On Owen Strachan, William Lane Craig, and the Historical Adam

[@dina.k]

Let's just say - I am really grateful for having such a brother in Christ to look up to and learn from.

[@ChrisRalph]

In a similar way, C.S. Lewis called Christianity "True Myth". It is true, but the story has some Mythic qualities. Lewis is also criticized by some for that comment.

[@lewisandrew425]

Not sure others, but the audio seems a bit quiet. Any way you could boost it on the source video at all? Thank you for your content!

[@brando3342]

@@TruthUnites I agree, it's pretty quiet. Good video though!

[@CodeRedCoder]

I’m not a huge fan of Craig’s, but I am a huge fan of your charitable and thoughtful approach.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! So glad it came across that way.

[@ryantland10]

"Defend reasonable voices" is a great mantra. Thank you for your thinking but more importantly your tone and charity on this issue!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Ryan, glad it was useful to you!

[@petethorne5094]

Amen!

[@sarrok85]

As a former Protestant migrating to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, your emphasis on trying to understand the position(s) of people you don't understand or agree with really hits home and is an extreme rarity among people, at least in my experience.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! So glad it comes across that way. It seems more and more important in our cultural moment.

[@JohnMark61355]

Thank you for addressing this issue with kindness, wisdom, and scholarship.

[@ryanmudge3596]

I read your book on Augustine and creation and it was great! I grew up thinking the literal six-day, 24 hour view was the only orthodox interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'm still working through all the related issues, but your book was helpful in thinking through Genesis in a new way. Thanks so much!

[@tannerbegley2548]

What I don't understand is when WLC states that portions of the creation account and Genesis 1-11 are too fantastic to believe, comparing them to Aesop's fables (or at least he loosely compared them in the same breath), but yet he seems to be okay with the fact that significant portions of the Bible could also be considered "fantastic"? What are we to do with Balaam's donkey if we can't believe in a talking snake in the garden? How can you say Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a great fish if you reject the account of a literal flood? Why am I supposed to be confident that God wrestled with Jacob if it's too fantastic to believe he walked in the garden of Eden? I think thats where the difficulty is. And to criticize Owen's tone in his response is well and good, but I'd also say that Craig's tone could be seen as rather dismissive towards those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. At times I wonder if we just criticize "tone" when we don't like strong statements, or we don't like when people actually have strong convictions that happen not to be our own.

[@jarednel]

Exactly. 100%! 👍

[@bippie23456]

William Lane Craig's own words.... "What was that first sin, I don't think we have any idea, I certainly don't think it was eating a piece of fruit.... sometime prior to 750,00 years ago a group of hominids, maybe a few thousand, and through a biological and spiritual renovation, perhaps divinely induced, a miracle that caused a genetic regulatory mutation in a pair of these hominids, they were lifted to fully human status and capable of supporting a rational soul through their brain and nervous system. And they would then begin to have children, and given their full humanity, they would naturally tend to isolate themselves from their non-human contemporaries, in time naturally they and their descendants would supersede all of the non-human descendants and would eventually give rise to different species of human beings like Neanderthals, Homo-sapiens..." This is flat out heresy! This statement by Dr. Craig flies in the face of so many Bible passages....

[@duanerichardson2380]

Great response with a lot of valuable information. I could be wrong but it seems to me that regardless of what one believes about the history and science surrounding Genesis 1-3, there are truths being taught that must be believed-there is a God; he created all things and all things were declared good; he created male and female in his image; he created humans to be in relationship with him; humans rebelled and broke that relationship, resulting in every human having a sinful nature, incurring the wrath of God and necessitating a saviour outside of humanity. There are other things that could be added but I would consider those things a minimum. While the historicity, literary, and creation/evolution discussions are interesting and necessary, ultimately much of it we simply cannot know with certainty, and so our approach must be first one of humility.

[@kgrant67]

Our sinful nature necessitates a savior both outside and INSIDE humanity. Thus, the Theanthropos!

[@Blackjamie80]

This is the standard reply to people who don’t want to take a firm stand on a topic: “You don’t really understand the other position”. This is the same exact response I’ve heard to NT Wrights view on justification. No, I understand it. It’s errant. I understand Craig. I’ve heard him talk about this many times. I specifically heard him say we came from Neanderthals. That isn’t a position that is orthodox. I love Craig. I think he’s brilliant. But I think he’s in dangerous territory. It’s very similar to liberal Protestantism. And to be honest I don’t care at all about the state of scholarship. That itself is a dangerous position.

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

…..why?

[@benzyshot5954]

You are doing a great job, Gavin. But I think it'll be great if you could make a video on the New Testament understanding of the Old in these matters. Questions like, "How does Paul understand Adam?" I think Owen is too hard in his criticsm, but I think a mild pushback is necessary. Before listening to Packer, Craig, Augustine, we've go to understand how the NT authors understood Genesis 1-3. Thank you for your ministry!

[@andrewlawson7388]

I definitely agree with your impulse to "defend reasonable voices" and "be charitable." I don't agree with the mytho-historical view of Gen 1-11 that WLC holds too - there seems to be far too much specific historical detail. But I certainly appreciate your call for reasonable and charitable debate!

[@everythingisvanityneverthe1834]

What sealed the mytho-historical view for me in at least the first 3 chapters was the relation between the snake and the dragon from Revelations. I don't know anybody who thinks the dragon in Revelations is a real dragon. Yet Revelations say that the dragon is "the snake of old - also called the devil and satan". So at least in some sense the snake is not real. Please tell me if you have a different interpretation of this. Blessings.

[@arminius504]

@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I have a different interpretation. The dragon is leviathan. Read the Septuagint. It’s how they translate it and the NT writers usually go with that since they write in Greek. Leviathan is translated as Dragon in the Greek. Leviathan symbolizes chaos and is a symbol for Satan (many OT scholars don’t do biblical theology and only present historical context so they miss what John and other writers realized who interpreted the OT for us so the Bible has no unity) in the Old Testament. For example God crushing leviathans head in the psalms (pointing to the prophecy in genesis about the seed crushing the serpents head) etc. Therefore the Dragon, the ancient serpent, is Satan and the snake is Satan. Just a different name. Just like the Jesus of the NT is named David in OT prophecy and also the anointed (Christ) etc. Different descriptions, names but same guy. I don’t see any reasons why that makes it mytho history. Yeah it’s supernatural but so is a lot of historical narrative in the Bible. Steve Boyd has done an analysis with a statistician and Genesis 1-2 at least are according to statistical analysts historical narrative: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2LTp5ugf65ro6M

[@everythingisvanityneverthe1834]

@@arminius504 I enjoyed your explanation but when you said "yes it is supernatural" you made the mytho-historians point for him. Mixing supernatural references with literal history is the very definition of the mytho-historical position.

[@DBdrumz18]

@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I think you misunderstood the previous point. I believe they were saying that there are supernatural events in the text, but those events should be understood historically and literally, not as a mythical way of describing real events.

[@everythingisvanityneverthe1834]

@@DBdrumz18 and I think you don't understand the traditional meaning of the word myth and seem to be confusing the word mythological with allegorical. Nobody is saying Genesis is allegory. However by acknowledging that events are supernatural the previous commentator confirmed that we should not look for any physical evidence of what happened. Mytho-historical views are not all 100 percent uniform but the point is always that whatever happened in Genesis happened somewhere between physical and spiritual in a way that we don't understand but that we should not understand as a physical 7 days physically 7000 years ago with a physical garden and a physical snake. Genesis 1 to 3 is way more nuanced than that. Even though the snake is cursed to crawl on its belly it still somehow evolves into a dragon? The claim is that Genesis represent the same kind of undercurrent that is going on in Revelation: more than allegory but different from the "real life" that we experience. Sometimes the word allegory is used for lack of a better term but this is often not what the interlocutor means. When the trees of the field clap there hands they are really clapping their hands on a Mythological / Spritual level. We don't expect to see them clapping but very view people think this is mere metaphor.

[@thomasloghry3695]

Thanks so much for this video Gavin, you exhibit the spirit of Christian charity wonderfully.

[@miltonchamberlain3216]

Dr. Ortlund -- Thank you for standing to "defend reasonable voices," such as Dr. Craig. Paul told the Philippians (and us) to "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone..." (Phil 4:5 ESV), and your video is a much needed reminder to all Followers of Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life that we are to earn a reputation for reasonableness. Now, I'm sure that some reading this comment may object saying, "But, my translation doesn't say "reasonableness," but "gentleness," or "fairness," or "graciousness." And they are right... because (as I understand it) the Greek word (ἐπιεικὲς) thus variously translated is much richer than any single English word. Therefore, we should understand Paul as commanding us to develop reputations where all four English words characterize our every thought, word, and action. These four words, singly and together, require that we first seek to understand... before commenting.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Milton for the encouragement! That is a great verse to bear in mind these days....

[@willire8811]

I don’t think evolution what he was thinking when he said “reasonableness” 😑

[@jgiaq]

In your opinion, why is it that we have a strong tendency to collapse "is there truth here" with "how does the Bible communicate truth here"? It seems fairly straightforward to me, but some really seem to struggle with the difference. Is it a result of post modernity? Laziness? Thanks for your awesome content, as always.

[@obakhanjones2869]

Jesus believed in Genesis and Adam. Jesus never referred to Genesis as “mytho history”. So why would we have radio carbon dating and it’s inaccuracies be the source of truth instead of the mouth of Jesus?

[@eternalbyzantium262]

What do you think of a literalist interpretation of Genesis? Is it preferable for a Christian to adopt that position? I tend to lean to it, but I must be strict in saying that I do find William Lane Craig absolutely heretical at times. e.g. his belief that Genesis is mythohistorical, his denial of the eternal begetting of the Son. Nevertheless, I do find him a powerful voice when arguing for the Resurrection. Thank you for your charity, kindness and fairmindedness. Love from an Orthodox Christian.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@whatsinaname691]

If by literalist you mean “news report accurate”, then that is a heterodox and untenable reading which doesn’t handle any scrutiny. It’s better to hold a view more in line with the early church fathers or of a more expansive view which takes into account our modern understanding of ancient near-eastern legend, history, and cosmology

[@dylanbradshaw3506]

My problem with Dr. Craig is, he has stated he refuses to wrestle with modern evolutionary theory and honest criticism of it because he is not an expert. So all of his theological wrangling is built upon a foundation of accepting modern science so called, without serious criticism of it. There are honest, and very good reasons (I’m convinced) to reject evolutionary theory. Why have an old earth at that point, if no evolution?

[@pjsepulved]

Question for WLC. Why have I never seen him debate young earth creationist. Like Dr Sarfati, Dr Russlle Humphreys or Dr. Kirt Wise and many many other scientists and Drs who are very accomplished. Instead he dismisses their positions out of hand. He won’t engage with them or their positions. That I’m aware of ina vigorous debate. Why not? You know Colossians 2:8 comes to mind. Is Christianity and philosophy compatible? What godly Bible character was ever considered a philosopher? Perhaps some used philosophy but I don’t know of any prophets or apostles that were considered philosophers.

[@mesafamily5830]

God bless you, Gavin! Although I also disagree with WLC, I think one of the unspoken issues that people have, including myself, is that academia overall has bogarted the term “science”. Anyone who disagrees with the conclusions made by the “university educated” are clearly not smart enough to figure out God without help from someone like you or WLC. Although alternative views are out there, “science” continues to encroach and downplay the conservative understanding. It’s to the point of frustration for many. We’re tired of being told we’re wrong because of “science” and “education”. It’s quite exhausting. Despite our differences, thank you for all you do and continue the good fight!

[@TruthUnites]

God bless you as well!

[@verndaripyrenees]

My 15 year old actually made the comment (sarcastically), it’s a good thing we have science. What did people do before we had science to understand these things?

[@PurposefulPantomime]

Thanks for bringing this book to our attention. The way we view the historicity of Adam is so important in shaping our theological worldview.

[@geomicpri]

You should make a KZbin “Short” from 10:46 to about 11:34-44

[@DrBob-gr5ru]

One area of historical theology that is not covered enough is the theological developments within Protestantism from 1830 to 1930, inclusive of events such as the development of Higher Criticism in the Tubingen School by Ferdinand Baur in Germany that sparked a century of controversies that culminated in J.G. Machen and the remaining conservatives leaving Princeton in 1929. That century has given rise to many of the subsequent controversies from Vatican II to the rise of the Moral Majority and the culture wars throughout what was once called Christendom. I think Strachan is really hitting on something important in using the term "liberalism", and you really hit on something in your use of the term "fundamentalist". I think it would be fascinating for you to do a survey of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and how modern developments in church history inform the current dispute between Dr. Strachan and Dr. Craig.

[@adamykim]

hey brother, I appreciate your call for a more measured tone. I would like to ask what the impetus is for questioning the literalistic reading. You mentioned a few things like the angel with a flaming sword, God walking, and Augustine's thoughts on the tree. What is it about those things that lead you to question their literal reality? I think Owen is saying that folks who question the literalistic reading do so because these things seem fantastic or 'supernatural'. Which might fairly be summarized as an anti-supernatural reading. Of course, if we reject Gen 1-3 as literal history BASED on its inclusion of fantastic elements, then that hermeneutic, consistently applied, should be used (and has been used by literal liberals :) to doubt Jonah, the sun standing still, the walking on water, and eventually the ress of Christ. So, what hints in the text cause you to doubt the literal plain meaning without causing you to doubt the literal plain meaning of the resurrection? Thank you for your time.

[@delbert372]

One impetus would be the fact that our Earth and Universe are far older than a few thousand years.

[@thethreeofus2620]

The debate here is about much deeper foundational issues. Dr. Craig's worldview foundations, and his doctrine of Scripture and Christ are radically different than those who argue for a historical Adam/Eve, and Fall. Frankly, they are almost different worldviews, significantly different explanations about human origins and human nature.

[@gmacdonald87]

Thank you for this. I plan on picking the book up. I'm curious: where do you disagree with Dr. Craig? You mentioned that you did, and I'm curious to know where and why. Thank you for your content on this channel!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! I'm not inclined to date Adam that far back. That said, I recognize challenges in the alternatives timetables as well. Hope you enjoy the book!

[@alexvlk]

Thank you

[@williambillycraig1057]

Hey, thank you for clarification on Craig's argument. On your comment, "there is an uptick of fundamentalism," could you clarify what you meant by this? How would you describe what "fundamentalism" is? Thank you, and God bless

[@joshuas1834]

I've got no volume on this video. Anybody else having this problem. The rest of your videos are working fine

[@TruthUnites]

dang sorry. not sure why...

[@joshuas1834]

@@TruthUnites I came back to it about an hour ago and it was working. The problem must have been on my end but I'm not sure how because I tried headphones and my car speakers. Anyway, all good now.

[@TruthUnites]

@@joshuas1834 glad to hear!

[@anthonywhitney634]

Just watched Sean McDowell's interview of WLC on this. While he doesn't mythologise Adam and Eve away completely, what he comes up with bears little similarity to Genesis, IMO. Respectful dialogue should always be the M.O., though I can see WLC getting a lot of criticism from his approach to this.

[@achristianperspective]

Thanks Gavin for keeping the conversation going. I sure appreciate listening to what you have to say on these issues!

[@MrChickenLegss]

Could you create a scheduled/premier video on your channel that we could follow to set a reminder for (for the interview with Dr Craig)

[@TruthspeakOfficial]

hi Pastor Ortlund, could the sound on this be improved? thanks

[@stephentipton5134]

Thank you for this helpful way to think about this discussion. One thing I might like to see explained more is how you follow the cues to realize that one part of Scripture is a different type of history than another. I can get my head around it a little by some of the individuals you quoted but would love to go more in depth.

[@anthonywhitney634]

Stephen in this area unfortunately preconceptions can play a large part in how they categorise scripture. In the WLC / McDowell interview I just watched, WLC claims that he tried hard to come at this afresh, but it quickly became obvious that he didn't try very hard at all.

[@theologypathfinder815]

Thank you so much for responding to this issue with good sense and charity. I feel you when it comes to being hesitant to engage polemical topics, but I for one am grateful for your reply. I'll definitely be adding your book on St. Augustine to my (already far too large) to-read list!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! Hope you enjoy!

[@massiefamily7229]

Great video! Loved what you said about Scripture is infallible but we are not!

[@robertfields7688]

On the subject of whether or not the Tree of Life actually existed or was merely an allegory, or something else, I have a question! Was the angel who blocked their access to the Tree of Life real or not? It would be strange to require a real angel to guard something that did not truly exist! To say the angel was not real also seems strange because you now have a string of events, by God, that are allegorical in response to an allegorical occurrence. As soon as one lands on the allegorical side of Genesis 1-3 they begin a downhill hermeneutical slide that does not end well.

[@dancastle3042]

Subscribed for that interview with WLC

[@TruthUnites]

Hope you will enjoy it!

[@huey7437]

Charitable and rationale, similar to my thoughts on the book (based on the title and brief discussions from Dr Craig). Looking forward to your discussion with Dr Craig on this very topic!! 👍

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! Hope you enjoy!

[@thetombier13]

Hey Gavin, I always appreciate your insight, and, more importantly in this case, the balance you bring to difficult questions. I tend to more agree with a literal Adam, but I really appreciated you highlighting the different sources and respected opinions who interpret Gen 1-11 differently than I do. Lots of food for thought. Keep up the good work!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Thomas!

[@colinbrown9476]

Thanks for your thoughts here, Dr. Ortlund. Loving your content more and more. Also, on a different note, I would love to hear your eschatology at some point. I notice a common sort of fundamentalist hermeneutic that leaves people with both a Young Earth position and dispensational premillennialism. I have seen just as much stubborn unwillingness to converse around eschatology as I have around creation.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Colin! Yes, I have noticed the same thing. I did a video on the millennium a while back; I think I will try to do something else in that space again down the line...

[@anniebanderet]

I so appreciate you, Dr. Ortland. Unfortunately, others, such as Owen Strachan, do not possess either your grace, scholarship, insight or intelligence, and not just on this issue.

[@WeakestAvenger]

As for the "where are the guiderails?" question, I haven't read the book yet, but I have heard Dr. Craig talk about it, and he actually uses a list of (nine?) criteria for what makes a myth in the literary sense.

[@Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh123]

Gavin, thank you for your labor and charity. It’s a breath of fresh air! I love Owen and agree with him on this but the way he went about this was not the most charitable. With that said, thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

[@clarkemorledge2398]

@Truth Unites Great video, and very much needed. Unfortunately, this type of reaction from folks like Dr. Strachan is not unexpected. It is very sad though, as Dr. Strachan can be very careful in other areas, and garners much respect, in my view, on other important theological topics. It is just disappointing to see him fail to accurately elucidate Dr. Craig's view, and resort to straw man tactics to try to discredit him. One might as well dismiss Stott and Packer as "liberals" too, if you go that route. Thank you for your work. I am intrigued about Augustine now. Have you done a fuller length video treatment on Augustine yet?

[@TruthUnites]

I'll consider doing a video on Augustine down the road! Thanks.

[@FabrizioRodulfo]

Hey Gavin, could you have Owen on one of your videos to have a conversation about this? I am sure he can respond to the charges raised against him. Also, what do you mean by an "uptick of fundamentalism"? Is it evil? Damaging to the church? Would love to see you an Owen talk about this in a moderated debate or simply in a conversation on your channel.

[@timfoster5043]

My problem is that Dr. Craig said that his book is *based* on the Bible. I don't mind being a little more humble and waiting to fully hear both sides, but for now, I have no earthly idea how one comes up with Hidelberg Man being "based" on the Bible. I think I may have seen your interview with him before, but I'll check it out again.

[@Blackjamie80]

Dude you are regurgitating arguments used by atheists. Oh dear

[@nathanaelvking]

Thank you for defending WLC's reasonable voice. While I disagree with him on this issue, he's certainly a godly, thoughtful Christian who is a champion for Christ's church.

[@ENCwwe]

Dr Craig’s terms can be very confusing if you don’t see how he’s defining them.

[@Lucas1Apple12]

Truly appreciated this video brother 🙏

[@TruthUnites]

So glad it was useful for you!

[@Ruminator]

This is very well done, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts brother.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Ian!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Brother Ortlund, God bless you! Your charity and scholarship continues to edify and bless me (as an aside, I just got married yesterday!).

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks a lot, and congratulations!

[@katherinehinson7262]

I am so glad you put out a response to Owen. I follow him on Instagram and made the unfortunate error of defending WLCs view on a social platform (cue the pitchforks). You put this together very eloquently and w/ great scholars to back up the fact that we can have both sides literary and historical in the same passage. Thank you for this!

[@adamjensen5891]

Thank you Dr. Ortlund. I so appreciate your example of humility and charity.

[@GuruishMike]

I think being uncharitable is Owen Strachan's MO.

[@mr.thomas8091]

Thanks for posting this video, I'm very curious about WLC book, huge fan of his and a new subscriber of yours.

[@parableproductionsvideo]

Great analysis. I've been looking forward to this book for years. I'm looking forward to reading it and sharing it, also, with family. Thank you for this video.

[@michaelnelson5888]

Was just watching the MacDowell and WLC video. I can tell you have a pastor's humility and grace. Charitable response Gavin, look forward to your interview with WLC.

[@wynniwagner2003]

It's all true or it's all not

[@bradbrown2168]

Agrarian, animal husbandry, metallurgy, city building: seems a given. Do we need to Consider these indicators? “Man of the dirt” a different creature from homo sapien?

[@jrgunter23]

Thankful for you, Gavin.

[@patwilkins1589]

Will you do a moderated debate with Jay Dyer?

[@shawnallee739]

Thank you Dr. Ortlund. Well said. Keep up the good work.

[@davidpinckney1571]

So helpful, gracious and good! Thanks Gavin!

[@adrianturner7361]

What would Tyndale's ploughboy have made of the notion that Genesis is to be read in a 'particular' way?

[@BurningHearts99]

There seems to be a difference in mythology- history and historical events described in poetic or apocalyptic language, as does Habakkuk 3. I heard Craig say in an interview that the flood was not literal history. Maybe I heard him wrong. How do you describe the flood in terms of mytho-history? Too much ambiguity.

[@sambehar2468]

Really appreciate your time in laying out some of the issues at stake. The new fundamentalism seems to be ruining many good men and women. Retreating from the world and throwing up hasty defenses is the vogue on both sides.

[@JosieTT]

I recognize that as well. There's a thin line that exist as some slowly drift on the wave of chattering for likes and shares. Discernment is super important in this time.

[@annapobst]

Thank you for speaking about this!!! I was very confused by initial reactions by believers to W.L . Craig on this. Your elaboratiins clarified a lot 🙂

[@grahamneville9002]

You deny Adam and Eve existed literally because you do not believe the bible. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Paul wrote in Rom 5 :12 that Adam fell from innocence and brought death into creation. WLC's God is humanism and science - have no fellowship with him.

[@hughwanzakaffi7348]

Thanks for doing this video. Great insights on this conversation!

[@OneStepToday]

fix your sound level. Reupload it with increased sound upto the KZbin criteria.

[@dahelmang]

Craig is a good philosopher and debater, but he isn't reliable for Biblical exegesis. His attitude on Genesis has been clear for years.

[@candsreal1982]

The recent interview that Dr. Craig did on this subject with Sean McDowell was not, in my opinion, his finest hour. The problem with his current approach, and sadly too many other contemporary christian apologists/philosophers, is they needlessly give up ground to committed, dogmatic naturalists like Swamidass. Well qualified scientists from the Discovery Institute and elsewhere have both answered and offered viable alternatives to Swamidass on human origins that is consistent with the the Scriptures. It should also be noted the reputational peril that Christian theologians, philosophers or scientists can get themselves into when buying into the so-called “settled science” narrative.

[@ndjarnag]

Micheal Behe, the leader of Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, accepts the common descent of humans and chimps.

[@apologiaromana4123]

@@ndjarnag No they don’t.

[@lifefreedom7269]

@@ndjarnag no they do not. You're wrong brother.

[@ClauGutierrezY]

In times when theology is downright avoided, biblical literacy generally is not even on the map and postmodernism is relentlessly swallowing churches alive. Defending reasonable voices is a must. Dr Craig needs to be guarded and preserved. Thanks for your video and integrity.

[@mirzabekdosov56]

I think that an undergirding assumption of Owens flagrantly critic is widespread premises of the Enlightenment of an "either/or" approach. Heaven Or Earth, Supernatural Or Natural, Literal OR figurative. Following this logic most fundamentalists really freaking out of any alternative interpretations emerges and labels it a liberal approach. It isn't a liberal approach to the text but a multilevel hermeneutical approach that take into account the genre, style, and historical settings. If we do not get rid of the modernist mindset, I believe we are bound to an artificial and entirely irrelevant argument about "literal or not literal" while neglecting the extraordinary beauty and core message of the text.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

The issue doesn't require the subjective nature of Dr. Craig's view or how he interprets it. It doesn't have to be personal. You only need to have the basic objective view, that Adam and Eve were the first two humans as taught in Genesis and that all humans that ever live and alive today came from them, or were there other humans? Were there other humans created as other humans, male and female or evolved into humans, male and female?

[@timothyhaugan2903]

So was Adam the first human or not?

[@veritas2145]

First white man

[@jasonjeanjacquet9334]

Was there no charity nor humility in what Owen said? I understand we are to speak the truth in love and with humility but on what point did Owen wasn't?

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

This is a real issue in online discussions. Literalists get all the press and are the loudest voices in the room, so they are just about all the skeptics hear from; thus, with both camps demanding a literal reading of the text, the rest of us catch it from both sides. Thanks for your work, my friend!

[@achristianthinker9118]

Meanwhile, William Craig had done a great job with the book!

[@BibleSongs]

An uptick in fundamentalism is not concerning.

[@ricardooliveira9774]

(Didn't watch the video yet) The story of creation was "borrowed" from the enuma elish, wasn't it? I think it's a way to say that God is sovereign, whereas in the Enuma Elish gods have to fight or creat things out of other things, God speaks and is all powerful. I may be wrong though. 🤔

[@wordandwater9027]

Owen Strachan is so cringe, I don’t know why people listen to him.

[@TheLysineContingency]

Thank you for this video, it was very helpful

[@ArkEleven1]

Nikolai Berdyaev had a view similar to Craig's well over a century ago!

[@reformedapologist]

How do you escape the argument from "arbitrariness" in terms of deciding that chapters 1-11 are "mytho history" and that chapter twelve onwards is not... I get it that the story of the "snake deceiving eve" shouldn't be interpreted in a wooden literal sense -- I think that is easy to recognise without even thinking about the actual creation event. Chapter 1 does not read like the story of the fall at all -- on a plain reading it just reads like a "non-scientific" rendition of creation. If a person does not first hear about "evolution" -- i.e. that would muddy the water -- and this person just read through chapter 1... would that person -- someone who believes in the inspiration of the Biblical text -- really think Gen 1 was mythology (or mytho history as you now somewhat conveniently rephrase it). Sorry I think this all has the ring of "arbitrariness" to it. You have run up against the "rock of scientific opinion" and you have submitted your interpretation of the text to that opinion. Let's take the minor prophet Jonah for example. That also has a degree of "fantastic" story to it -- i.e. for the person struggling with the miraculous -- it would be relegated to the same "mytho" category... but what do you do about Jesus quoting from Jonah. Did Jesus now believe the story of Jonah -- including the event of him being swallowed by some kind of large fish for 3 days -- was a "myth"? Wouldn't the arbitrariness argument concerning Genesis 1-11 be the same about Jonah and you would be pressed to say Jonah -- at the least the part about the large fish -- is also "mytho history" -- but wait -- this is where the atheist comes in and I think rightly so can level another blow at your argument - since Jesus uses the example of Jonah and him being in the belly of the fish for 3 days as an argument to speak of his death and resurrection.... It appears to me that you are therefore being pressed to give the atheists room to say the Resurrection is "mytho history" as well.... this whole argument by William Lane Craig is not convincing to me -- certainly not Biblically... as said I get where Augustine gets his ideas (somewhat) -- but I don't think you can use Augustine as an example to give credence to William Lane Craig's argument as they are completely different sets of arguments. I get that some passages in the Bible are "destroyed" by "wooden literal interpretation" -- but I think that shoe maybe fits the "fall" story but it does not fit the rest of the account -- the flood account does not read anything like "fantastic" that is just an arbitrary argument.... to be fair to this whole and in the light of your channel being called "Truth Unites" -- can I humbly suggest to you to select the best possible person from the Six Day Creation community and do a rebuttal interview so that your subscribers are not just in an "echo chamber" but hear the truth from all the aspects that deserve to be heard? I think that would be fair. {If I can make a suggestion -- Jonathan Sarfati -- who wrote "The Genesis Account" would be an excellent person}. I hope I didn't come across as attacking you - that was certainly not my intention. I really enjoy the way you engage and listen well to your opponents and aim to argue without being mean. I applaud that... but I think there is much more to this whole "Genesis" issue than just dealing with the interpretation... people these days -- humbly said -- have come to think "evolution is a proven / done deal" {by that I mean "macro-evolution" the kind that is needed to make the jumps from one species to the next} -- I often find believers accept "evolution" without even spending the time to review the arguments for and against. There is great scientific and credible work out there that makes the "six day creation" position scientifically credible... once that hurdle is no longer a hurdle -- I think we can approach the text with less "baggage" and with the same tools of interpretation that we approach the rest of scripture.

[@zekdom]

3:37 and 4:14 4:51 and 5:14 6:12 6:43 7:43 11:03

[@doctrinalwatchdog6268]

Craig is a false teacher.

[@thursdaythursday5884]

And Augustine too!

[@Wood424]

I saw the Video of Mr Craig and was appalled, Dr John Warwick Montgomery an apologist of some note (I believe he is still alive) taught and defended the total and complete inerrancy of the scriptures Genesis to Revelation. And no the truth does not unite (at least according to Jesus)

[@JoshuaHults]

The earth holds fast in light of other scriptures tells us we can’t merely take the verse in a literal sense. Christians are to hold Fast until the end, does not mean we just stand here in 1 literal place. No we do not use the world’s science to educate our understandings of scriptures, that elevates men’s theories over that of scriptures.The argument for Earth moving that Christian apologists give in relation to primitive Christians illogically fighting against it is a bad one. Although the verses used don’t get you there, science itself seems to side with an earth centered universe. The cosmological axis of evil was predicted by Brahe, not Copernicus. The background radiation aligns with Earth’s ecliptic, which does support a stationary Earth. Further every experiment done to prove the earth moves, showed the opposite. From Airy’s failure to michaelson morly experiment. So we have no idea if earth moves or not today, the belief it moves is purely based on philosophical assumption. For goodness sakes can Christian apologists please stop using this horrible example?

[@davecorns7630]

good points

[@BrandonCorley109]

I mean, regardless of how long the days of Genesis were, Adam lived through 2 of them and was 130 when he fathered Seth, so I don't really see the controversy over the interpretation of 6-literal 24-hour days here. Seems rather obvious to me 🤷‍♂️

[@thetributary8089]

Man, really well articulated.

[@ProfYaffle]

Yes. Yes. Yes. YES Wrestle with the truth of the Scriptures Be humble ... willing to change your mind Be intelligent. Don't mindlessly believe Don't fallout with your brother because you disagree,enjoy the dissonance, it is how we find truth Go DrGO I thank God for you

[@adamvillemaire984]

As God came to Abraham ate with him before Sodom was destroyed ...same way God walked in Garden of Eden... LOLL....as Jacob fought with God in his tent ..and Moses also in the tavern....WHY COULD GOD HAVE NOT WALKED THEN IN EDEN❓

[@davidjanbaz7728]

The visible YHWH ( preincarnate Jesus) did in all you're examples: see Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on KZbin, the two powers in Heaven theology of the 2nd temple period Judaism that Jesus and The Apostles ( including Paul) taught.

[@robertomendez1547]

many conservative theologians do not allow any kind of interpretation and affirm that the Bible is literal. If that were true, the holy spirit would be of no use and everyone would understand and convert, but we know that this is not true. Liberal theologians affirm that the Bible is the way in which men inspired by the holy spirit wrote their message and therefore has personal opinions, if this were true the Bible would have inconsistencies and errors and therefore would not be reliable but the church would be the reliable one and we know this is not true. I think that the only reliable thing is the Bible and it has messages that must be interpreted, since not all of it is literal, so we must constantly study it and accept that the truth is not in us.

[@johngraham1274]

Your five minute intro killed my interest. "In a multitude of words..."