Were Adam and Eve Historical People?

[@grahambrooks4179]

Glad to see Gavin is staying away from controversy.

[@grahambrooks4179]

Love the balanced takes as always!

[@Mentat1231]

LOL. This is why we love Gavin.

[@thiagoemanuel8607]

LOL

[@Telorchid]

Hehe. My first reaction is 'glutton for punishment.'

[@JosiahTheSiah]

@CDK008-hm3ue does John Walton ever really go into the Church Fathers? My impression from what I've read and heard from him is that he stays away from anything that late in history.

[@daviddivad777]

i like Gavin's attitude. if God exists, then all truth is God's truth and we should not be afraid where truth leads.

[@Spectre277]

Yes!

[@CamGaylor]

Exactly young earth 🌎

[@Marcus-rq8bg]

Amen

[@bradspitt3896]

​@@CamGaylor Exactly, otherwise death is natural.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@@CamGaylorNO: Theistic Evolution and Old Earth!!!

[@BoldUlysses]

Gavin, don't feel like you need to rush these important topics. I'd gladly watch much longer videos of you addressing these issues.

[@Sonic2Chronicles]

My exact thoughts. Go for it, Gavin!

[@salgar1234]

I really enjoy the long form videos. I do a lot of listening while doing other things.

[@stephenbailey9969]

The earliest Christians were much more open to mystery, in accepting that we in this age are incapable of knowing it all. As Paul said, like seeing through a glass darkly.

[@donatist59]

Precisely why fundamentalism is at heart a form of modernism.

[@stephenbailey9969]

@@donatist59 Yes. As the video's selections from Augustine showed, there are many opaque areas in scripture. The task is to take scripture seriously and sincerely, without thinking we can interpret it all perfectly. God gives what we need, not what egotistical curiosity demands. To that end, the ultimate purpose of scripture is to point us to the living Christ who gives new life in the Spirit here and now, who will return and bring true peace and justice, who calls us to love others in practical ways in this age.

[@onepingonlyplease]

Best comment posted. I truthfully pray people read it many, many times with a truly open heart, without getting defensive. This comment, and I too don’t mean to upset anyone, but this comment is the most truthful words either written or spoken in both the video and comments. Thank you for the courage it took to say.

[@carlidoepke5131]

Yes, it’s okay to not fully understand some of these things. Almost arrogant to think that we have all the answers and have correctly interrupted the Bible to a T. “Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” - Thomas Campbell "In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love" (RESTORATION movement) We have to be open to discussion. And have grace and humility in these tertiary, unclear matters. This doesn’t need to be divisive. Saddens me it becomes that way. In the words of Peter: “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” May we not twist scriptures to our own destruction. May we give God’s word room to breathe and have nuance, as it so often does. May we have humility to realize there will be a lot of things that are hard for us to understand.

[@CryoftheProphet]

@@donatist59 who is the first human that is listed in the geneology of Mary? What does science prove with mitochondrial Eve? On these two premises alone we can prove Adam and Eve were the first two human beings, literally created by God.

[@MrDanielEarle]

"Augustine will just throw out possibilities and not try to harmonize everything he says." I can relate to that.

[@legomegaman101]

Bruh same lul

[@toddstevens9667]

Who cares what Augustine thought? And the reason he doesn’t want you to harmonize Augustine’s ideas is because he’s inconsistent.

[@aericabison23]

Muslim sources are like this too. They present every version of a story and basically leave the critical evaluation to the reader lol

[@jeremybamgbade]

@@toddstevens9667 No single writer is always consistent. Augustine should be read because he was brilliant, not because he was infallible

[@toddstevens9667]

@@jeremybamgbade I’m brilliant too, but nobody cares what I think 😜

[@Luke-md7up]

So refreshing to see a Protestant apologist.

[@antoniotodaro4093]

He is our champion

[@Mr.Whitenton]

Wow. That's an interesting comment. If you like Gavin, you may also like Dr Craig, Voddie Baucham, Frank Turek. RC Sproul, Dr Hugh Ross, Jeff Durbin….

[@MrNobodylj]

@@Mr.Whitenton James white

[@paulallenscards]

Apologists are only good for reinforcing confirmation bias. If you have the intellectual appetite for it, you’ll always get more out of scholars who’s been subject to peer review like John Barton, Raymond Brown, DB Hart, Mark Goodacre (these four all have vastly different perspectives, but any one of them can help steer you down a more intellectually honest path)

[@Mr.Whitenton]

@@paulallenscards Are not all Christians called to give a defense (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in [us]? 1 Peter 3:15 My advice is to be careful of the wisdom of the world and stick to spreading the story of truth in Christ. His words will guide you in reaching sound conclusions.

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

This channel is such a breath of fresh air

[@toddstevens9667]

Fresh air? Lol. It’s just a bunch of liberal ideas and critical Bible scholarship that’s been around for over a century.

[@patristicperspectives]

Gavin, thou dost almost persuade me to become a Christian. Seriously, though, fascinating and thoughtful analysis. Enjoyable to listen to.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks for listening!

[@realgeorgiboorman]

Loved hearing that theologians in the 1600s were wrestling with the idea of "pre-adamites." Having historical context breaks through the rigorous modern binary; it gives us space to consider and explore without feeling guilt about betraying one side or another. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund.

[@justchilling704]

Really appreciate your channel Gavin. You’re a fantastic addition to KZbin overall but especially apologetics, church history, and philosophy.

[@joshuastevens232]

I am one of those young people struggling with this. Thank you

[@sethyboi5013]

Awesome video. You've helped me remove some of my anxieties and worries around this subject and be much more patient with scripture and science.

[@gardengirlmary]

I haven't ever even thought about these issues, but enjoyed listening to this topic in its entirety. Thank you for all you do :)

[@TheDailyCross-51]

Gavin, God bless you! It was these types of videos that brought me back to faith. It fills my heart and soul to see one of my favorite online theologians tackle these issues!

[@voiceofthefathertv]

Gavin You may never hear from people that you have helped the most. You definitely will hear from people that aren't helping at all. keep up the good work.

[@carlidoepke5131]

Amen to this comment.

[@matthewmcmichael6416]

Gavin just took almost all the thoughts that have been pin balling around my brain as I've studied this, and articulated them in one video. Outstanding work!

[@tombadil5164]

Gavin is quickly becoming ome of favorite theologians

[@AdrianB-R13]

Good job, Gavin. Thank you for helping the church move forward on this one.

[@studentwork700]

Brother, no apologies for talking about your books! 📚 This is your channel, you have put your time, heart and God-given abilities into your work and that is worth mentioning! 👏🏽

[@mikedickey7903]

Once again - this is phenomenal. And once again - this is a video that I would eagerly and gladly share with my fellow believers, elders, pastors, as well as non-believing friends and strangers.

[@jty1999]

As always, we're appreciative of your humility, sincerity, and call to unity despite talking about traditionally divisive topics.

[@ebolds4918]

You did a great job framing the intricacy of this important issue.👍🏽

[@williamnathanael412]

As a YEC, I appreciate Dr. Ortlund's works like this. I'm still not convinced of evolution due to scientific reasons, but I accept the second oint: we need patience and humility to review attempts at harmonization.

[@JesusProtects]

Patience and humility is what is allowing this trash theory of theistic evolution to spread. Look at the comments, 90% of people or more are just praising Gavin for being a fence sitter and allowing this filthy false doctrine to keep putting doubt in the mind of believers. More and more people are abandoning the idea of divine inspiration of scripture and joining the heretical teachings of the catholic church and the orthodox (falsely so called) church. I refuse to give an inch to the liars spreading this nonsense.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Thing is there is alot of science for it. I.e. the 98 percent similarity to humans with chimps Even answers geneticists will say universal that the closer the genes the closer the relationship Remember there thing called traced Here's the thing the scientist that have been on there saying chips are less than 80 has been discredited numerous times rewrites his research alot. This girl is a athiest she is a leftist. I apply the test all things to all. Her names gutsick gibbon She has a series that goes over the huge amount that answers and icr. Do. It's not important to salvation It's not ultimately important but I'd check it out.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

🎉🎉🎉

[@B_F12]

Great lighting by the way. Very helpful channel for me 👍🏻

[@margarettownley1870]

So good to hear someone talking sensibly about this. Isn't it wonderful that we have several feasible working theories on the table?

[@newlifepodcast581]

I made to the end, your podcast was recommended by my pastor. I'm getting alot out of your teaching. ❤

[@ayobithedark2772]

Finished deconstructing my fundamentalist views last year, and it is difficult and humbling, but so refreshing, and Gavin has been such an encouragement. No more Young earth creationism. No more dispensational rapture theology. No more hyper-literal KJV-only view of the Scriptures

[@jozzen77]

Fundamentalism is just one of those words nobody knows what it means these days, but the usage of the word has been really positive until today, because the fundamentalists were the ones opposing to liberal theology in the 19th century.

[@santtuhyytiainen]

I would describe myself as a fundamentalist christian, and I don't believe any of those doctrines. Of those three believes only young earth creationism is something I could be convinced to believe in. Fundamentalism taken in its proper sense simply means that you believe, and refuse to abandon, the fundamental teachings. The problem with many american "fundamentalist" groups is that they overreact against liberal and critical reading, erring too far in the other direction. Their defensive position has lead them to make fundamental believes that were never meant to be fundamental.

[@ayobithedark2772]

@@santtuhyytiainen I consider myself a conservative that holds to the fundamental truth of the Bible. However, "fundamentalists" would consider me very liberal🤷

[@santtuhyytiainen]

​@@ayobithedark2772What do you consider fundamental?

[@ayobithedark2772]

@@santtuhyytiainen Christians that hold to the 3 views I mentioned earlier, they are what is considered fundamentalists today

[@cjstev1]

Thankful for the research you put into these and the clarity and gentleness you present with! I always look forward to your videos!

[@michaelliles69]

As a Christian and an Anthropologist, it is so refreshing to see an Evangelical Protestant Apologist tackle this topic of faith and science with a line of reasoning other than the Bible being true and science being evil. I struggle every day to harmonize what science tells us with what Scripture tells us. The best I can do is say science shows us God's great creative intelligence. I tend to agree with Dr. William Lane Craig regarding H. heidelbergensis (700,000 to 200,000 years ago) because we know they had moved out of Africa, as we have found fossils in Germany and France, as well as other parts of Europe. In fact, the first fossil of H. heidelbergensis was found in 1907 in the Rösch sandpit north of the village of Mauer, which is near Heidelberg, Germany. As previously stated, they have found fossils in France as well, specifically Terra Amata, France. So, H. heidelbergensis would have traveled into the Near East to get to what we consider modern Europe. Here is another thing to consider regarding Adam and Eve. Supposing for a moment they are as real as you or I, how would we identify their fossils? Of course, the answer is that we can’t, and it’s unlikely that this question will ever be answered because we simply have no way to tell if the fossils we have found or will find in the future are the biblical Adam and Eve. Personally, I don’t need Adam and Eve to be real, as it were, just like I don’t need the Earth to have been created in six days or the flood of Noah to be real for the Bible to be literally theologically true and for God to be in my life. We have all manner of proof that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected, and for me, that’s really all I need. I know that’s being over-simplistic, but isn’t our faith just that simple: the life, death, and resurrection of Christ? Without that, our faith is pointless, the rest of the Bible notwithstanding.

[@skwabo]

Well said!! As a scientist at a university, no scientific topic has challenged me theologically as much as human evolution. It does require the faith and simplicity of Augustine to trust that God can do things whatever way He deems fit. God bless you on your journey

[@telleroftheone]

I appreciate your candor and honest reflection. Interestingly, I eventually grew to reject the non-literalistic view (I still affirm a literal reading of Genesis) once I understood genre-analysis and literalistic vs literal distinctions. The established science on the issue with tertiary to my settling in on old earth interpretations.

[@stagename2]

What is your confidence level in the dating methods?

[@michaelliles69]

​@@stagename2 dating methods will never be 100%, and there will always be some questions of accuracy, but overall, I have high confidence in the methods.

[@ryanmlc]

Just wonderful to hear Gavin patiently work through these complex and sometimes troubling issues

[@keepclimbing15]

Congrats on 60k subs! I love these videos. Thank you for the grace and wisdom you bring to these difficult topics.

[@SaltyCalvinist]

As a Christian who has always believed in young earth, I want to thank you for how nicely you out all this. My issue has been and remains the actual scientific data. I just see way too many problems with the actual evolutionary paradigm to bring myself to believe it. I really do think it comes down to capitulation, because we just don't know the science, and it is very hard to be well-versed in both science and theology, and I'm not claiming to be both, but I have just read so much about genetics and natural selection from Christian microbiologists that I don't even see evolution as even an honest understanding of scientific data.

[@HopeUnknown]

I think this is SO incredibly interesting and I feel so blessed to stumble on your channel! I feel like my kids are going to want answers one day and the best we can do is be prepared to answer questions. But also, I'm just fascinated by all this! I am slowly accumulating all your books!!! 😍

[@Dave_OGG]

By far the best video I’ve seen on the topic

[@Mentat1231]

I really appreciate all the work you put into this excellent video. One note: None of the three challenges you gave for "Ancient Adam" apply to Dr. Craig's proposal. They apply to the RTB model and maybe other Ancient Adam views; but not to Craig's. I just thought that should be mentioned since you specifically talk about Craig's approach right before going to the 3 potential problems. In any case, this is an excellent video, and I really appreciate what you're doing with this topic overall.

[@Mentat1231]

I'm not endorsing Craig's view, btw; I just worry that somehow even very sharp people (like Gavin) have not really understood it so as to address it directly.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Job well done. This video does a remarkable job of canvassing the land on this question from a biblical point of view with an open mind to modern science. Can't say I've seen it put better. People are often missing what counts and what matters in this discussion, from both the YEC camp all the way to the theistic evolutionist/mythos readers.

[@TruthUnites]

thank you my brother!

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Nothing warms my heart more than Christians from different groups expressing love for each other

[@heurisko2103]

It’s ironic that Gavin, as a Calvinist, is weary of people concluding that God is author of evil. All the while his tradition not only has doctrines that lead to that conclusion but they openly teach that very thing too!

[@colinmichaelis3379]

Gavin, I so appreciate the intent of your channel, to seek truth and share a discussion of that search with others. Your boldness, not to shrink from hard things, benefits me and so many others. We have to be able to have these discussions and have honest, careful and generous discussions with each other. This may be one of your best videos yet, and that is saying something. I personally found this so, so helpful. In a month’s time, I am spending several weeks teaching apologetics to high school students. My heart is for young people who will, in the years ahead, face tough questions, and it would grieve me, it would be tragic, if they did not know that they can always honestly seek the truth and that it may be different from things they have been told before, but all truth is God’s truth. You have expressed the same heart and concern for young people. So, Gavin, please keep this going. I endorse everything in this video and myself will seek to approach understanding and harmonization with humility.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks so much Colin!

[@robolive123]

What a blessing Gavin is!

[@King_of_Blades]

Love how you approach these topics brother! I’ve learned so much about the history of the early church, RCC, and Protestant Church from you. I’m even reading The Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel atm based on your recommendation and I’m really loving it! It’s so fascinating to me. I used to caricaturize Roman Catholics and Protestants somewhat too before I found your channel. Idk if you’ve ever watched Inspiring Philosophy channel, but he’s got a very interesting take on Genesis in his playlist, I think you’d enjoy it. Anyways thanks again and God Bless! I truly feel you’re doing the Lords work! May Gods Grace and Mercy be with you. 🙏✝️🙏👍😎

[@flintlock4302]

This is such a wonderful treatment Dr. Ortlund, it is very much in line with where I landed on the issue after spending a year studying it to satisfy my own questions and troubles.

[@matthew7491]

Excellent video Gavin. As always, we need to explore these questions and can find the glory of God through scientific discoveries as well. But ultimately it's okay for us not to know yet. Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements-surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

[@DrSquirrel7403]

So glad you made this, Gavin! Would love to see a Part 2 sometime, maybe with some focus on late 19th/early 20th century responses from people like Bavinck and Warfield. I'd also really like to hear more about your own personal struggles and experiences with this over the years. I'm encouraged by you, and I hope that you'll be encouraged as well! Better brace for impact after this one, brother...

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

I think this video is going to turn out to be very important. I've spent a lot of time researching this and seeking answers and perspectives on this and this video is the best I've seen in terms of succinctly covering the topic. It's one that is difficult because some of us want to seek the truth even if it's really challenging to our worldview and there is a lot of pressure on this point both from the secular world and fellow Christians to not take the topic seriously and simply blindly believe one way or the other.

[@same5songseveryday]

Yes I agree. Especially from the paleo-anthropology perspective which I was hoping he would have gone into more. I see it as a scientific fact that there have been other humans based on our current understanding and fossil records of humans. I also unfortunately see it as a logical fallacy that we must assume the Bible is a true historical account because it claims to be the word of God. But that is a whole different debate =)

[@DanielNotates]

Hard topic with lots of emotions! Thankful for you walking thru it so clearly as usual

[@careybryant7]

Excellent way to frame this difficult issue and basically sums up exactly where I am on it. I would love for a follow up video sometime diving into each of the three models you mentioned as kind of a compare/contrast. I find content on each view individually but not a lot of content comparing the evidence for and against each view.

[@alfonso_barajas]

What a fantastic video. Will be my go-to in helping others sort through these kind of issues. Thank you, Gavin.

[@austinisakson]

Hey Gavin, I know you get a lot of pushback on these videos. I think they're great and thought-provoking, whether I agree with you on everything or not. God Bless You, brother.

[@TruthUnites]

thank you!

[@JesusProtects]

He doesn't. 90% of comments are people praising everything he says no matter how much it contradicts scripture. The sign of a cult. Maybe neither he or his followers notice it, but that's what is happening here.

[@samueljennings4809]

@JesusProtects What he’s saying doesn’t contradict scripture. Adam is still historical, the Fall is still historical, and Adam is still the ancestor of every modern human today. The area of speculation is where the Bible does not elaborate on, namely if there were people outside the Garden. If Cain feared his brothers, how could he possibly end up marrying his sister and have enough people to build a city? This view ends up reading as much into the text as the view that there were other people outside the Garden who eventually married into Adam’s line and therefore Adam became geneological ancestor of everyone. Also, I don’t think you know what a cult actually is. I heavily disagree with Gavin on some things, as I’m sure others do here. Cults require a personality cult, manipulation, love bombing and gaslighting. Gavin doesn’t engage in that. Not liking someone is not credible evidence that they’re a cult leader.

[@same5songseveryday]

Have you ever thought that the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be understood as the descendants of Israel, and not the entire world? I think this idea aligns with some of the theories on Adam and Eve not being the only humans on the planet, but the story hones in on them two as they were created by God to eventually lead to Jesus Christ. This allows the genological records to maintain intact, and this also allows for other humans on earth to have been present at the time. I was hoping this video would clear up some confusion but it has unfortunately just raised more questions. It is fascinating how much information can be packed into these 11 simple chapters. I have always loved the creation story.

[@The-DO]

These Genesis videos are gold!

[@Qhaon]

Thank you so much for this video! Really enjoying videos on this topic, and I’m sure they are helpful for many people! Your book on Augustine was great as well!

[@brunoarruda9916]

Great and balanced overview. I'll be sending it to anybody (lots of people) that still gets shocked about even considering anything different from the most literal reading of the text possible.

[@magno1177]

O grande Bruno Arruda, te vejo em quase todos os vídeos que assisto macho.

[@catholicguy1073]

Yes very binary thinking. It’s like someone reading a poem and then saying they interpret it literally. People confuse the word “literal” to mean “true” they use those words synonymously. And things that are non literal obviously can be true. An artist’s description of a sunrise would be true and so would a scientists view of a sunrise. They’d both describe that event differently yet both would be true.

[@Marcus-rq8bg]

When Jesus says he is the Door, we do not immediately think that he is made of wood and has a doorknob. Instead of saying that we interpret the Bible literally, one ought to say we interpret the Bible straightforwardly, that it is saying what it is trying to say given the genre of the text, and a fair and open reading of the text in that light.

[@dpainter1526]

In reply to @catholicguy1073 ​In the first place, not all of the Bible, (and certainly not Genesis) is "poetry." In the second, the artist's and scientist's description of a sunrise can only both be true if both believe in truth. Starting from the standpoint that God is real, then all science, or knowledge, is from Him. Likewise, the artist who whose work is based in truth will be trying to convey what God has shown Him. So yes, both would be telling the truth, but you spoke of "non literal" things. A "sunrise" is a literal and real thing. A scientist, who when asked what a sunrise was, gave a description of a tree, Or an artist, if asked to paint a sunrise, painted a cavern, would not be painting or describing the correct thing, or even the same thing. Truth does not change.

[@Marcus-rq8bg]

Agree with all of this. What I actually said is that some things are not meant to be taken literally.

[@augustine.c8204]

appreciate this content soo much, but my mind wanders when it comes to long videos, if it's possible i'd love to see a visual summary to make it more memorable :) Thanks Gavin

[@Wilkins325]

God is using you greatly, Gavin.

[@danielomalley5929]

Gavin, I appreciate how careful you are being, and your desire to perform good theological triage. I am willing to hear out various different harmonization efforts and analyze them seriously. My concern is that you do not mention as a possibility, along with these other possibilities, a more literalistic (as you call it) interpretation of Gen 2-3 and a reinterpretation of scientific data. There are at least some scientists that contest some of the population genetics conclusions that you mention, so it seems like it is at least theoretically possible that the data could be understood different ways. You stress that you are unsure of the correct option, but you do not include the literalistic interpretation even simply as one of many options. Why not? It seems to me that the effect of this is to exclude that view, just as you complain that many who hold that view have excluded the views you discussed. I have certainly witnessed the kind of harsh criticism that you reference from strict literalists against anyone with a less literalistic position, but I have also seen an increasing amount of harsh criticism going the other way too. If part of the point is to have theological openness to all non-heretical views, why not include the literalistic one since (even though you disagree with it) it is clearly not heretical? Basically, my concern is that it seems like the theological openness only goes in one direction.

[@chemforumlachimie6754]

I like this! ❤

[@telleroftheone]

Being charitable, I think the answer to your question is in who he is speaking to. Much of the care and information he's presenting is specifically for those folks who adhere to a rigid literalistic interpretation. So he didn't list it as an option because it was already implicit. Put another way, if I'm speaking to a crowd of YECs, why would I explain their position when I'm trying to explain, list and defend alternatives to their approach? You know? It wouldn't be neglect or oversight, just technically off topic.

[@danielomalley5929]

@@telleroftheone I don't think he is only addressing people with a literalistic interpretation. If you watch the introduction again, you will notice that he specifically says that two of his goals are to provide answers to secular critiques and to reduce anxiety for struggling Christians. To use your example, it would be like addressing a crowd with evolutionists and young earth creationists and explaining the evolutionist view and its merits, but not explaining the young earth creationist view and its merits. It seems one-sided. He also explicitly says in the introduction that he is pushing back against the literalistic way of reading Gen. 2-3, while also saying that he wants to bring clarity about the "various options that are on the table for Christians." I think that pretty clearly gives the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that the literalistic interpretation is not on the table for Christians. At the very least, we could say that he did not provide "clarity" that it was an option on the table for Christians.

[@trygvenyhaug6668]

Great video! It should maybe be in the Creation-playlist, so it could be easier to find😊

[@juboy04]

We want more of this series !!!

[@justinpriest734]

Great job. As a former atheist who came to Christ in 2012. I have always struggled with this. I cling to Christ and The historicity of our accounts of him. His verifiable resurrection. With that said I have spent years of mental energy racking my brain on creation because I just can't unlearn evolution. When I hear folks like Ken Ham saying if you don't believe it their way you aren't saved to me I hear salvation comes from the Gospel + some additional doctrine. I am encouraged to hear Gavin basically land exactly where I land on this issue. Which is I don't know. I just know Genesis describes the human condition perfectly and Christ really was God in flesh who died to save us and was raised. How I reconcile that with the fact that we evolved is beyond me.

[@JesusProtects]

Ken Ham goes too far, but not believing in YEC causes a lot of problems, no doubt. The first one is to stop believing in divine inspiration of scripture, which can lead to many, many, many false doctrines by false teachers.

[@justinpriest734]

@@JesusProtects trust me. If anyone wants to believe in YEC it's me. It would make life so much easier. I do enjoy content from ICR from time to time.

[@KikatzuMusik]

​@@justinpriest734 Maybe I can give you my input as an former atheist too. I took a lot of pride in my intellectuality and intelligence and seemed Christians as foolish, despite of I didn't know much about it. science was like a dogma to me. But when I came to faith, I knew his Word is infalliable, it's me who is fallible. So I tested my faith one or two weeks after I came to faith and read Genesis. It was a litmus test for me. And guess what, I believed it pure heartetly as it was written. I told to myself: "Better to be a fool in the eye of men than a fool in the eyes of God". I just denied my own intellectual pride. What does it profit me, that I believe in evolution and try to "reconcile" it with the Bible? I will still be a fool for the enemies of God because I believe the Gospel and still compromise. Men and their interpretation and trust in scientific data can err, even to an extent that leads to horrible actions. The appliance of the scientific method is just as good as the people working with it. For example: The Theory of Evolution led to even more disgusting study subjects like Race Theory, Eugentics, Social Darwinism and not to mention with the "speedy science" of the pandemic. And today we cannot even agree on the definition of male and female. But the Bible says "In the beginning God made them male and female". And that is widely accepted science nowadays as the prior mentioned subjects of "study". Those reconciliations by so called "intellectual christians" are mere compromises and mental gymnastics leading to even more watered-down and false doctrines. Sometimes to doctrines never heared before. Like modern sciences itself: "Always new Discoveries..." We cannot save people by sugar-coating the Word of God and make it more appealing to the masses. It's not a product for sale but a Free Gift of God to all mankind. Sugar-coating it may attract the insects, but they soon will leave because cannot digest the bitter truth beneath it. That's why my stance is this: For me personally, I consider myself to be a fool in the eye of men, my own eyes or even some people reading this. However being a fool in the Eyes of God I don't want to be, even if I have to endure the mockery of my beloved brothers and sisters. I know that His Word is reliable and true because I know Him. I believe it as a child would do. "For it is written: » I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. « Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" *1 Corinthians 1:19-20*

[@carlidoepke5131]

These kinds of discussions are so needed. There is no need to stifle thought and biblical discussion, simply because we are afraid. If all truth is God’s truth, we can be open to the biblical text and the fact that there is MUCH nuance and many things that the Bible simply is silent on. And in the words of [someone from the RESTORATION movement] said. We are silent where the Bible is silent. It’s okay to not understand or even have a clue the details about things we do not have the details on. Reading through Genesis 4 recently, I remember asking my dad when I was young if God made other people besides Adam And Eve. I think he said something along the lines of, “he could have.” It’s okay for us to have humility and say we don’t know. We don’t need to. These are just such important things to discuss, as we all have many around us who believe the Bible and science are at odds with one another. I am seriously so thankful for your work on these topics! (I first found you by your videos on Catholicism, which were also so great!)

[@meckybelieves]

Great video!

[@computationaltheist7267]

Thank you for this lecture, Dr. Ortlund. It was a great help.

[@inkman102]

Thanks for this Gavin, this actually came up in a conversation i had with someone recently, and this is a very helpful balanced approach! I've found your videos to be super helpful and honestly a bit confused to hear that some of the more conservative views seem to have such controversy attached!

[@markb1077]

As usual, I really enjoy and find your thoughtfulness and honesty challenging and refreshing. Patience and humility - fruits of the Spirit and love for God and one another. Keep it up, brother!

[@jedlicka1227]

Great video brother, this whole topic needs a roundtable discussion with other scholars who are also working through this, and like Agustine are willing to be intellectually curious and follow scripture wherever it leads :)

[@Rolan18111]

This is something that has caused me great stress over the years. Somehow, in all my reading I only ran across YEC, OEC & attempts to harmonize the account with evolutionary theory. I appreciate that you've brought additional views to the table - even if that creates a different type of stress, it at least creates space to learn and understand. Thanks, Gavin.

[@tjflash60]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[@rebekahquinley8093]

This was super helpful and interesting. Thankful for your humility and grace.

[@aidanpetersen7060]

So good!

[@jeffreywp]

I SO appreciate your perspectives, Gavin, and how your thinking is both wholistic and synergistic. All the while you respect others’ views and think critically about it all! BTW, how many books do you read in a year? I hear you speak about these topics and your bibliography always seems so expansive! Would love a show where you speak to how to read well; how to read critically.

[@jessestone117]

I am so thankful for your channel

[@TheeArchangel]

This video was very well put together God bless

[@KevinSmile]

I love these videos, Mr. Ortlund. This, and your video on the flood, has been very thought-provoking. Keep up the great work!

[@caseyg1516]

I really appreciate this video. I am a scientist and have gone through the gauntlet of secular scientific education. And, though I love it, I hesitate to recommend it to other Christians. Not because I don’t enjoy it, but because I feel the dogmatic view of many Christians on this issue sets up young Christians for failure and could cause them to lose faith. I can honestly say after studying it is not hard to hold a more open opinion on the topic as I do that entertains multiple possible Genesis readings. Yet I don’t feel free to share these opinions with my own church. We desperately need a more open discussion in this area.

[@dbzgtcrazy]

Good stuff, Gavin!

[@myjunedayya]

Thanks Gavin I'm always curious about this topic.

[@MrLlamajockey]

I love that you're tackling these issues! And doing such a fantastic job...I think this should be required seeing for every Christian to at least understand some differences in approach to these verses.

[@JosephAlanMeador]

Good stuff Gavin! At the very least we can approach this subject with more humility and love, esp. for those who stay away from Christ because of a lack of it.

[@bruhmingo]

Most proponents of the recent Adam view, such as myself, would state that genesis 1 declares all humans as being made in the image of God prior to the creation of Adam. So there would be no need for a propagation of the image of God throughout humanity.

[@johnkeenan9192]

Gavin, I have watched some of your videos and am very impressed with the way you debate with roman catholic apologists. I was brought up as a roman catholic in Northern Ireland and embraced the teachings of the roman catholic faith because I thought it was the one true church instituted by Christ when he gave the keys to Peter. I do remember as a young boy going to mass with my younger brother and listening to the priest speaking in Latin when he was doing mass. I said to my brother I don’t understand a word the priest is saying but then after all he’s the man of God so I just accepted it. In my early twenties I was invited along to a Baptist church by some friends in our town and I heard a message from the Word of God. I felt this was the first time that I had heard a message from the Bible that was clear and spoken in a language I understood. There was no ritualism, no images no statues. I felt liberated. I do believe that a lot of roman catholic people do readily accept everything their church teaches without doing any proper reading of the scriptures. The Bereans did not accept the apostles’ teaching but searched the scripture to see if these things were true. Having said all this Gavin, I disagree with your interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. You quote from Hugh Ross & William Lane Craig, men who I believe are imposing ideas on the Word of God that totally undermine the plain teaching of the text. I do not question their faith as this is not a salvific issue but I do believe there is a danger of reinterpreting the word of God to make it fit with the latest scientific notions. Hugh Ross & William Laine Craig both believe in a pre-Adamic race. In fact, Craig believes that when Adam & Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden there were other people on the earth who evolved from ape like creatures, and when Adam and Eve had children, their children married these creatures and thus the world began to be populated. Craig said this is the reason why our D.N.A. is so closely linked to modern primates. I don’t find any evidence for this in the text of Genesis. I believe the only way they can come up with such ideas is to interpret scripture through the lens of modern science and the idea that the earth is millions of years old. Jesus said in Mark 10:6-7 “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. When Jesus said these words, this would imply there was nothing before the beginning, where do all these pre-Adamic people fit in here. Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; Surely when we read this, it means all the nations stem back to Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Again, the idea here is that all people groups can trace their roots back to Adam and Eve. Another problem I have with Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig is their belief that death occurred before the fall and was always a part of God’s original design and that animals were made to be carnivores. Genesis 1:29 refutes that idea. Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. Regarding the age of the universe Hugh Ross believes in the big bang theory and hence the billions of years associated with it. His reasoning for this is that the stars are billions of light years away from the earth and hence it takes light billions of years to reach the earth, so then this means the earth must be billions of years old. I believe the creation account refutes this idea. We read in Genesis 1:14-19 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. I believe when Adam looked up at the sky at night, he was able to seen the stary host, he didn’t have to wait millions of years to see God’s handiwork. God said to Abraham he would make his descendants as numerous as the stars. Remember Abraham was only 21 generations after Adam between 1,948 and 1,984 years-i.e., almost, yet not quite, 2,000 years. Hugh Ross also believes that they will find fossils on the moon, he believes that the moon was created because the earth was bombarded with asteroids and large meteorites. These colliders ejected large amounts of the earth’s surface material into outer space, and much of that material wound up on the moon. Does the plain teaching of Genesis not teach that the moon was created as a separate entity from the earth? These ideas can only come from a non-biblical view that the earth is billions of years old. What about the idea that man once walked with dinosaurs? This idea is laughed at by most modern scientist and sadly Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig would fall into this camp. There is much evidence that dinosaurs lived with people. They have found tissue in T-rex bones that is still stretchable (suggesting recent death). They have found carvings in caves that depict animals that look like dinosaurs. There are many ancient accounts of dragon like creatures on the earth. In Job Chapter 40 we have a description of a large animal called Behemoth Job 40: 15-19. 15 “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. 16 What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! 17 Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. 18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron. 19 It ranks first among the works of God, Hugh Ross says this is a Hippopotamus, but that doesn’t accurately fit what’s been described here. If Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig were to accept the belief that man once walked with the dinosaurs (which I think is a biblical concept) then all the millions of years would have to be revised. I have a roman catholic friend who is very devout in his faith but is adamant that the universe is billions of years old and that everything on earth evolved from a single ancestor (as believed by the present pope). I pointed out to him some key bible texts that refute that idea but he said I was only twisting the scriptures to suit my view point (which by the way I believe Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig do). One of the texts that I used to show him the impossibility of evolution was - 1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. I’m still waiting for a response. There is so much more I could say. I don’t want to discourage you Gavin, I think you do a sterling job in refuting the errors of Rome, but I do think you have a wrong interpretation of the creation account. John Keenan.

[@mikekayanderson408]

We have got to the section where Augustine asks a question about whether Adam was created as a grown man or a baby - seems to me a strange question. He is referred to as a man ( not a child ) who needs a helpmate and God creates a wife for him and commands them to populate the world. So how could that be if he had a mother already who obviously had a husband and were populating the world?.. THINK IT WAS Calvin who said do not go beyond what Scripture says - all we do is create chaos in our minds and get ourselves into knots.

[@JesusProtects]

And Gavin is helping to create more chaos, and his cult followers in the comment section are treating him like an idol.

[@edward3320]

​@@JesusProtectsSearching for truth, although daunting and confusing, is not 'causing chaos' and can not be branded as such in an effort to suppress it. It is vital that we are able to earnestly seek the truth, and if we were in a world where everyone had the same attitude as you we would be stuck in ignorance. Whether or not Ortlund is correct on this topic or not is irrelevant to that.

[@thatoneskinnykid]

@@edward3320 If Old Earth Theory is true, then why do I aggressively misunderstand what you believe!?

[@jameswright2355]

I really like this topic, ie showing how an old universe view is compatible with scripture. This makes christianity more inviting for outsiders, despite what YEC people say.

[@dolanridgecommunitychurch7433]

Keep it going brother.

[@OseiasChiquellaJunior-jm2id]

My concern is just the lack of exegetical information, the focus is just entirely in harmonizing and helping young people not fall away from the Church. I believe you when you say you don’t want the world’s applause and so on. But the problem is just the lack of exegetical consistency on the theistic evolutionist, and this can lead so easily to liberalism, it’s one leap into Genesis poem.

[@tategarrett3042]

The lack of exegetical consistency is a concern to me too though I also absolutely do not think Gavin's motives are anything other than solid and Godly. I just caution anyone going this route to look foremost at the theological issues posed and not to assume that "the science" is necessarily accurate by default. The scientific establishment has changed its view on a wide number of things, and recently too.

[@OseiasChiquellaJunior-jm2id]

@@tategarrett3042 Yes, I mean the pandemic shows us that we can’t just trust the science and that’s it. Many people in the answers in Genesis who are genuine scientists have made articles that pose serious problems to it, so why is Gavin accepting it right out the gate?

[@tategarrett3042]

@@OseiasChiquellaJunior-jm2id I would suspect he accepts it because of the experiences he's had and the people he's known. Perhaps he hasn't seen the darker and deceptive side of things in that regard, but I am certain he is not in the least attempting to be deceptive.

[@jonathanboynton5887]

I don't think that is the aim of this work. He stated this is a survey to flag these issues, introduce them to a wider audience. I think the fact that many in church history we hold up as faithful figures in the faith gives some credence to being less dogmatic over non-salvation issues. He did give biblical explanations as to why one should be open to giving further consideration (towards beginning, he outlined: biblical, theological, and theodicy). True exegetical or academic work isn't going to reach a wide audience, nor is youtube the medium for it. A classroom with books seems better for that. I think he's attempting to be a bridge between exegesis/scholarship and popular level. I think that's what best communicators and pastors do. They do a lot of work behind the scenes (exegesis, reading, research) and find a way to communicate things most clearly. Otherwise, these videos would be hours long and rather tedious if you did real historical grammar type exegesis in the original languages. I personally don't subscribe to any of these views, but I'm glad to learn more. If I choose to dig deeper, I'm glad to know he's provided countless resources to do just that.

[@jonathanboynton5887]

I also don't think it's accurate to say he is "accepting it right out of the gate". I lost count how many times his main position and proposal to others was "it's okay to not know some things"

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Coming from the UK I don't understand why so many of my American brothers and sisters are so convinced the creation story is a hill to die on. I come from an atheist background and in the Potter's hands I've changed my mind on abortion, gay mariage and feminism but I never felt like my views on science were against God's Truth. I have had fundamentalist American friends trying to convince me of their beliefs but I just didn't think it was very important. Thank you for making this video. I think this is a balanced view.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Without Adam and Eve, Paul's propitiation theology kind of falls apart.

[@samueljennings4809]

@StudentDad-mc3pu there’s a difference between a historical Adam and a YEC framework. I don’t think there’s any denial of a historical Adam in British evangelical circles, and I’m here in the UK to verify what he’s saying.

[@lenk.4937]

My problem with including evolution is the total gaps. When you look at the Cambrian explosion, millions of species just appear. Even if it is "guided", they all still appear ex nihilo. It is not gradual and it is not by stages.

[@ramigilneas9274]

The Cambrian explosion lasted for 50-100 million years… and there are pre Cambrian fossils. And of course not a single land animal existed during that time.😉

[@tarajulian3154]

Very refreshing to hear this kind of openness while still holding the highest view of Scripture. Thank you, Gavin, this is a heavy topic that I've been wrestling with for years. As a homeschool mom I find it hard to approach some of these questions with the science and ancient history curricula that's available- I wish there were more people who take this approach rather than 100% secular macro evolution or 100% young earth creationism. Thanks for all your hard work!

[@carlidoepke5131]

I am in the same boat as you. I want science curriculum that is open to a biblical old earth view - no staunch stance. And most of all, I want to be one hundred percent prepared to have open conversations about these things with our kids. The kids have to learn there are different viewpoints on this within FAITHFUL Christian worldviews. There is room for varying, faithful interpretation. We need grace and UNITY, and especially humility on things the Bible doesn’t actually tell us…. (Age of the earth, heliocentrism, gravity, photosynthesis.) I’m concerned about friends’ kids who will only get the YEC, with no consideration that an old earth can be a reasonable, BIBLICAL world view. It matters for their future and the others they’ll encounter throughout their life.

[@danjoconway]

Gavin, be less worried about how people think of and respond to your content! Your tone and choice of words speak volumes to your character already. Bench 80% of the apologies and qualifications. Really helped by the video and looking forward to more 🙂

[@Terrylb285]

I wish you could get Hugh Ross on here to talk about this subject.

[@toadster_strudel]

I'd like to put out there that not having 100% certainty in anything is acceptable.

[@BlindBart_Mk10-51]

This is a great summary of the diffrent views. I default to a view like Dr. Craig's but I think you make a good point, theirs no reason to take a hard stand on these issues.

[@Gianni116]

This was genuinely phenomal!

[@kgrant67]

Coincidentally I am reading James Jordan's creation in 6 days right now. One observation he makes that causes me to chuckle is how this issue is only of concern to a very small number of people. Modern conservative evangelicals. non-Christians have no problem believing that what's laid forth is a 6-day creation and Adam and Eve being the first two people made from the earth. They understand that's what's being said and they reject it. Likewise, modern liberal christians have no problem with it. They say that the greater truth is still maintained even if the passages are understood allegorically. The historical church had no problem accepting the chapters at face value. The only people for which this is concern is modern conservative evangelicals who feel they need to somehow reconcile the Bible's straightforward narrative with 'modern science'.

[@JesusProtects]

And Gavin is helping to confuse more people, and the people love it, and they sing praises to him for his lukewarmness. And I hate it.

[@elkellenhabla]

Just going to go ahead and “smash like” and comment before I have time to watch because I think this is an important question

[@Natureboy-og3mp]

I love that you’re doing this, Gavin. A lot of people who are enmeshed in a fundamentalist church and community don’t realize how vulnerable a literalist view is outside that bubble (typically college). If evolution (or at least an old earth) is not an option then you’re cutting out a lot of people (and almost all the developed world outside the US).

[@sldrake3156]

Bravo! I enjoyed this. It didn't get bogged down in stuff that only scientists would understand.

[@arthurbrugge2457]

Good job. Very well done🙂

[@coopercobbs2341]

Thanks for this, Gavin! To me, the most impactful point was one Augustine made: If a view of a literalistic account of the first few chapters of Genesis is found to be untrue, will we then give up our belief in the Scriptures, or will we modify our beliefs to harmonize with the truth--even if that means a less literal account?

[@clayw70]

Thank you for discussing Genesis in this manner. It’s drastically needed in the body of Christ. I've talked to many people who have left the faith because of this subject. I pray that this video and your others will help those who are struggling with this topic. They have helped give me another Biblical perspective on Genesis.

[@hglundahl]

38:59 bis -- Was just to the library. No, it wasn't a Loeb edition, but it was similar. Twice over it was pointed out that Adam was the first man and had no parents, and when it comes to normal gestational development, it was pointed out that Jesus didn't take a year to make wine from water via the soil, the plant in the sunshine, the harvest and pressing and fermentation, but God in the flesh did it in one moment. So, whether you were an inattentive reader or not quite candid, you were giving the wrong impression.

[@bartdanison3236]

Good job. Thank you.

[@collin501]

Thanks for opening up this topic for discussion. I appreciate your words and ministry. It’s very hard to harmonize the story we hear from the current secular/scientific paradigm. Really hard. I don’t want to feel like I’m stretching it all to make it fit. Would enjoy hearing some more detailed proposals.