trustworthy evidence is eye wittness documentation, which we have in the Bible, God Himself being wittness about creation. From observing the present you cannot know if there was a global flood, which had extreme impact on our geological landscape as of today. But if you start from that theory you can discover some new things, and a new paradigm is formed. If something takes X amount of time to change in the present, does not mean that it was the same was in the past. Also, the theory of relativity made things weird when it comes to time and lightyears distance problem, but just like plants grew sped up on day 3, there is nothing impossible for God in terms of bringing light faster than what should be possible.
Note that it's problematic if dead and suffering was a major part of life on earth before the fall. I do not think this would be part of what God called "good" which most definitely would be the case if we are to take an old earth, evolutionary stance on the past.
"Is Genesis History?" is a nice high production documentary on youtube and it's a great start to delve into this topic. Be strong and courageous!
The Book of chronicles, because of its genealogies add up to the Earth being 6 to 8 thousand years
Genealogies often skip people. So this still isn’t proof for young earth. It’s evidence for it I suppose.
Humans probably, but not necessarily the earth
@@Messianic-Gentilehow would you figure not the earth?
@@ThethomasJefferson Genealogy can trace back to the beginning of human history, providing a rough estimation (assuming every generation is listed). However, this says nothing about the age of the earth. In any case, I think the age of the earth is irrelevant.
@@Messianic-Gentile when you add the Genealogy listed in the Holy Scriptures, you get around 6,000-7,000 years going back to Adam and Eve, so from there go look at what day Yahweh created man on and there you can add the dates of the earth.
God doesn’t create the sun, moon, or stars until the 4th day . . . hard to have literal 24hr days without a sun . . . Maybe just maybe the Bible wasn’t written to you, but for you.
God created the earth on day 1 and also light on day 1. It wasn't the sun, we dont know what it was, but it definitely was a source of light.
So....a source of light and a rotating earth = day and night, right?
@@Jwarrior123 Right . . . but days are 24 hours because the spin of the earth as it rotates around the sun. If there is no sun how long were the days? Did God time the light and darkness to match eventual 24 hour days? Why? The text doesn’t say, but the point is simple: Genesis wasn’t written to satisfy a 21st century theory, rather it was designed to address the cultures of the Ancient Hebrews and their neighbors. Personally, I’m more interested in how an ancient Hebrew, Egyptian, or Babylonian struggled when they encountered this story.
The light in Gen.1:3 was defined in v5. It is not a source of illumination but a unit of time.
...God called the light Day...
Correct. The Bible doesn't match the theory of evolution or any conceivable interpretation of modern cosmological theory. What does telling us the order of created things mean metaphorically or allegory? Nothing. It means nothing. Craig doesn't want to be called a "Creatard" and lose the respect of his acedemic peers. We can only worship God in the Truth which is the earth is young. He made them male and female In the beginning.
@@paparu Sure. It still does not answer why the “day” prior to the creation of the sun, would have to be a 24 hour time period. The problems with a hyper-literal interpretation of the earliest chapters of Genesis abound. It negates what the original recipients understood in favor of addressing our categories and questions . . . . categories and questions which would not exist for thousands of years. Peace. A hyper-literal interpretation could be correct . . . it most likely isn’t, but that’s ok one day we’ll have the opportunity to ask the Father in person.
Not necessarily, Dr.Hugh Ross is an old earth creationist but believes the Book of Genesis is a Historical account and takes a literal reading of Genesis, Dr.Gerald Shroeder is also an old earth creationist and believes in a literal reading of Genesis.
Well thank God Jesus mentioned Adam as a literal historical figure, because that means we know for sure everything that surrounds Adam im the narrative is free game to be "mytho-history." We can just X off what Jesus literally refenced as "untouchables", and mythologize the rest. Ezpz hermeneutics.
Now if only the bible was not riddled with errors, contradictions and scientific fasehoods 😂
If only...
Its not
@@2007NissanAltima Yeah it absolutely is.
So the “infallible all knowing god of the universe” makes mistakes…?
Biblical literalists are nuts, yes, but they are far more logically consistent than the cherry pickers who realise that the Bible is filled with erroneous claims and contradictions.
i respectfully disagree. the hebrew "yom" can mean a day or an indefinite period of time. HOWEVER, whenever yom is used with a number (i.e. "on the third day") it means a DAY. if you disagree, how would YOU have rewritten Genesis to clearly indicate a six day creation?
There’s a lot more too it. You have to look at genre style, and the creation narratives in the ancient cultures around Israel. Not to mention, there is another creation narrative in psalm 74.
I am naturally inclined toward a young earth reading of Genesis, but I admit this is not a topic I've studied deeply. That said, I find the yom argument uncompelling because of the fact that our day is reliant on the earth's rotation in relation to the sun, both of which were not yet formed earlier in the creation narrative. The notion that God would've adhered to a 24-hour period prior to the creation of the earth seems like an odd one to make.
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nra lot more to it… in other words, It’s not as simple as what it may seem, Did God really say that if you eat the apple you will die… we can’t just simply take God at His word, it’s better to allegorise it and come up with our own meanings..
The Bible clearly states that God created the earth in 6 days. What part of that is so hard to understand?
@@InsatiableMonkeyexcept that the Genesis account was written after God created the Heavens and the earth to an audience using language we all understand. If God is able to create the heavens and the earth, then God is quite capable of knowing a 24 Hour period without having the sun and moon.
And if the Genesis account is not enough, then exodus states that for 6 days you shall work and on the 7th day rest, for in 6 days God created that heavens and earth and on the 7th day He rested.
I honestly think people complicate scripture way too much and it’s easier to take it as it is written.
@@ZandJ12345 The fact that everything in Genesis 1-11 if paralleled in ancient near eastern culture. You are not taking God at His word, you are relying on a particular translation.
Isaiah 45:18 "...he formed it to be inhabited."
it matters because death would be no kind of consequence for the fall if death preceded the fall.
darwins theory of origin does not comply with the creation account unless you discount the goodness of god.
You are both right, an old Earth is problematic to the account of sin, death and salvation since it implies death occurring over millions of years before Adam who supposedly ushered in death by his sin
The Genesis account does not imply young earth creationism. Genesis 1:1 simply states that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The six days of creation do not begin until Genesis 1:3, after the earth was already created.
While I am a young earth believer, all I ultimately have to say is what Paul basically said, if in the end your faith is in Jesus as the Messiah and acknowledge your sins before God, there is no point or problem in what a person believes beyond that.
Let everyone find their own path towards salvation : in other words, let them rationalize out the rest as long as they are in the faith.
But he also warned us of the aposty of other gospels in Galatians--being bewitched into trusting in your works again instead of in God's grace and faith in Christ while still thinking you are a Christian.
So there are certain things a Christian be deceived into and still be a Christian in deception while other things make you no longer a Christian.
@@tannerfrancisco8759 True. There are things a Christian can be deceived into believing like tryna attain salvation through one's own works.
But that is not what I have meant. I meant, as long as a person lives according to the laws of Jesus and follows in his ways, then the rest does not matter, cos living according to how Jesus has told us to live is the path to salvation.
Therefore if I or anyone else believes in a young earth or a earth millions of years old, it makes no difference to my faith cos it won't change how I live. And cos of that, it makes no difference to God either cos he desires what's in my heart and how I live my life and not my knowledge of science or history :)
It seems pretty accurate so far to me and perfectly explains why space travels faster than light and why we see spiral galaxies already fully formed just a few hundred million years after the big bang..the Christian gets the time frame wrong from our perspective but so does the academic the difference is one continuously gets affirmed while the other just changes..
Love that. "One gets continually affirmed, one changes". Amen to that!
@trevelleryan1866 Yea. This guy can talk the horns off of a Billy goat! And still SAY NOTHING!
@ScottRoberts-el2jn you think so, huh? You must not be aware that the Bible is continually affirmed, huh? For example, they find new archeological evidence to support the Biblical narrative just about daily. That's ok. If you don't study it, you don't know. Most people won't take the time.
I'm sure you know already that science changes often. Man.. you can't place too much faith in our knowledge, can you.
@@trevelleryan1866 No, you are right. It's not faith at all. It's called empirical evidence. Faith is believing without. And what discoveries are you talking about. Must be something very vague. If not, it would be all over the news! Here is the difference, show me evidence and I'll change my mind, show you no evidence, and you will believe.
@@ScottRoberts-el2jn you can easily look around and see the open conspiracy to keep those discoveries in the dark, for example in 1995 a T-Rex bone was found with elastic skin and red blood cells still attached.. for her ground breaking discovery she was fired and the discovery was buried, she didn't get her job back for 10years.. only after at least two more cases were found disproving the long fossilization process, as one fish found looked like it died from it..
Packer lol. Dr Craig appeals to a calvinist when it suits him. Inerrancy DOES imply YEC IF the early chapters of Genesis are history which they are as proven by the fact that God inscribed on the tablets 'six days you shall work for in six days did the LORD God make the heavens and the earth". Furthermore, WLCs take leaves us with a God who creates a world of death, suffering, predation, and cancer etc .
Seems like god made a young earth, then put all the evidence in place to make it look old. He's just tricky like that.
The idea of an old earth was born out of naturalism. Before then, geology was interpreted through a biblical worldview. You cannot reconcile the biblical account of Genesis with a naturalistic, uniformitarian worldview. This is also a problem for the Gospel since it places death before the fall, casts doubt on God's character who called Creation very good after creating Adam, and makes Him to be a liar if He didn't create the way He said He did.
Ancient church figures including Augustine held an old earth view.
Genesis is contradictory anyway. In genesis 1:20-23 God clearly made animals and then Adam, but in Genesis 2:19 He created man and then animals. It could be interpretation/translation issues but that just shows how much the Bible relies on man's input and shouldn't be taken literally.
Even taking genesis literally - how long was Adam and Eve living in perfection before the first sin? Exactly.
Either way it’s not a science book 🤦🏻♂️.
I believe that Adam fail at the same age as Yeshua at crucifixion and this is where the count started, my reason is that I believe 6000 years of earth and Yeshua returns, 4004 in the First covenant and now 2023 in this New covenant so 6000 plus the age of Adam and Yeshua and I also believe that Isaac was the same age when Abraham took him to sacrifice him, and remember that Yeshua was born 5 or 6 bc and his ministry was not 3 and half years it was 1 so do your own counting,
But you brethren are not in darkness so that this day should over take you as a thief, 1 Thessalonians 5
The first sin, of course, being the eating of a fruit that would give them the moral knowledge necessary to sin in the first place. The whole thing's full of holes...
The same age as Jesus dead. 33 years.
Bible represents the method of Antithesis in human reason process beginning in Genesis 1:1.
Rejecting young earth creationism brings a big problem though with the narrative of the fall in my opinion. Before man sinned, there shouldn't be any death, or any type of suffering or evil in the earth. God created the earth and it was GOOD, everything about it was good. If animals lived and died before the creation of the first man, then there most definitely was a lot of death and suffering before man even set foot on earth and before the original sin. That doesn't seem to fall within GOOD definition of God in my opinion. God gave authority of the earth to man and due to man his sin, everything got distorted, thorns, death and suffering became part of the earth as a result. This doesn't fit in the old earth model. Or does it?
Bible science 1
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a practice of making a wife who has been accused of adultery drink a mixture of water and dust from the floor of the Tabernacle in order to prove her guilt or innocence.
Why would anyone listen to you? You lower your standards of evidence until you can stick with the idea you wish were true...
God went WAY out of his way to express in multiple places that the creation took 6 days, and yet these "wise" folks are more beholden to unprovable millions and billions. The height of foolishness. Do you believe the Bible or not?
Yes it does, sir. Days 1 thru 6. Morning and evening. 24hr Earth rotations.
Where did the 7 day week come from?
I'd like to see ken ham and WLC collaborate but that's probably a long shot 🤣
They seem to be the two heads of each opposing side. I think they should.
Mmmm yes the allegorical book that lists genealogies, exact measurements, exact people and places, times of day, uses the same words for things like "day" in other places that explicitly talk about a 24 hour period, and referenced in numerous other places in the Bible as historical fact (including Christ himself).
Not to mention all the actual theological issues that come along with believing death came before the fall, etc.
There are entire books written on the errors in the bible.
What a mess, this is supposed to be the word of the creator of the universe, and yet it is so bad you can't agree on whether or not it says the earth was created thousands or billions of years ago. Stop holding humanity back with these childish beliefs.
Graig is wrong on the matter. The old earth(or old universe) implies death and decay that precede the existence of Adam and his disobedience. This is problematic to salvation because Adam’s sin is supposed to be the object that ushered in death and decay into creation and which necessitated the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. If death and decay occurred over millions of years before Adam then God imperfectly created a world that was already experiencing death before the sin of humanity. This is a salvivic problem.
It's inerrant if we categorize the parts that are inaccurate of false as mythology.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Standing for truth channel have refuted Dr. Craig in any way possible
I respect WLC, but Young Earth seems so much more simply logical and consistent with the way we interpret the test of the Bible.
The inerrancy, has alot of glitches, and stuff said in zeal that doesn't jive, thus, correction is required, when reproof is misunderstood, after the initial instruction.
That instruction, is the savior, the messiah, the boss, the chief cornerstone, Emanuel. Here's the other caviat. Solo testimony to an event, isn't good enough.
Do you have any idea how much I don't care that you're skeptical.
It may be true or not, I don't particularly care, but you ought not be dogmatic about something we cannot really know.
It’s impossible for the bible to be erroneous because when its demonstrated that it isn’t correct about something you can just say this particular part was ‘metaphorical’. There is no indication of what is and what isn’t metaphorical in the Bible so there’s nothing stopping you. The gospels say Jesus was crucified- that’s literal, thats true. The same gospel says at the same time the graves of Jerusalem opened and dead people rose to greet their neighbours throughout the city? well that’s obviously a metaphor for… something
The best thing about religion is that you can make up whatever you want as you go along.
No man is without sin (missing the mark.)
The Bible is written by men.
If the Bible is written by men that make mistakes then the Bible has mistakes written in it.
A god that could create the universe by speaking it into existence used his failed creation to write the bible????
@estok918 the Bible is an inspired record written by sincere witnesses of a people's failure to know God. it's a guide pointing us to a higher relationship with the creator of the universe through christ.
We fail God when we make the Bible our God instead of seeking a deep communion with life through prayer, meditation, and right action.
@@Michael-vt8yr Really? Wow.... Then why does it look like a piece of garbage based on bronze age mythology?
@estok918 the Bible, and all inspired text, was written by people looking at perfection through the clouded glass of the time and culture they lived through.
God clearly doesn't want us to know everything all at once, or else the game would be over, the play ended.
Have you read Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh?
@@Michael-vt8yr
No, and I don't care about his delusion either.
Thousands of different christian denominations, millions of people killed in religious wars..... But your god choose to be vague otherwise the game would be over?
Totally disagree with Dr. Craig here; a good response to his video here is “Coming to grips with Genesis” (book) multiple authors.
Does God have the ability to create the universe in six days....is it possible he did it in six days 🤔
Yes, Dr. Craig has always maintained that God has the ability to create the universe and all manner of biological complexity in six days. He just doesn't think the Bible teaches that in a literal sense due to his research into the genre of the creation texts. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos so....let's imagine the first six days represent 6 billion years ....a unique six billion years....each day compromised of a half billion years of light followed by a half billion years of darkness.....each day has only two parts.... evening and morning....day and night.... light and dark.....an earth rotating very slowly.....so many details the story becomes a lie rather than poetic.....you can embellish only so much....has Dr Craig considered this line of thought...can you share this with him....I have benefitted greatly over the from his ministry....I am thinking he has been bewitched, and is in danger of falling from grace.... very sad
@@drcraigvideos He can't know anything about a god character that has never been demonstrated to exist in reality unless he's talking about his imaginary version of the bible character. That is the case.
@@atheistcomments knucklehead 🤪....not helpful 🤔
Mere labels don't change underlying facts. Get to the point, i.e., the data.
The Bad News- You are naturally born with a sinful nature and have broken at least one of the law (10 commandments) at least once in your life (Example: a lie) (James 2-10 says if you break one of these laws, its the same as breaking them all), so because of this you're on your way to hell already, everyone is (Romans 3-23)
The Gospel (Good News): JESUS, Who is GOD in the flesh, came into the world and died for us, to free us from the curse of the law (10 commandments) and ressurected on the third day so that whosoever BELIEVES in HIM will not perish but have everlasting life! GOD said this! GOD cannot lie (Titus 1-2, Hebrews 6-18) we can lie because we are sinners. JESUS saved us already (Colossians 2 13-14) Just BELIEVE and TRUST in HIM! HIM ALONE, anyone who gives you another Gospel, whether an angel or one of us, let him be accursed, like it says in (Galatians 1 6-9) JESUS ALONE! Not religion, Trust in HIM and you will receive the GIFT of THE HOLY SPIRIT. GOD HIMSELF! JESUS said "Repent ye and BELIEVE the GOSPEL" (Mark 1-15). AMEN! Praise GOD, thank YOU JESUS
The curse of the law, is not the ten commandments. It is the 600 plus laws AFTER the ten commandments, as the NEW covenant is the ten commandments MINUS the 600 plus laws through Moses.
" I will write my law on their hearts". Why is the vast majority of Christianity, the subject of 1John 2:3-4?
I cheated, and went to the end of the Bible for to see who is blessed. It is those who KEEP the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 12:17, 14:12, 22:14.
What did Jesus say concerning the ten commandments?
From the beginning.
Mt. 4:4, 19:17, 22:36-40.
God and Christ, are BIG on the ten commandments. They are ALL the law, and not even works.
Not even rest is work.
@@eltonron1558 I'm sorry but your wrong! Galatians 3-13 CHRIST has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree
@TheCabin777 You have a problem. The Bible is FILLED with contradiction to your premise. As I cited the very end of the Bible, I also cited LIARS concerning the commandments.
Does 1 John 5:3 mean anything?
Why do I have to cite passages that CONVICT the lie, that the commandments are trash?
Not even the word DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST to keep the commandments impresses you? Your opinion carries ZERO weight against scripture, unless we have found the GREAT CONTRADICTION, of the Bible.
God and Christ are BIG on the commandments. It's the OTHER laws through Moses that are bogus, as the commandments didn't even come from, nor through Moses.
They are the ONLY laws not through Moses. The ten commandments, are valid, holy, good, and written on the hearts of the truly converted, unless you have another idea of the new covenant. The new covenant, IS the ten commandments written on the heart. YOU ARE WRONG, and I don't get any pleasure from it.
Huh? 😂. What are you raving on about? What Biblical 'inerrancies'? Where's your evidence?
Yeah, after 40 years of studying the Bible, Craig is wrong here.
So committed to be unoffensive, one can destroy their own testimony.
@danstombs5697 how do you know he is trying to be inoffensive? I would be careful about assuming and declaring the motives of peoples hearts. He seems to me to be very willing to say what he believes is true, regardless of the pushback he gets.
@@veronicaelise5120 I'm trying to extend as much courtesy as I can because I love his debates against atheist, so I hope you and he can forgive me in that.
@@veronicaelise5120Money.
But he is now offensive to mature believers and to God I think 🤔.... let's pray for him
People who teach that the creation is not as written in the Bible are going to be held accountable for this sin. They call God a lied and deny that death was the result of Adam’s sin. If Adam’s sin is not the reason we need a savior then when did Jesus die on the cross.
Where did Dr. Craig deny that sin entered the world through Adam? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos excuse me. Death. Death is the result of Adam’s sin. If the world existed for billions of years with animals living and dying before Adam then death was part of what God called good.
@@beefsupreme4671 Why think that? The things that God called good were the creations themselves. But that says nothing of what he thought of what was going on with the creations once they were made. He called Adam and Eve good, but then they sinned. Surely you don't think that God considered their sinning good in virtue of having created them. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos are you not reading the Bible? It was good before Adam and Eve sinned then he cursed them and creation itself. You believing that death was a part of the perfect creation are denying the need for a savior.
@@drcraigvideos would it matter to you if I could prove to you that the science has no idea how old anything is and that evolution is impossible?
Because you are saying God did not tell the truth when you try to make evolution fit with the Bible.
Dr Craig, you asked how should we interpret it. If you knew the word of God you would know that God never gave any man the right or authority to interpret what he means, scripture interprets scripture.
2 Peter
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
----
These false teaches with doctorates think that gives them the right to be authoritative on a subject that they got a nice printed document of certification for.
You have no authority on the word of God Dr Craig. Use scripture to make your case. If you cannot find any keep quiet. That goes for all others who attempt interpret what God means.
First, pull the log from your own eye. Calling on Craig to be silent on this topic while speaking yourself is the height of hubris and hypocrisy. If he’s wrong about Genesis provide the Scriptures that plainly say so, otherwise be quiet; you fail your own standard. Remember, it is by your standard you will be judged. Pot meet kettle.
@Cole-wv4eo
I addressed the fact that he asked how should we interpret the passage. I pointed out that God never gave man the right or authority to interpret it, then provided the scripture for it.
You actually just did what you accused me of.
Maybe read comments twice before responding to make sure you got it right.
@@DanielJosephPaul However, at the end of your comment you referred back to the primary issue concerning Genesis and the creation. You have no more authority (Scriptures which explicitly state the age of the earth) than he does and therefore should remain remain silent on the issue (which is your professed standard). Had you left off that bit at the end you would have been fine. Cheers.
@Cole-wv4eo
This is really a good example. You are interpreting what I meant, and that's all I was trying to point out is what William Craig is doing, interpreting what God means.
That was the whole point of my message, nothing more.
@@DanielJosephPaul Ah, fair enough. I stand corrected and retract my previous criticism.
You're wrong about creationism as wel as other biblical teachings brother craig .
Id categorize it as propagandanized history. Its history with a specific focus. Details are chosen and zoomed in on while others are left out to convey theological points rather than unfiltered for general news reporting.
"What kind of literature is this" approach only works if you're not making a one-off category that applies to a single chapter of the bible that you find hard to believe literally. This type of hermeneutics could lead to virtually any type of interpretation of any part of the bible simply by framing it in a one-off "this type of literature" box.
Given that the chapter in "literature type" question is in fact the first chapter of the Bible (no prior context), I see no reason not to believe that it is literal history.
I love Dr. Craig, but would challenge him on this point which he keeps getting hung up on. By ignoring the literality of Gen 1, you miss the eschatological meaning. What do you gain by accepting it as mytho-history? A cozy position beside secular scientists?
Uhh just that it’s the truth, don’t analyze beyond what is said
@@adamduarte895 I'm not.
This has been another in Dr. Craig's video series:
''I Believe the Bible, Just Not What it Says''
"it says it's seven days but it doesn't mean it if you just think what it says means something else".
No that’s not what he’s saying and you’re begging the question
@@adamduarte895 how am I begging the question? How is that not what he's saying? He says if we read it as poetic language then it doesn't mean 7 days which is literally begging the question because it presumes the truth of its conclusion in its premise.
@@carriebrooks432so if I say “seeing my lover kiss someone else put a dagger through my heart” should we take that literally? No, of course not, I’m being hyperbolic and metaphorical. It’s very important to interpret the Bible in the context of history, culture, and the type of literature that is being written in that book or chapter. Song of Solomon, Revelations, even the parables of Jesus have many allegories and metaphors in them, yet almost argues they should be taken literally.
@@spencergsmith there is a difference between metaphor and retroactive reinterpretation. If you had read "god created the earth in seven days" not knowing anything about the actual age of the earth you would think "oh God created the earth in seven days" as everyone who read it before knowing did. By this logic you could deny all miracles in the bible unless you had some criteria for what's metaphor and what's statement of fact which you don't. It's called a cold read and it's how people pull all kinds of scams.
@@carriebrooks432 except do you know what the term used for "day" in Genesis is? It's "yom" which is a Hebrew word that can mean day, days, or even just a period of time. Therefore, you could read it as "God created the earth in seven lengths of time" so we don't really KNOW how long that could be. Plus, as someone else pointed out, even if the earth WAS created in seven days, how long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? We have no reference point for this. We assume they were only decades old, but they could have lived for thousands if not millions of years by then, which would make their punishment MUCH more impactful, as their death in a few hundred years would have seemed much more imminent compared to the millennia of life they had already lived.
It's important to know the translation, literary style, and historical and cultural context of the passage, chapter, or book of the Bible you are reading, otherwise you WOULD take everything literally, and therefore many other passages in the Bible wouldn't make sense at all.
So ur not a Christian then. U don't believe God created man, and u believe the pla t is billions of years old. U believe man above God
God Almighty will categorise the pure from fools