William Lane Craig was interviewed by my pastor this past sunday. My pastor looks up to him as in apologist hero. They basically dismissed Genesis, a real Adam and Eve, original sin, and Eve being taken from adam. I will reach out to the pastor via email with my concerns and thoughtfully wait for a response. I can tell you though as of now I am looking for a new church...
William lane Craig doesn’t “deny Genesis.” He has a different interpretation of Genesis than you do. That does mean you or him are denying it. He also doesn’t deny Adam and Eve’s existence
@@thetannernation dude, in front of my eyes and with my own ears I heard him say "God did not create Adam from the ground and breathe life into him. Nor was Eve taken from Adam's rib. Adam was a predecessor to a neanderthal." He called Genesis "Mytho History"
@@andrewdavidson8167 got it from his own mouth while he was speaking at my church. My pastor asked Craig if God formed Adam from the ground. Craig said Adam was NOT created "Adam was a precursor to the Neanderthals." My pastor also asked Craig if Eve was taken from Adam's side and he said a definitive "NO!" He said Genesis is "mytho history"
@ArmyScoutMom So that issue is a little different than what I was addressing that Craig believes Adam and Eve are historical figures. If your talking about the manner in which they came about then sure, Craig would have a different view than some other Christian’s. However that does not mean Craig does not take scripture seriously. This is the problem with the pressup crowd like James White illustrates. I don’t think people from that perspective really understand Craig’s position on scripture and apologetics. In regards to his view on mytho history, I would recommend that you spend a little time reading the literature on that. Specifically Craig’s book on Adam. There are clear patterns in Genesis 1 that tells us the creation days aren’t meant to literally describe the cosmological creation, but is rather assigning a specific function. Craig and others will point out that days 1 and 4 of creation parallel each other in that on day 1 you have the creation of light (also, “create” in the Hebrew doesn’t always mean material origins. In psalm 50 I think, the Hebrew word “Bara” is used to describe a repurposing of one’s heart. “Create in me a clean heart”). Day 4 you have the separating the day from the night with two greater lights. Day 2 parallels day 5 in that the waters expand in day two, and then they are filled with creatures in day 5. I think you know where I’m going with this concerning days 3 and 6. Clearly there is something symbolic going on there. But, while many scholars today deny the literal day interpretation, there are many old earth creations who believe they are literal days, because the days are not meant to talk about the physical creation of all things. Michael Heiser and John Walton would be two examples of scholars who point out that the days in Genesis, parallel the method of temple inauguration ceremonies in the ancient world. Genesis would be a spiritual dunk on those pagan gods in the fact that god establishes the cosmos as his temple, rather than a small building made of stone. All of that said, Genesis 1 is more than likely not talking about physical origins. It’s more than likely a cosmic temple ceremony, which would mean that the literal meaning does not have to do with whether or not Adam and Eve were the first two literal humans. One last thing, many scholars today point out that the “the” in Genesis 1:1 is missing from the Hebrew, so rather the text reading like “in THEbeginning God created the heavens and the earth,” it should more properly be translated “when Gid began to create the heavens and the earth.” Since taking out the article does away with the idea of a definite beginning point. Mike Jones points that out on his channel, Inspiring Philosophy
Ok. 8:30 minutes in, and I have yet to hear anything about Craig’s views on Adam, or why he’s wrong. The church fathers were right about a lot, but they were also mistaken about a lot. They were human. Similarly, Craig might hold to some questionable views, but I think the point, here, should have been whether or not his view on Adam is wrong. Pointing to what Craig believes on other matters is not relevant to me on this particular topic. Would have liked to see some more interaction with the book. Then again, this is just a highlight, and I get that.
@@JesusismyGOD I’m pretty aware of Craig’s view. My point was that Dr. White, in this video, did not address that view at all, nor explain why its wrong or theologically dangerous.
@@bendecidospr strange. Around minute 2 I have already heard a strong refutation to evidentialists methodology. It is not strictly about Adam and WCL, the context is a bit broader here.
I’ve watched and listened to Dr. Craig since the early 1990s. His lifelong ministry and great singular contribution to the Kingdom of God has been to give atheists and Christians compelling philosophical reasons to conclude that the God of the Bible exists. His emphasis hasn’t ever been in elucidating the Gospel, or in eschatology, or In the inspiration of Scripture. I think people should recognize this contribution and show a little more charity in the areas where he shows to be in error. He is a first rate philosopher, but not a teaching/preaching pastor or an elder. Therefore correct him in areas where necessary but with gentleness and respect.
Yup, and in my opinion I think it would be great to see some discussions between Christians with these differing viewpoints. It would help to avoid the sadly all too common strawmen in internet theology today.
I also agree but elders/pastors also aren’t Bible scholars or historians. On the question of Adam or Genesis, people like Walton or Heiser know way more than both Craig and White, work which Craig uses. And do you know what Walton and Heiser say concerning the first chapters of the Bible? It’s complex and a mixture of genres.
I think I generally agree with this sentiment and I don't think that James White would disagree either hence why I think he still would affirm Craig as a brother, however it has to be noted that Craig takes his philosophy for granted and doesn't seem to recognize the theological impact or doesn't care sense he's after affirming a mere Christianity. I do find Craig and others as examples of the tension that lies between philosophy and theology. I've often observed that one can be a great philosopher and awful theologian and vice versa.
Love you Dr White, but I think your approach is best suited to people who already hold to a degree of theism. WLC ad Frank Turek are consistently reaching out to people who do not give any credibility to the Bible, nor would they start a discussion with the assumption that God even exists, let alone that he speaks to mankind in any way. So their approach is VERY good for people like that. They certainly don’t fall into the category of scholars who don’t believe the Bible has credibility or a consistent redemptive narrative. Dr Craig in particular is starting WAY outside of belief in God, then brings the listener inward to a world view of faith. He uses language and concepts which nonbelievers more readily understand. His approach takes people who aren’t willing to consider the Bible and brings them into a place where they are willing. It’s very good and very needed.
@@LOT116 - and this is the problem with reformed folk (usually men). They come across as smug and cantankerous. I’m not sure anyone outside the faith wants to buy what they’re selling. But it’s more telling that the infighting keeps going on, century after century. Why would I believe any of the apologists if the god they all claim to have knowledge of can’t even keep straight what he actually is among his own people?
I have been reading William Lane Craig’s "Quest for the historical Adam." I applaud him for the courage it took to write such a controversial book! It has generated some negative feedback. My question is, why does Dr. Craig find some things in Genesis chapters 1:1-11 more fantastic than some of the essential doctrines of the church? For example, why is a universal flood fantastic but the virgin birth is not fantastic? Why is the Cherubim in the garden of Eden more fantastic than the resurrection of Jesus? Why is a talking donkey more fantastic than the Trinity? If your criteria for what is fantastic and not fantastic is derived from science, those dogmas fall outside of modern scientific explanations as well. And to be blunt, who is Dr. Craig to delineate what is fantastic and what is not fantastic in scripture? He was not there during the time that Genesis 1-11 gives an account of!
And you were not there when Christ rose from the dead. Poor argument because you weren't there when John or Paul wrote the New Testament. Do you hear it?
The reason we believe in the historical Adam is because the Holy Spirit within us testifies to us about the truth of the Scriptures. Faith in the truth of God's word is produced in us by Him. Nobody alive was there or has seen the beginning. The world gives its testimony, and the Holy Spirit gives His, and these men have decided that the world's testimony is more valid than the Spirit's. As for me, I say yes and amen to the witness of the Holy Spirit.
And here’s someone literally talking about his brother in Christ. Yep, I’m sorry (like Craig) that Christianity doesn’t conflict with reality. Science History Archaeology Let the evidence fall where it may. Truth is truth. If Christianity is really true, it will stand
Yes - What could go wrong with that logic? 2023 Science: What is a women? "Um its complicated but men can get pregnant and its a good idea to mutilate children under 10 years of age"; 2023 History: "Real Communism has never been tried"; 2023 Archaeology: "We need to stop identifying historic human remains by gender and ethnicity because that would not be an inclusive way to look at the past".
There is no way to account for anything else, including evil in our world, death, and the Gospel, once someone has denied the literal historicity of Genesis 1-11
The entire premise of evolution stems around the idea of "survival of the fittest", that only the most developed survive. The consequence of this belief is that in order for some to survive, other "less desirables" must have died so as to not continue propogating the leas desirable traits. This flies i the face of the Genesis account because this would mean there would have to be death even before Adam and Eve were created. Death is not good in God's eyes, was never a part of His initial creation, and yet when He created everything in 6 days, He said it was "very good". Even more importantly, this would wreak havoc on the entire redemption natrative because it was no longer Adam who brought death into the world. This ruins the entire point of Jesus' redemptive work on the cross. Hopefully this answers your question on a surface level.
KJV Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Here’s the main problem with young earth creationism and for those who try to market the Bible as a science book. If you guys want to claim that the world is 6,000 years old based on the genealogies of the patriarchs (the ages are supposed to be symbolic), then you’ll also have to defend the idea that the world is stationary. The early church fathers and medieval Christians were all geocentric. They interpreted the passages 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 96:10, and Joshua 10:12 to prove this. People like Giordano Bruno were burnt at the stake for questioning this interpretation. Even Martin Luther defended the idea of the firmament against the scientists of his day who were saying that there was no body of water in the sky. Here’s a quote from him: “But Moses says in plain words that the waters were above and below the firmament. Here I, therefore, take my reason captive and subscribe to the Word even though I do not understand it.” - Martin Luther And here’s another one: “People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.” - Martin Luther What he’s saying is no different from what Ken Ham teaches that the world is no less than 10,000 years old. So here’s my question, why is there a double standard here? You guys are willing to defend a young earth but you won’t defend a stationary earth because we have proof that the world revolves around the sun and not the other way around. We have images from space and we can look through our own telescopes. And if you go back further in time, you’ll know that the Israelites believed in a flat stationary world that was covered by a solid sky dome which they called the firmament. This cosmology was common in the ancient Near East. Later on, the Greeks figured out that the world we live on is round but stationary. Baby steps if you will. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Christian who believes that Jesus died for our sins, all of us believe that. But we have to realize that the Torah was written to an ancient audience that was unaware of the universe around them. God didn’t reveal to them what our universe was like because they wouldn’t have been able to understand it. It’s similar to why he gave them laws for slavery because their hearts were heartened in those days, and so humanity was not ready to witness the universe yet. God wants us to progress with our understandings of the universe and there are still things that are currently unexplained by science and I’m ok with that. Please, let’s stop forcing our modern scientific interpretations to the Bible.
This just a false comparison of two completely different subjects. What you are basically saying is that because some theologian in the past (following the science of his time) got to the wrong conclusions, then we should throw away historical interpretations and follow the science of our day. It is true that the Bible is not a science book but if you stick with its literality you will be right most of the time while the "science" changes every day. And the part which you were wrong was not because the Bible has errors but because you did not understand what it was trying to communicate in the first place. If you believe God inspired the Bible, then theres no reason He would let Moses writes a myth compilation that transitions into history without any clarity. Now, if you have a very low view of scripture, then you would make it just like a Greek myth or something on those lines. There's no reason why God told us there was water on the sky if there wasn't os that it didn't use to rain if it didn't. Reading these things as myths is just assumpts made by an a priori rejection of the inspiration.
You are not listening. Looks more like you have a very shallow understanding of biblical interpretation and are conflating it with tradition. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that defending Scripture innerrancy and literality has anything to do with defending specific historical interpretations. Of course our understanding of scripture can improve as we discover new things in the Universe. All scientific discoveries only have highlighted how great God is. However, many attempts have been made to contradict core teaching of the Bible (not a oeripherical subject) such as the perfect creation, original sin, death, marriage. Unfortunately, it's an easy trap and a slippery slope start denying small parts of scripture and soon you end up with nothing meaningful at all. You should believe the Bible is literall unless stated otherwise or there's strong evidence of the contrary. However, your arguments only show you presume current scientific knowledge is absolutely superior to what the Bible teaches, so it leads you se buy into dumb atheistic interpretations that make the Word of God look dumb, without even realizing you are not even paying attention to what God said.
@@Luiz__Silva Maybe you’re not understanding me. Let me put it this way, if I had lived in Martin Luther’s time and I told him that I agreed with the astronomers with their heliocentric views, Martin would tell me that I’m compromising the literal interpretation of scripture. Despite the fact that we can observe the planets moving around the sun, he’ll tell me that I don’t believe in God’s word and that I prefer the words of “philosophers”.That’s all I’m saying. Ken Ham does the same thing to Old Earthers who believe in the scriptures but don’t agree with his point of view. And btw, I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were mythological.
This gave me the impression that JW does not know that WLC believes in a literal Adam and Eve who are the literal ancestors of all human beings. This seemed very unfair to Craig
@@ogmakefirefiregood Two things to note about that: (1) That does not contradict the claim that I made (namely, that WLC believes in a literal Adam and Eve who are literal ancestors of every human being who has ever lived). (2) I'm unsure of the context you refer to. For all I know, that was something WLC floated in his Defenders class from many years ago when laying out the various theories. He has since crystallised his views in his recent book on Adam. That's where one should go if one wants to critique Craig (and I believe he should be critiqued! He is far too non-traditional in my judgement).
Thank you, Mr. White, for always fighting for the God-Breathed truth of scripture over the heresies coming from these people. This has to be almost exactly what the early Church Fathers we’re dealing with.
A whole lot of words to say nothing about Craig's view, how superior JW is, and how he is the truly enlightened one. The only thing he hinted at was that Craig doesnt affirm a historical Adam which is false..
This video sure sounds like Craig doupts the historical (Biblical) Adam. ruclips.net/video/GzS5Zgy8eHI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rht9B0uCeYY/видео.html
I heard him say the long ages of pre flood humans listed in Genesis were "preposterous". He doesn't believe in a lot of foundational doctrines apparently or have a high view of scripture.
Both of those accusations are false. The ages of the patriarchs is not a foundational doctrine, and Craig’s view of Scripture is as high as anyone’s. He literally spends the first half of his new book establishing the historicity of the person of Adam BECAUSE of His high view of Scripture. Careful study of the ages of the Patriarchs (and the meaning of their names in Hebrew) shows that the author(s) likely intended them to be symbolic. If you spent a lifetime studying the Scriptures at a scholarly level, you would likely come to the same conclusion.
@@jeremyfrost3127 Accsuation are not false i got the audio Dr Crag on his neo thing and that the greek dog that is doomed to Craig if he does not repent on this!
@@jeremyfrost3127 I would say if you claim to believe the bible is the word and God, which was breathed out by the Creator then you should hold to inerrancy, at least to the extent of believing that the scriptures as they were first delivered in the original languages were totally free from error due to them being God breathed. Craig calls the account of Creation "mythical". Not only does he not believe in a literal week, he does not hold to the order of the days, and he has no problem ignoring both Romans 5 and Romans 8 regarding the effects of Adam's sin on mankind and on creation. He thinks he can choose to believe some parts of the creation account and not others. Like others who do this he draws from non biblical sources to cast doubt on what scripture says. I've heard him claim to believe in a "literal" Adam. Does he believe Adam was indeed the first human? When does he think Adam lived? Does he believe that Adam was literally formed from the dust of the earth by God as per the biblical account? I have my doubts. Other people such as some in the Intelligent Design movement claim that God took a "neanderthal" and gave him a soul. I suspect this may be how Craig reconciles long ages and evolution to his "interpretation" of God's word. Much of what he teaches seems to be motivated by the notion of retaining credibility within the scholarly circle where he resides. He should care about pleasing and fearing God rather than men. I refuse to withdraw the accusation that he holds a low view of scripture for the following reasons. 1) He doesn't accept the biblical account of creation, calling it "mythical". 2) He rejects the life spans of Genesis, calling them "preposterous". (If you reject these life spans as unreliable or preposterous you may as well throw out all the genealogies as well and forget about proving the lineage of Christ going back to Adam). 3) He believes there was death in the world before Adam's sin.
@@philblagden I disagree with every point you’re making here, but let me start here: how do you reconcile issues that arise in the text from ancient perspectives? For instance, when Leviticus 11 lists bats as birds? Or when passages in Scripture indicate a geocentric view of the universe? Or when Genesis references cities that didn’t exist when Moses was alive?Surely you can see how we’ve adjusted our hermeneutic and re-interpreted those passages as science and scholarship have progressed, not because we’re trying to fit Scripture into science, but because we realized - in time - that we had to adjust how we interpret Scripture by understanding it was written BY an ancient author FOR an ancient audience. Right? As far as the “mythical” characterization: Craig is saying that in regards to the literary GENRE. He’s not using the term “myth” in the common parlance as if it’s “falsehood”. He is very careful to discuss this and spends an entire chapter in the new book explaining: The Bible contains different genres - narrative, biographical, poetry, apocalyptic, didactic epistles, etc. We adjust our hermeneutic according to the literature type. No Christian believes that Revelation should be read/understood the same as Romans. Craigs point is that Genesis 1-3 is a particular genre: mytho-historical, and as such, we must approach it differently from strictly narrative-type texts in the Bible. If we can recognize that Revelation features heavy elements of metaphorical/allegorical apocalyptic imagery, we are within reason and orthodoxy to recognize the same in Genesis.
@@jeremyfrost3127 horrible comparisons. Copying texts and editing them, updating city names etc. for their current ancient audience or a different classification of animals has nothing to do with the topic. Modern classifications could have developed differently as well. Our current classifications are not metaphysical truths that we have discovered. So a bat being classified as a bird in their system is not any less valid. Genesis is historical narrative according to statistical analysis so the comparison with the apocalyptic genre of revelation doesn’t make sense.
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29
What a joke of misrepresentation of Craig. Or your snippet cones across that way. Craig would 100% say that the Bible is totally consistent. There’s also an absolutely false statement at the start: that Craig argues for an Adam that didn’t exist. Totally false.
WLC's views aren't that different from the Catholic. Pope John Paul II affirmed that Theistic evolution is a reasonable Christian view and that Genesis 1 is mytho-history
Great vid. I have always been bothered by W.L.C and his viewing of Genesis et al. as poetic myth. And how comfortably he embraces evolutionary belief. For a man that is so well-thought, his views actually surprise me.
@VinceKinneyTV Dr. Craig: “So I’m very interested in exploring the suggestion of some commentators that the primaeval history of Genesis 1-11 is mytho-historical, a sort of fusion of history and mythology that should not be interpreted literally.” Mytho-historical, eh? Did I put quotes around poetic myth in my comment? No. Could it be that I was summarising a gamut of views that are held by those with a low view of scripture in Genesis? Who argue that it’s either myth or mythohistory or poetry or parable or prophetic vision? Commenting that it is myth is certainly more damaging than thinking it’s poetry, anyway! If one accepts that the universe is “13 billion years old”, based on the “science”, then evolutionary thinking has permeated your thinking. A belief in God “guiding evolution” then follows. Craig’s views on Adam and Eve are far from scriptural. I’m a “liar” am I? Did I attempt to deceive, did I? No! You have just accused a brother falsely. That is certainly my assessment of Craig. A man who has damaged the authority of scripture in order to have it accommodate evolutionary thinking. I’ll wait for your apology.
@@HiVisl very interested in exploring doesn't mean he embraces it. As JW explained, WLC looms at things from a philosophical stand but that does not mean he approves of that viewpoint, rather that he wants to make the intellectual exercise to show that even if it were true, God would still be exalted no matter what.
The more i hear William Lane Craig speak the less I have any respect for him and what he has to say.... IMO, he is a humanistic philosophical spiritual rationalist who distorts scripture... which is even more dangerous than denying scripture... "Has God indeed said....." (Gen. 3)
I always have that same view when I listen to those like James White slander the painful work of the cross our saviour endured for all of mankind. The devil wants no one to turn to Jesus in repentance! Calvinists are satan's mouth piece. This is some thing I have spread around the net to try and wake them up. "A Calvinist can understand Calvinism perfectly because it is their language. They listen to their father the devil. When he, the devil speaks he speaks his native language for he was a liar from the beginning. Unless you are born again through repentance you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit within you as your comforter and even more importantly your spiritual guide into all truth. A person CANNOT have spiritual discernment apart from the Holy Spirit within them. The Holy spirit would NEVER let you as a child of the KING say the hideous poison's that are Calvinism. It is that simple really. If you were saved the Holy Spirit would correct you and take you to the woodshed immediately. A house divided against its self would fall. So if you are OK with Calvinism you are not in God's house of followers at all. God's house is the Gospel of good news to mankind. The house of Calvin is the gospel of bad news to man kind. Calvinists coming to this site I would highly recommend listening and I mean really listening to DR Flowers, he speaks the truth. What is your soul worth to you. Do you want a comfortable lie? Or the truth. A life will soon be past and John Calvin can't help you then. Listen! Drop your shields and listen! " TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 You go to tell that to someone here who claims its an analogy? Is it not abomination to use a demon creature from hell as an analogy to our Lord the Holy spirit? 😠
Craig hates presuppositionialism. I won't lie I do enjoy watching some apologists and debates, but I'm always wary of someone who doesn't fall under a church's authority. Ravi Zacharias is the perfect example of why these men should be held to the authority or their elders and or pastors. These men often have their own organizations with no oversight. Usually something like: "Person X Ministries".
Well, no need to wary then because Craig is under the authority of a local SBC church where he serves as a teacher, and he has always taught the necessity of being in the community of a local church.
What surprises me is how Dr. White attacks the circular resoning of KJVO movements (I agree with him on that) yet he is hard core presuppositionalist!! Presuppositionalism is also a form of circular reasoning!!
It would be nice if someone could put a compilation video together of all of these little heresies he's affirmed and the truths he's denied. I think the sheer number of them all in one place would wake people up to what Craig has believed for so long.
Craig affirms every foundational Christian doctrine. Differing on secondary, non-Gospel issues doesn’t make someone a heretic. It just means they don’t ascribe to your particular preferred theological framework in a given issue that you’d rather not have to question.
White is consistent in his misunderstanding of Craig’s teaching. He does not understand Molinism. And here he misrepresents Craig’s view of scripture. But most of all he does not understand that his own approach to the scriptures is grounded in certain philosophical presuppositions. His high Calvinism for instance does not arise from scripture but from philosophical developments that moved the west from the Via Antiqua to the Via Moderna.
Do you have sources that would contradict White's claims? I've heard White play audio from Craig in the past and this video seems in line with those past evidences White has presented. I'm wary of fanbois who always claim White is wrong but can't ever present evidence showing where Craig says otherwise. _"But most of all he does not understand that his own approach to the scriptures is grounded in certain philosophical presuppositions."_ On the contrary, White often says that everyone has traditions, and explicitly lumps himself in that statement. He is well aware. This obviously false claim makes me doubt your other claims about White misrepresenting Craig.
@@oracleoftroy no sir. White claims he derives meaning exegetically over against Craig’s resting ultimately on philosophy. He says it’s here again for the nth time. As for Craig I would refer you to his systematic theology, specifically his section on the inspiration of scripture. Here White is confounding what scripture means with whether it’s inspired or not. Craig leans toward Gen 1-11 being mytho-historical, but still carrying the breath of God. Furthermore, White speaks of the Faith/tradition handed down. Craig is actually quite at home the the tradition handed down, as his apologetic approach is layed out in a book entitled Reasonable Faith, which recalls Aquinas’ “Faith seeking understanding”. This is what sets Christianity apart from Judaism and Islam.
@@oracleoftroy His systematic theology is not out yet. (I believe he has videos explaining that he is working on it, but no release date planned.) He has written 'philosophical foundations for a Christian world view'. This may be what the individual is referring to. I own the book I mentioned, but I have not validated the section the individual is talking about. I may be totally off base.
William Lane Craig made a blunder mistake by classifying the Genesis 11 chapters as Mythohistory b/c What happened to Adam on a day he ate the forbidden fruit is reversed in the New Testament, meaning Adam passed over from eternal life unto death & the same is reversed through Jesus, and now it's possible to Passover from death unto Eternal life as/John 5:24. Therefore, would WLC say John 5:24 is also Mythohistory as these scenarios are similar in nature?
A Conversation with satan! Ask him if God exists! Answer “No” Tell satan that you know God exists! Answer “There are many gods” Tell satan that you know there is only one God! Answer “Yes but he is a very cruel god.” Tell satan that he loves you! Answer “ no he only loves some people” Tell satan that the Bible says God loves all people! Answer “ you don’t understand the Bible.” Ask satan what it means. Answer “ Calvinism” " My man James White will deceive, er I mean teach you truth!" TRUTH IN LOVE
@@matthewdyer2926 The only condition that God puts on salvation is that the person receives it because they they desire it and THEY put their faith in Him. But wait I almost forgot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you take every time the scriptures says "World" which is 20 times and twist and force it to say Elect If you take every time the scriptures says "Whoever" which is 16 times and twist and force it to say Elect If you take every time the scriptures says "Whosoever" which is 16 times and twist and force it to say Elect If you take every time the scriptures says "All" which is 16 times and twist and force it to say Elect If you take every time the scriptures says "Everyman" which is 6 times and twist and force it to say Elect Then yes Calvin got it right. and Reformed Theology is true! WINK WINK Even the cult of the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses could take twisting lessons from the Deformed Theology pretending to be Christianity. TRUTH IN LOVE
@@Yuri_Jonker I always have that same view when I listen to those like James White slander the painful work of the cross our saviour endured for all of mankind. The devil wants no one to turn to Jesus in repentance! Calvinists are satan's mouth piece. This is some thing I have spread around the net to try and wake them up. "A Calvinist can understand Calvinism perfectly because it is their language. They listen to their father the devil. When he, the devil speaks he speaks his native language for he was a liar from the beginning. Unless you are born again through repentance you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit within you as your comforter and even more importantly your spiritual guide into all truth. A person CANNOT have spiritual discernment apart from the Holy Spirit within them. The Holy spirit would NEVER let you as a child of the KING say the hideous poison's that are Calvinism. It is that simple really. If you were saved the Holy Spirit would correct you and take you to the woodshed immediately. A house divided against its self would fall. So if you are OK with Calvinism you are not in God's house of followers at all. God's house is the Gospel of good news to mankind. The house of Calvin is the gospel of bad news to man kind. Calvinists coming to this site I would highly recommend listening and I mean really listening to DR Flowers, he speaks the truth. What is your soul worth to you. Do you want a comfortable lie? Or the truth. A life will soon be past and John Calvin can't help you then. Listen! Drop your shields and listen! " TRUTH IN LOVE
You are talking about the Bible specifically. What do you think of a book like 1 Enoch or more specifically the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch? I am asking because you seem so interested in the history of the church and 1 Enoch seems to have quite a history.
If truth exists outside of God, and God had to consult with matter to make his decision on a possible world. Of course you’re gonna conclude God have to use evolution to create the world.
William Lane Craig, Ph.D., is the one who teaches (and all Molinists follow him on this) that, "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the events that occur in time". Don't believe me? Check out a video I have, entitled, "Molinism Refuted," where I play a clip of WLC AND Pastor Mike Winger saying that very thing! "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." [Hos. 4:6, ESV]. *Soli Deo Gloria*
You need me to give you the two video references where Molinist, Dr. William Lane Craig says explicitly, "the events [in time] DETERMINE what God foreknows"? Let me know. Otherwise, I have at least 2 videos where I expose Craig's nonsense, and blasphemy. Let me know; I'll get those for ya'. *Soli Deo Gloria* @christsavesreadromans1096
I listened to Craig for many years, I stopped when I started studying my Bible in depth. His ideas are interesting, but they are merely philosophical ideas not driven from scripture. He starts with philosophy.
This is a really objection that holds no weight. To affirm a belief that you read or negate one is doing philosophy, the question is whether you are good or not so to dismiss it like that as a boogeyman shows one's own ignorance on the matter.
@@adamduarte895 ignorant is the one who ignores the statement, “driven from scripture.” You are either disingenuous, ignorant, or stupid. If you were anything but one of those three you would know that I never said what you claim.
I agree with your psychological assessment of WLC however I am CERTAIN that a large factor, probably the largest factor, in some of Craig's positions (Not including apollarianism), are based on observable reality. Craig really doesn't feel confined to historical views on creation. This is in itself a problem. Consider one thing though. What if an element of historical orthodoxy is wrong? Not all of orthodoxy is theological in character. Inasmuch as i would prefer creation to be as simple as Genesis puts it, it is clear it isn't. Craig can't ignore mountains of evidence proving evolution and neither do I. I believe that young earth creationism is sustained by very real and important existential concerns that people often infer from evolution. I know i'm not making an argument about it but I am trying to make a point which I want people to consider even if they disagree with me. (and I understand why you do which is why I have a high respect for people who insist on a 6000 year old earth.) I believe it's not defensible anymore based on the evidence so i have to wrestle with it and so does Craig. I'm requesting young earth creationists consider why it is that their belief is so small in numbers now. Is it ONLY because of man's wicked heart? Perhaps it is, but it seems highly unlikely. God bless!
@NicoCoco Leviticus 11 says bats are birds. Followers of God have adjusted their viewpoint on this over the centuries based on modern science. Likewise the Biblical language suggests the sun revolves around the earth. Once again, the Church has adjusted its interpretation of hose passages over time. Given these and many other examples, is it not also possible that we will have to adjust other interpretations of Scripture as we learn more from genetics, quantum physics, biology, etc?
"I know he considers himself the leading philosopher, he's told that so much he probably believes it"...."I debated Shabir Ally more then he has"... I'd appreciate a review and critique of his book, a video where you never interact with his work and just show that you are envious of his career success isn't overly interesting
All you guys have to do is hold William Lane Craig to his own standards. For example William Lane Craig follows two philosophers who are very important to modern science and that is Saul Kripke and the other is CarlPopper. Holding Dr Craig accountable to his own standards is how you make him defend his silliness. When you point out his hypocrisy then you can shut them up. For example has he ever attempted to falsify any of the work of the modern academic rock stars in the field of genetics? Richard Lewinton just died but one of his disciples Jeremy Coyne from the University of Chicago both have stated openly that their goal is to destroy Christianity. You see for me it's simple, what's the difference between a big miracle and a small miracle? None. Any person who believes that nothing created a universe is a damn fool and not worthy of any consideration; even Albert Einstein was more of an agnostic than he was an atheist. I'll take the miracle and the mystery of God's revelation over neo darwinian claptrap any day. William Lane Craig should show respect to his brothers and sisters in Christ who are YEC and ask them if they can falsify Coynes work.... I know it can be done P.S. I'm not sure I'm a young Earth creationist I don't think I am but I will say this that the work of Nathaniel Jenkins had answers in Genesis should be carefully considered and let me say this when you listen to the debate between Dr Jenkins and his counterpart it bio logo's---you can see immediately who is using the most logical fallacies and debate tricks. It's not Jenkins.
The answer to that is pretty simple. We don't know how much time had passed from when Cain and Abel were born and when Cain killed Abel. But we do know that they weren't the only children that Adam and Eve had. We do know that both of them were grown men by the time Abel was killed. And we know that when Cain left his family and went to the land of Nod that he took his wife with him. So, she would have to have been one of his sisters. Those other humans were obviously his other siblings, who were in the process of marrying and raising their families as well. Keep in mind that the lifespan of those who lived before the flood was much longer than those who lived after the flood, so they had much more time to populate the world. Also, remember that the Lord Jesus upheld the historical creation account of Genesis. He should know, since He was there, and He is the Creator. Paul, and all the apostles also believed in the historical account of creation and taught it.
@@jamestrotter3162 With the length of human lives the population of the earth exploded. Between Adam to Noah a large swathe of land had already been populated.
No. There is only one human race and we are all descended from Adam. But there may already have been generations of other children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve not mentioned already in existence when Cain killed Abel. Only the significant offspring were mentioned in the narrative. People were living 900 years back then and could have have a lot of kids and their kids could also have lots of kids.
I feel for Lane Craig. It's what happens when a Christian seriously looks at the evidence. His critics are like the KJV-only ppl who refuse to look at the evidence.
What doe's one of Craig's persuasion believe about the resurrection since we know dead men don't rise perhaps it's simply a metaphor for religious experience. What do we do with Jesus, who when it comes to the scriptures is revealed to be a fundamentalist.
you can criticize eachother & pointing/correcting the mistake, or offering different view/interpretation, but don't act like you're the only theologian who can share mind/study or calling them/him less christian or not deserve to defend his faith in biblical or philosophical way. 🙏
Has Dr White lost some of his mind? He used to be much more clear, and though we disagreed, he used to be a much more rigorous thinker. This vid is trash.
Is his name now William "Line" Craig? Come on guys, you are hyoercritical of everyone else. Dr. CRAIG is an apologetic giant, and you know it. Not all christiam are Ref ormed Baptist. I can't believe you went to Fuller Theological Seminary, I thought they were broadly Evangelical. Are all the faculty @ GCTS unbelievers too? We are not all fundamentalists. Calm down.
Both Adam's in man read and disagree, first always read the Bible as secular history and blinds them not knowing Imagination is God in man. Looking and waiting for God is thought by great people and think their awake. John Baptist (allegory) great man expert about OT but blind by looking outside for Jesus/God not realizing the second Adam awakes not outside, it awakes inside so he was blind. Rome 2:25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. If you can't pray John 17:5 then you read outside secular history that happens to men reading the stories are happening outside, 2Adam knows its inside.
The reformers were largely ignorant of Jewish literary style. The book of Genesis is not a literal account of what happened but it is a story that is in conversation with other ancient creation myths. We do not have to take the Genesis 1 account literally to take the words of Jesus literally.
Whatever.... I will take the mystery over creation any day over the non mystery and utterly incoherent mental feces that believes that the universe is created from nothing. That's the problem that we have today: God created this universe and everything falls in line with that. I guarantee you the work of the academic rock stars can be falsified.
@@johnnyfreeman4551 I don't know what you're talking about but it's not an either or situation. My point is about the text: the Genesis narrative is not being literal. We have to take the authors as they intend to be taken
Yes I would agree with you that Genesis is not a book of science but it's a book of Revelation. If the religion of scientism was not ingrained in every discipline and every subject we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. There would be a lot of people who would line up with a book of Genesis on a more literal standpoint because giving God the benefit of the doubt wouldn't cost so much shame and embarrassment as it would today.
@@johnnyfreeman4551 St Augustine was not influenced by scientism and he did not believe the Genesis account was literal. Also, the ancient Jews did not take the story literally - Christians during the Reformation created this idea. It is not true that we all would think that talking snakes existed if there wasn't scientism. Jesus is Lord either way.
@@spikeboon123 that's not true. It boils down to this Jesus believed in a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Jesus did not take the Genesis story as mythology or a creation account to explain the world. Matter of fact the New testament writers firmly believe that Jesus created the world EX Nihlio by the words of his own mouth
Craig is right though that most scholars do coincide with biblical narrative. I am not sure of your beef with them. I get throwing around the extremely broad term secularism, but that hardly is enough for those of us seeking. Name calling is just a dismissive tactic for the emotionally invested!!
@@houghton841 ruclips.net/video/mtn921LSofY/видео.html part 2 ruclips.net/video/0UeL13At42U/видео.html Part 3 is nearly done, maybe tonight. Then theres two other parts afterwards.
I think the best video to watch to hear WLC's position from his own mouth is the one he did recently with Sean McDowell. The Bible, since it is true, should align with reality and the physical evidence we have on our planet and WLC shows that it does, even if evolution is true.
I’m going to take a phrase from James White and apologia and turn it back on them I don’t think James White has ever read William Lane Craig or the scholarship James refers too
WLC affirms the historical Adam throughout this book. Referring to him as among the seats of unbelievers, questioning his Christianity, is outrageously horrible.
It seems that there are two ways Christians approach origins… either you dogmatically state there is one interpretation of Genesis 1 and that’s the literal interpretation; or you believe in framing our understanding of the scriptures in light of physical reality that we understand through scientific process. The reason fundamentalism is on the decline is because people are far less willing to consider faith reasonable when wrapped in denial of physical reality. At that point you have borderline cultish behavior and those in that system are so immersed in the dogma that they are unable to even conceive of how off from reality they truly are.
Did you see Sam Shamoun blocked me and kicked me out the channel ? But I think there was a missunderstanding. You should watch that video, though, because theres stuff admiting prayer is only for God. ruclips.net/video/3RqxNWZ4oko/видео.html my comment near the end shoul rather have been "prayer to within them."
What surprises me is how Dr. White attacks the circular resoning of KJVO movements (I agree with him on that) yet he is hard core presuppositionalist!! Presuppositionalism is also a form of circular reasoning!!
James seemed to be more interested in being “right” all the time and rebuking former Christian’s than actually being focused on unity in the church and bringing more to Christ, he comes across as a jealous child. Only seeming to offer more respect to the Muslims than his brothers in the lord Yeshua. Petty
@M M Well, I offer you a friendly opportunity to prove me Wrong. I go into a pretty detailed study. Remember---You are the one that responded to Me! If you truly believe I know Not what I'm talking about, then, shouldn't you at Least make an effort to Biblically refute ALL that I provided? Thank you.
@M M Ya' know, despite the fact I only seek to shed light on a Subject that is so misunderstood in the Church-World---I get these people who offer nothing more than condescending castigation. You're telling me that I'M "Narcissistic," and yet, it is You, brother, Who appears to be assuming these things about Me! When an individual chooses your mode of approach, without off- ering a SHRED of Biblical reasoning---THAT, my friend speaks Volumes about a person's "Character." But why don't we back Up a bit. You have us started on the wrong Foot. This isn't ABOUT you, or me...It's about GOD'S word! Can we, or can we Not, conduct an intelligent, civil discussion? Thank you.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
William Lane Craig was interviewed by my pastor this past sunday. My pastor looks up to him as in apologist hero. They basically dismissed Genesis, a real Adam and Eve, original sin, and Eve being taken from adam. I will reach out to the pastor via email with my concerns and thoughtfully wait for a response. I can tell you though as of now I am looking for a new church...
William lane Craig doesn’t “deny Genesis.” He has a different interpretation of Genesis than you do. That does mean you or him are denying it. He also doesn’t deny Adam and Eve’s existence
@@thetannernation dude, in front of my eyes and with my own ears I heard him say "God did not create Adam from the ground and breathe life into him. Nor was Eve taken from Adam's rib. Adam was a predecessor to a neanderthal." He called Genesis "Mytho History"
Craig believes in a historical Adam. I don’t know where you got the idea that he denies a real Adam and Eve
@@andrewdavidson8167 got it from his own mouth while he was speaking at my church. My pastor asked Craig if God formed Adam from the ground. Craig said Adam was NOT created "Adam was a precursor to the Neanderthals." My pastor also asked Craig if Eve was taken from Adam's side and he said a definitive "NO!" He said Genesis is "mytho history"
@ArmyScoutMom
So that issue is a little different than what I was addressing that Craig believes Adam and Eve are historical figures. If your talking about the manner in which they came about then sure, Craig would have a different view than some other Christian’s. However that does not mean Craig does not take scripture seriously. This is the problem with the pressup crowd like James White illustrates. I don’t think people from that perspective really understand Craig’s position on scripture and apologetics.
In regards to his view on mytho history, I would recommend that you spend a little time reading the literature on that. Specifically Craig’s book on Adam. There are clear patterns in Genesis 1 that tells us the creation days aren’t meant to literally describe the cosmological creation, but is rather assigning a specific function. Craig and others will point out that days 1 and 4 of creation parallel each other in that on day 1 you have the creation of light (also, “create” in the Hebrew doesn’t always mean material origins. In psalm 50 I think, the Hebrew word “Bara” is used to describe a repurposing of one’s heart. “Create in me a clean heart”). Day 4 you have the separating the day from the night with two greater lights. Day 2 parallels day 5 in that the waters expand in day two, and then they are filled with creatures in day 5. I think you know where I’m going with this concerning days 3 and 6. Clearly there is something symbolic going on there. But, while many scholars today deny the literal day interpretation, there are many old earth creations who believe they are literal days, because the days are not meant to talk about the physical creation of all things. Michael Heiser and John Walton would be two examples of scholars who point out that the days in Genesis, parallel the method of temple inauguration ceremonies in the ancient world. Genesis would be a spiritual dunk on those pagan gods in the fact that god establishes the cosmos as his temple, rather than a small building made of stone.
All of that said, Genesis 1 is more than likely not talking about physical origins. It’s more than likely a cosmic temple ceremony, which would mean that the literal meaning does not have to do with whether or not Adam and Eve were the first two literal humans.
One last thing, many scholars today point out that the “the” in Genesis 1:1 is missing from the Hebrew, so rather the text reading like “in THEbeginning God created the heavens and the earth,” it should more properly be translated “when Gid began to create the heavens and the earth.” Since taking out the article does away with the idea of a definite beginning point. Mike Jones points that out on his channel, Inspiring Philosophy
Ok. 8:30 minutes in, and I have yet to hear anything about Craig’s views on Adam, or why he’s wrong. The church fathers were right about a lot, but they were also mistaken about a lot. They were human. Similarly, Craig might hold to some questionable views, but I think the point, here, should have been whether or not his view on Adam is wrong. Pointing to what Craig believes on other matters is not relevant to me on this particular topic. Would have liked to see some more interaction with the book. Then again, this is just a highlight, and I get that.
ruclips.net/video/GzS5Zgy8eHI/видео.html
here
@@JesusismyGOD I’m pretty aware of Craig’s view. My point was that Dr. White, in this video, did not address that view at all, nor explain why its wrong or theologically dangerous.
@@bendecidospr strange. Around minute 2 I have already heard a strong refutation to evidentialists methodology. It is not strictly about Adam and WCL, the context is a bit broader here.
I’ve watched and listened to Dr. Craig since the early 1990s. His lifelong ministry and great singular contribution to the Kingdom of God has been to give atheists and Christians compelling philosophical reasons to conclude that the God of the Bible exists. His emphasis hasn’t ever been in elucidating the Gospel, or in eschatology, or In the inspiration of Scripture. I think people should recognize this contribution and show a little more charity in the areas where he shows to be in error. He is a first rate philosopher, but not a teaching/preaching pastor or an elder. Therefore correct him in areas where necessary but with gentleness and respect.
Yeah. I agree with this.
Yup, and in my opinion I think it would be great to see some discussions between Christians with these differing viewpoints. It would help to avoid the sadly all too common strawmen in internet theology today.
I also agree but elders/pastors also aren’t Bible scholars or historians. On the question of Adam or Genesis, people like Walton or Heiser know way more than both Craig and White, work which Craig uses. And do you know what Walton and Heiser say concerning the first chapters of the Bible? It’s complex and a mixture of genres.
When you don't get the first two chapters of Genesis right how do you set the ship aright.
I think I generally agree with this sentiment and I don't think that James White would disagree either hence why I think he still would affirm Craig as a brother, however it has to be noted that Craig takes his philosophy for granted and doesn't seem to recognize the theological impact or doesn't care sense he's after affirming a mere Christianity. I do find Craig and others as examples of the tension that lies between philosophy and theology. I've often observed that one can be a great philosopher and awful theologian and vice versa.
Love you Dr White, but I think your approach is best suited to people who already hold to a degree of theism. WLC ad Frank Turek are consistently reaching out to people who do not give any credibility to the Bible, nor would they start a discussion with the assumption that God even exists, let alone that he speaks to mankind in any way. So their approach is VERY good for people like that. They certainly don’t fall into the category of scholars who don’t believe the Bible has credibility or a consistent redemptive narrative.
Dr Craig in particular is starting WAY outside of belief in God, then brings the listener inward to a world view of faith. He uses language and concepts which nonbelievers more readily understand. His approach takes people who aren’t willing to consider the Bible and brings them into a place where they are willing. It’s very good and very needed.
What you win them with, is what you win them to.
@@GregOrangeDoor not necessarily! Many embrace the fullness of Christian doctrine quite slowly.
It was Apostle Paul who said that he chooses to know nothing apart from Jesus. Totally apart from human knowledge.
@@LOT116 - and this is the problem with reformed folk (usually men). They come across as smug and cantankerous. I’m not sure anyone outside the faith wants to buy what they’re selling.
But it’s more telling that the infighting keeps going on, century after century. Why would I believe any of the apologists if the god they all claim to have knowledge of can’t even keep straight what he actually is among his own people?
@@LOT116 and it was the Apostle Paul who spoke one way in the Synagogue and another way on Mars Hill.
I have been reading William Lane Craig’s "Quest for the historical Adam." I applaud him for the courage it took to write such a controversial book! It has generated some negative feedback. My question is, why does Dr. Craig find some things in Genesis chapters 1:1-11 more fantastic than some of the essential doctrines of the church? For example, why is a universal flood fantastic but the virgin birth is not fantastic? Why is the Cherubim in the garden of Eden more fantastic than the resurrection of Jesus? Why is a talking donkey more fantastic than the Trinity? If your criteria for what is fantastic and not fantastic is derived from science, those dogmas fall outside of modern scientific explanations as well. And to be blunt, who is Dr. Craig to delineate what is fantastic and what is not fantastic in scripture? He was not there during the time that Genesis 1-11 gives an account of!
Its not just that its fantastic, its about the genre too. He argues that Genesis is a different genre than the gospels.
And you were not there when Christ rose from the dead. Poor argument because you weren't there when John or Paul wrote the New Testament. Do you hear it?
The reason we believe in the historical Adam is because the Holy Spirit within us testifies to us about the truth of the Scriptures. Faith in the truth of God's word is produced in us by Him. Nobody alive was there or has seen the beginning. The world gives its testimony, and the Holy Spirit gives His, and these men have decided that the world's testimony is more valid than the Spirit's. As for me, I say yes and amen to the witness of the Holy Spirit.
And here’s someone literally talking about his brother in Christ.
Yep, I’m sorry (like Craig) that Christianity doesn’t conflict with reality.
Science
History
Archaeology
Let the evidence fall where it may.
Truth is truth.
If Christianity is really true, it will stand
Yes - What could go wrong with that logic? 2023 Science: What is a women? "Um its complicated but men can get pregnant and its a good idea to mutilate children under 10 years of age"; 2023 History: "Real Communism has never been tried"; 2023 Archaeology: "We need to stop identifying historic human remains by gender and ethnicity because that would not be an inclusive way to look at the past".
There is no way to account for anything else, including evil in our world, death, and the Gospel, once someone has denied the literal historicity of Genesis 1-11
This doesn't seem true to me. Can you explain?
The entire premise of evolution stems around the idea of "survival of the fittest", that only the most developed survive. The consequence of this belief is that in order for some to survive, other "less desirables" must have died so as to not continue propogating the leas desirable traits. This flies i the face of the Genesis account because this would mean there would have to be death even before Adam and Eve were created. Death is not good in God's eyes, was never a part of His initial creation, and yet when He created everything in 6 days, He said it was "very good". Even more importantly, this would wreak havoc on the entire redemption natrative because it was no longer Adam who brought death into the world. This ruins the entire point of Jesus' redemptive work on the cross. Hopefully this answers your question on a surface level.
Yes there is.
@@jeremyfrost3127 No there isn’t.
See? I can argue like a kid, too.
Can anyone explain more on the Neo view of Dr Craig?
KJV Mat 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Here’s the main problem with young earth creationism and for those who try to market the Bible as a science book.
If you guys want to claim that the world is 6,000 years old based on the genealogies of the patriarchs (the ages are supposed to be symbolic), then you’ll also have to defend the idea that the world is stationary. The early church fathers and medieval Christians were all geocentric. They interpreted the passages 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 96:10, and Joshua 10:12 to prove this. People like Giordano Bruno were burnt at the stake for questioning this interpretation. Even Martin Luther defended the idea of the firmament against the scientists of his day who were saying that there was no body of water in the sky. Here’s a quote from him:
“But Moses says in plain words that the waters were above and below the firmament. Here I, therefore, take my reason captive and subscribe to the Word even though I do not understand it.” - Martin Luther
And here’s another one:
“People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.” - Martin Luther
What he’s saying is no different from what Ken Ham teaches that the world is no less than 10,000 years old. So here’s my question, why is there a double standard here? You guys are willing to defend a young earth but you won’t defend a stationary earth because we have proof that the world revolves around the sun and not the other way around. We have images from space and we can look through our own telescopes.
And if you go back further in time, you’ll know that the Israelites believed in a flat stationary world that was covered by a solid sky dome which they called the firmament. This cosmology was common in the ancient Near East. Later on, the Greeks figured out that the world we live on is round but stationary. Baby steps if you will.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a Christian who believes that Jesus died for our sins, all of us believe that. But we have to realize that the Torah was written to an ancient audience that was unaware of the universe around them. God didn’t reveal to them what our universe was like because they wouldn’t have been able to understand it. It’s similar to why he gave them laws for slavery because their hearts were heartened in those days, and so humanity was not ready to witness the universe yet. God wants us to progress with our understandings of the universe and there are still things that are currently unexplained by science and I’m ok with that. Please, let’s stop forcing our modern scientific interpretations to the Bible.
Amen brother
This just a false comparison of two completely different subjects.
What you are basically saying is that because some theologian in the past (following the science of his time) got to the wrong conclusions, then we should throw away historical interpretations and follow the science of our day.
It is true that the Bible is not a science book but if you stick with its literality you will be right most of the time while the "science" changes every day. And the part which you were wrong was not because the Bible has errors but because you did not understand what it was trying to communicate in the first place.
If you believe God inspired the Bible, then theres no reason He would let Moses writes a myth compilation that transitions into history without any clarity.
Now, if you have a very low view of scripture, then you would make it just like a Greek myth or something on those lines.
There's no reason why God told us there was water on the sky if there wasn't os that it didn't use to rain if it didn't.
Reading these things as myths is just assumpts made by an a priori rejection of the inspiration.
@@Luiz__Silva So are you willing to defend the belief that the sky is actually a dome covering us from the oceans above?
You are not listening. Looks more like you have a very shallow understanding of biblical interpretation and are conflating it with tradition.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that defending Scripture innerrancy and literality has anything to do with defending specific historical interpretations.
Of course our understanding of scripture can improve as we discover new things in the Universe. All scientific discoveries only have highlighted how great God is.
However, many attempts have been made to contradict core teaching of the Bible (not a oeripherical subject) such as the perfect creation, original sin, death, marriage.
Unfortunately, it's an easy trap and a slippery slope start denying small parts of scripture and soon you end up with nothing meaningful at all.
You should believe the Bible is literall unless stated otherwise or there's strong evidence of the contrary. However, your arguments only show you presume current scientific knowledge is absolutely superior to what the Bible teaches, so it leads you se buy into dumb atheistic interpretations that make the Word of God look dumb, without even realizing you are not even paying attention to what God said.
@@Luiz__Silva Maybe you’re not understanding me. Let me put it this way, if I had lived in Martin Luther’s time and I told him that I agreed with the astronomers with their heliocentric views, Martin would tell me that I’m compromising the literal interpretation of scripture. Despite the fact that we can observe the planets moving around the sun, he’ll tell me that I don’t believe in God’s word and that I prefer the words of “philosophers”.That’s all I’m saying. Ken Ham does the same thing to Old Earthers who believe in the scriptures but don’t agree with his point of view.
And btw, I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were mythological.
This gave me the impression that JW does not know that WLC believes in a literal Adam and Eve who are the literal ancestors of all human beings. This seemed very unfair to Craig
I have listened to WLC and his belief in a "group of hominids" that by "perhaps a divine miracle" ascended from ape to man.
@@ogmakefirefiregood Two things to note about that:
(1) That does not contradict the claim that I made (namely, that WLC believes in a literal Adam and Eve who are literal ancestors of every human being who has ever lived).
(2) I'm unsure of the context you refer to. For all I know, that was something WLC floated in his Defenders class from many years ago when laying out the various theories. He has since crystallised his views in his recent book on Adam. That's where one should go if one wants to critique Craig (and I believe he should be critiqued! He is far too non-traditional in my judgement).
Thank you, Mr. White, for always fighting for the God-Breathed truth of scripture over the heresies coming from these people. This has to be almost exactly what the early Church Fathers we’re dealing with.
Man the WLC fanboys are up in arms over this one
A whole lot of words to say nothing about Craig's view, how superior JW is, and how he is the truly enlightened one. The only thing he hinted at was that Craig doesnt affirm a historical Adam which is false..
This video sure sounds like Craig doupts the historical (Biblical) Adam. ruclips.net/video/GzS5Zgy8eHI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rht9B0uCeYY/видео.html
Can you arrange a debate with Williams Craig? Please!!!
He debated him around the same time as this video and did not bring it up.
ruclips.net/video/ECcN-fisQRk/видео.html
I know this is off topic, but every time I see James White I think he looks like John Malkovitch
John looks like James
@John Cameron Yes he does
I heard him say the long ages of pre flood humans listed in Genesis were "preposterous". He doesn't believe in a lot of foundational doctrines apparently or have a high view of scripture.
Both of those accusations are false. The ages of the patriarchs is not a foundational doctrine, and Craig’s view of Scripture is as high as anyone’s. He literally spends the first half of his new book establishing the historicity of the person of Adam BECAUSE of His high view of Scripture. Careful study of the ages of the Patriarchs (and the meaning of their names in Hebrew) shows that the author(s) likely intended them to be symbolic. If you spent a lifetime studying the Scriptures at a scholarly level, you would likely come to the same conclusion.
@@jeremyfrost3127 Accsuation are not false i got the audio Dr Crag on his neo thing and that the greek dog that is doomed to Craig if he does not repent on this!
@@jeremyfrost3127 I would say if you claim to believe the bible is the word and God, which was breathed out by the Creator then you should hold to inerrancy, at least to the extent of believing that the scriptures as they were first delivered in the original languages were totally free from error due to them being God breathed. Craig calls the account of Creation "mythical". Not only does he not believe in a literal week, he does not hold to the order of the days, and he has no problem ignoring both Romans 5 and Romans 8 regarding the effects of Adam's sin on mankind and on creation. He thinks he can choose to believe some parts of the creation account and not others. Like others who do this he draws from non biblical sources to cast doubt on what scripture says.
I've heard him claim to believe in a "literal" Adam. Does he believe Adam was indeed the first human? When does he think Adam lived? Does he believe that Adam was literally formed from the dust of the earth by God as per the biblical account? I have my doubts. Other people such as some in the Intelligent Design movement claim that God took a "neanderthal" and gave him a soul. I suspect this may be how Craig reconciles long ages and evolution to his "interpretation" of God's word. Much of what he teaches seems to be motivated by the notion of retaining credibility within the scholarly circle where he resides. He should care about pleasing and fearing God rather than men. I refuse to withdraw the accusation that he holds a low view of scripture for the following reasons.
1) He doesn't accept the biblical account of creation, calling it "mythical".
2) He rejects the life spans of Genesis, calling them "preposterous". (If you reject these life spans as unreliable or preposterous you may as well throw out all the genealogies as well and forget about proving the lineage of Christ going back to Adam).
3) He believes there was death in the world before Adam's sin.
@@philblagden I disagree with every point you’re making here, but let me start here: how do you reconcile issues that arise in the text from ancient perspectives? For instance, when Leviticus 11 lists bats as birds? Or when passages in Scripture indicate a geocentric view of the universe? Or when Genesis references cities that didn’t exist when Moses was alive?Surely you can see how we’ve adjusted our hermeneutic and re-interpreted those passages as science and scholarship have progressed, not because we’re trying to fit Scripture into science, but because we realized - in time - that we had to adjust how we interpret Scripture by understanding it was written BY an ancient author FOR an ancient audience. Right?
As far as the “mythical” characterization: Craig is saying that in regards to the literary GENRE. He’s not using the term “myth” in the common parlance as if it’s “falsehood”. He is very careful to discuss this and spends an entire chapter in the new book explaining: The Bible contains different genres - narrative, biographical, poetry, apocalyptic, didactic epistles, etc. We adjust our hermeneutic according to the literature type. No Christian believes that Revelation should be read/understood the same as Romans. Craigs point is that Genesis 1-3 is a particular genre: mytho-historical, and as such, we must approach it differently from strictly narrative-type texts in the Bible. If we can recognize that Revelation features heavy elements of metaphorical/allegorical apocalyptic imagery, we are within reason and orthodoxy to recognize the same in Genesis.
@@jeremyfrost3127 horrible comparisons. Copying texts and editing them, updating city names etc. for their current ancient audience or a different classification of animals has nothing to do with the topic. Modern classifications could have developed differently as well. Our current classifications are not metaphysical truths that we have discovered. So a bat being classified as a bird in their system is not any less valid. Genesis is historical narrative according to statistical analysis so the comparison with the apocalyptic genre of revelation doesn’t make sense.
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29
His beliefs are quite concerning. Completely unorthodox.
What a joke of misrepresentation of Craig.
Or your snippet cones across that way.
Craig would 100% say that the Bible is totally consistent.
There’s also an absolutely false statement at the start: that Craig argues for an Adam that didn’t exist.
Totally false.
Thank you Dr. White, I'm always glad to hear people reiterate clear scriptural teachings.
His version of scriptural teaching. People didnt teach unilateral determinism in the early church
WLC's views aren't that different from the Catholic. Pope John Paul II affirmed that Theistic evolution is a reasonable Christian view and that Genesis 1 is mytho-history
I am shocked William Craig said that i got his audio does Dr James want it?
Great vid. I have always been bothered by W.L.C and his viewing of Genesis et al. as poetic myth. And how comfortably he embraces evolutionary belief. For a man that is so well-thought, his views actually surprise me.
Mytho-history, not "poetic myth". At least be accurate/honest in your criticisms.
@VinceKinneyTV Dr. Craig: “So I’m very interested in exploring the suggestion of some commentators that the primaeval history of Genesis 1-11 is mytho-historical, a sort of fusion of history and mythology that should not be interpreted literally.”
Mytho-historical, eh? Did I put quotes around poetic myth in my comment? No. Could it be that I was summarising a gamut of views that are held by those with a low view of scripture in Genesis? Who argue that it’s either myth or mythohistory or poetry or parable or prophetic vision? Commenting that it is myth is certainly more damaging than thinking it’s poetry, anyway!
If one accepts that the universe is “13 billion years old”, based on the “science”, then evolutionary thinking has permeated your thinking. A belief in God “guiding evolution” then follows.
Craig’s views on Adam and Eve are far from scriptural.
I’m a “liar” am I? Did I attempt to deceive, did I? No!
You have just accused a brother falsely.
That is certainly my assessment of Craig. A man who has damaged the authority of scripture in order to have it accommodate evolutionary thinking.
I’ll wait for your apology.
@@HiVisl very interested in exploring doesn't mean he embraces it. As JW explained, WLC looms at things from a philosophical stand but that does not mean he approves of that viewpoint, rather that he wants to make the intellectual exercise to show that even if it were true, God would still be exalted no matter what.
The more i hear William Lane Craig speak the less I have any respect for him and what he has to say.... IMO, he is a humanistic philosophical spiritual rationalist who distorts scripture... which is even more dangerous than denying scripture... "Has God indeed said....." (Gen. 3)
"Line Craig" ))) Probably you were thinking about "Dividing Line" 😂
haha
I always have that same view when I listen to those like James White slander the painful work of the cross our saviour endured for all of mankind. The devil wants no one to turn to Jesus in repentance! Calvinists are satan's mouth piece.
This is some thing I have spread around the net to try and wake them up.
"A Calvinist can understand Calvinism perfectly because it is their language. They listen to their father the devil.
When he, the devil speaks he speaks his native language for he was a liar from the beginning.
Unless you are born again through repentance you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit within you as your comforter and even more importantly your spiritual guide into all truth.
A person CANNOT have spiritual discernment apart from the Holy Spirit within them.
The Holy spirit would NEVER let you as a child of the KING say the hideous poison's that are Calvinism. It is that simple really.
If you were saved the Holy Spirit would correct you and take you to the woodshed immediately.
A house divided against its self would fall.
So if you are OK with Calvinism you are not in God's house of followers at all.
God's house is the Gospel of good news to mankind.
The house of Calvin is the gospel of bad news to man kind.
Calvinists coming to this site I would highly recommend listening and I mean really listening to DR Flowers, he speaks the truth.
What is your soul worth to you.
Do you want a comfortable lie?
Or the truth.
A life will soon be past and John Calvin can't help you then.
Listen!
Drop your shields and listen! "
TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 Did you listen? Dr Craig compared the trinity to a greek God!
@@sorrowinchrist3387 Dr Craig is in error!
@@truth7416 You go to tell that to someone here who claims its an analogy? Is it not abomination to use a demon creature from hell as an analogy to our Lord the Holy spirit? 😠
Craig hates presuppositionialism. I won't lie I do enjoy watching some apologists and debates, but I'm always wary of someone who doesn't fall under a church's authority. Ravi Zacharias is the perfect example of why these men should be held to the authority or their elders and or pastors. These men often have their own organizations with no oversight. Usually something like: "Person X Ministries".
What is any of that mean?
@@johnnyfreeman4551 It's self explanatory, what did you not get?
Well, no need to wary then because Craig is under the authority of a local SBC church where he serves as a teacher, and he has always taught the necessity of being in the community of a local church.
What surprises me is how Dr. White attacks the circular resoning of KJVO movements (I agree with him on that) yet he is hard core presuppositionalist!! Presuppositionalism is also a form of circular reasoning!!
@@miledhayek7005 everything is circular sooner or later.......
A friendly brotherly comment section I see, amongst a intellectually diverse group of CHRISTIANS...😒
It would be nice if someone could put a compilation video together of all of these little heresies he's affirmed and the truths he's denied. I think the sheer number of them all in one place would wake people up to what Craig has believed for so long.
Craig affirms every foundational Christian doctrine. Differing on secondary, non-Gospel issues doesn’t make someone a heretic. It just means they don’t ascribe to your particular preferred theological framework in a given issue that you’d rather not have to question.
White is consistent in his misunderstanding of Craig’s teaching. He does not understand Molinism. And here he misrepresents Craig’s view of scripture. But most of all he does not understand that his own approach to the scriptures is grounded in certain philosophical presuppositions. His high Calvinism for instance does not arise from scripture but from philosophical developments that moved the west from the Via Antiqua to the Via Moderna.
Exactly.
Do you have sources that would contradict White's claims? I've heard White play audio from Craig in the past and this video seems in line with those past evidences White has presented. I'm wary of fanbois who always claim White is wrong but can't ever present evidence showing where Craig says otherwise.
_"But most of all he does not understand that his own approach to the scriptures is grounded in certain philosophical presuppositions."_
On the contrary, White often says that everyone has traditions, and explicitly lumps himself in that statement. He is well aware. This obviously false claim makes me doubt your other claims about White misrepresenting Craig.
@@oracleoftroy no sir. White claims he derives meaning exegetically over against Craig’s resting ultimately on philosophy. He says it’s here again for the nth time.
As for Craig I would refer you to his systematic theology, specifically his section on the inspiration of scripture. Here White is confounding what scripture means with whether it’s inspired or not. Craig leans toward Gen 1-11 being mytho-historical, but still carrying the breath of God.
Furthermore, White speaks of the Faith/tradition handed down. Craig is actually quite at home the the tradition handed down, as his apologetic approach is layed out in a book entitled Reasonable Faith, which recalls Aquinas’ “Faith seeking understanding”. This is what sets Christianity apart from Judaism and Islam.
@@Jemoh66 Craig has a book on systematic theology? That's news to me. I'd love to check it out, what is it called?
@@oracleoftroy His systematic theology is not out yet. (I believe he has videos explaining that he is working on it, but no release date planned.) He has written 'philosophical foundations for a Christian world view'. This may be what the individual is referring to.
I own the book I mentioned, but I have not validated the section the individual is talking about. I may be totally off base.
Line is a typo ...
Or is it? 👀
William Lane Craig made a blunder mistake by classifying the Genesis 11 chapters as Mythohistory b/c What happened to Adam on a day he ate the forbidden fruit is reversed in the New Testament, meaning Adam passed over from eternal life unto death & the same is reversed through Jesus, and now it's possible to Passover from death unto Eternal life as/John 5:24. Therefore, would WLC say John 5:24 is also Mythohistory as these scenarios are similar in nature?
A Conversation with satan!
Ask him if God exists! Answer “No”
Tell satan that you know God exists! Answer “There are many gods”
Tell satan that you know there is only one God! Answer “Yes but he is a very cruel god.”
Tell satan that he loves you! Answer “ no he only loves some people”
Tell satan that the Bible says God loves all people! Answer “ you don’t understand the Bible.”
Ask satan what it means. Answer “ Calvinism” " My man James White will deceive, er I mean teach you truth!"
TRUTH IN LOVE
Wow. What excellent nonsense that was!
@@matthewdyer2926 The only condition that God puts on salvation is that the person receives it because they they desire it and THEY put their faith in Him.
But wait I almost forgot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you take every time the scriptures says "World" which is 20 times and twist and force it to say Elect
If you take every time the scriptures says "Whoever" which is 16 times and twist and force it to say Elect
If you take every time the scriptures says "Whosoever" which is 16 times and twist and force it to say Elect
If you take every time the scriptures says "All" which is 16 times and twist and force it to say Elect
If you take every time the scriptures says "Everyman" which is 6 times and twist and force it to say Elect
Then yes Calvin got it right. and Reformed Theology is true! WINK WINK
Even the cult of the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses could take twisting lessons from the Deformed Theology pretending to be Christianity.
TRUTH IN LOVE
You're going to love yourself all the way to hell
@@Yuri_Jonker I always have that same view when I listen to those like James White slander the painful work of the cross our saviour endured for all of mankind. The devil wants no one to turn to Jesus in repentance! Calvinists are satan's mouth piece.
This is some thing I have spread around the net to try and wake them up.
"A Calvinist can understand Calvinism perfectly because it is their language. They listen to their father the devil.
When he, the devil speaks he speaks his native language for he was a liar from the beginning.
Unless you are born again through repentance you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit within you as your comforter and even more importantly your spiritual guide into all truth.
A person CANNOT have spiritual discernment apart from the Holy Spirit within them.
The Holy spirit would NEVER let you as a child of the KING say the hideous poison's that are Calvinism. It is that simple really.
If you were saved the Holy Spirit would correct you and take you to the woodshed immediately.
A house divided against its self would fall.
So if you are OK with Calvinism you are not in God's house of followers at all.
God's house is the Gospel of good news to mankind.
The house of Calvin is the gospel of bad news to man kind.
Calvinists coming to this site I would highly recommend listening and I mean really listening to DR Flowers, he speaks the truth.
What is your soul worth to you.
Do you want a comfortable lie?
Or the truth.
A life will soon be past and John Calvin can't help you then.
Listen!
Drop your shields and listen! "
TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 IN JESUS NAME GET OUT FROM TRUTH, DEMON!!!!! I REBUKE YOU IN JESUS NAME!
Thank you
You are talking about the Bible specifically. What do you think of a book like 1 Enoch or more specifically the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch? I am asking because you seem so interested in the history of the church and 1 Enoch seems to have quite a history.
If truth exists outside of God, and God had to consult with matter to make his decision on a possible world. Of course you’re gonna conclude God have to use evolution to create the world.
William Lane Craig, Ph.D., is the one who teaches (and all Molinists follow him on this) that, "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the events that occur in time".
Don't believe me? Check out a video I have, entitled, "Molinism Refuted," where I play a clip of WLC AND Pastor Mike Winger saying that very thing!
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
[Hos. 4:6, ESV].
*Soli Deo Gloria*
You need me to give you the two video references where Molinist, Dr. William Lane Craig says explicitly, "the events [in time] DETERMINE what God foreknows"?
Let me know.
Otherwise, I have at least 2 videos where I expose Craig's nonsense, and blasphemy.
Let me know; I'll get those for ya'.
*Soli Deo Gloria* @christsavesreadromans1096
I listened to Craig for many years, I stopped when I started studying my Bible in depth. His ideas are interesting, but they are merely philosophical ideas not driven from scripture. He starts with philosophy.
This is a really objection that holds no weight. To affirm a belief that you read or negate one is doing philosophy, the question is whether you are good or not so to dismiss it like that as a boogeyman shows one's own ignorance on the matter.
@@adamduarte895 ignorant is the one who ignores the statement, “driven from scripture.”
You are either disingenuous, ignorant, or stupid. If you were anything but one of those three you would know that I never said what you claim.
I agree with your psychological assessment of WLC however I am CERTAIN that a large factor, probably the largest factor, in some of Craig's positions (Not including apollarianism), are based on observable reality. Craig really doesn't feel confined to historical views on creation. This is in itself a problem. Consider one thing though. What if an element of historical orthodoxy is wrong? Not all of orthodoxy is theological in character. Inasmuch as i would prefer creation to be as simple as Genesis puts it, it is clear it isn't. Craig can't ignore mountains of evidence proving evolution and neither do I. I believe that young earth creationism is sustained by very real and important existential concerns that people often infer from evolution. I know i'm not making an argument about it but I am trying to make a point which I want people to consider even if they disagree with me. (and I understand why you do which is why I have a high respect for people who insist on a 6000 year old earth.) I believe it's not defensible anymore based on the evidence so i have to wrestle with it and so does Craig. I'm requesting young earth creationists consider why it is that their belief is so small in numbers now. Is it ONLY because of man's wicked heart? Perhaps it is, but it seems highly unlikely. God bless!
@NicoCoco Leviticus 11 says bats are birds. Followers of God have adjusted their viewpoint on this over the centuries based on modern science. Likewise the Biblical language suggests the sun revolves around the earth. Once again, the Church has adjusted its interpretation of hose passages over time. Given these and many other examples, is it not also possible that we will have to adjust other interpretations of Scripture as we learn more from genetics, quantum physics, biology, etc?
"I know he considers himself the leading philosopher, he's told that so much he probably believes it"...."I debated Shabir Ally more then he has"... I'd appreciate a review and critique of his book, a video where you never interact with his work and just show that you are envious of his career success isn't overly interesting
All you guys have to do is hold William Lane Craig to his own standards.
For example William Lane Craig follows two philosophers who are very important to modern science and that is Saul Kripke and the other is CarlPopper.
Holding Dr Craig accountable to his own standards is how you make him defend his silliness. When you point out his hypocrisy then you can shut them up.
For example has he ever attempted to falsify any of the work of the modern academic rock stars in the field of genetics?
Richard Lewinton just died but one of his disciples Jeremy Coyne from the University of Chicago both have stated openly that their goal is to destroy Christianity.
You see for me it's simple, what's the difference between a big miracle and a small miracle? None. Any person who believes that nothing created a universe is a damn fool and not worthy of any consideration; even Albert Einstein was more of an agnostic than he was an atheist.
I'll take the miracle and the mystery of God's revelation over neo darwinian claptrap any day.
William Lane Craig should show respect to his brothers and sisters in Christ who are YEC and ask them if they can falsify Coynes work....
I know it can be done
P.S. I'm not sure I'm a young Earth creationist I don't think I am but I will say this that the work of Nathaniel Jenkins had answers in Genesis should be carefully considered and let me say this when you listen to the debate between Dr Jenkins and his counterpart it bio logo's---you can see immediately who is using the most logical fallacies and debate tricks.
It's not Jenkins.
Reading Genesis especially the story of Cain's fear of being killed by people, it seems that there were other humans outside of Eden.
The answer to that is pretty simple. We don't know how much time had passed from when Cain and Abel were born and when Cain killed Abel. But we do know that they weren't the only children that Adam and Eve had. We do know that both of them were grown men by the time Abel was killed. And we know that when Cain left his family and went to the land of Nod that he took his wife with him. So, she would have to have been one of his sisters. Those other humans were obviously his other siblings, who were in the process of marrying and raising their families as well. Keep in mind that the lifespan of those who lived before the flood was much longer than those who lived after the flood, so they had much more time to populate the world. Also, remember that the Lord Jesus upheld the historical creation account of Genesis. He should know, since He was there, and He is the Creator. Paul, and all the apostles also believed in the historical account of creation and taught it.
@@jamestrotter3162 With the length of human lives the population of the earth exploded. Between Adam to Noah a large swathe of land had already been populated.
No. There is only one human race and we are all descended from Adam. But there may already have been generations of other children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve not mentioned already in existence when Cain killed Abel. Only the significant offspring were mentioned in the narrative. People were living 900 years back then and could have have a lot of kids and their kids could also have lots of kids.
@@jamestrotter3162 What was the total population of Eden at the time Cain was killing his brother Abel?
@@josephkimonyi The Bible doesn't say. But keep in mind that they were no longer living in Eden. God drove them out after they sinned.
I feel for Lane Craig. It's what happens when a Christian seriously looks at the evidence. His critics are like the KJV-only ppl who refuse to look at the evidence.
Huh? What are you saying?
Huh?
ur name's a joke
@@fiveSolas879 obviously.
What doe's one of Craig's persuasion believe about the resurrection since we know dead men don't rise perhaps it's simply a metaphor for religious experience. What do we do with Jesus, who when it comes to the scriptures is revealed to be a fundamentalist.
you can criticize eachother & pointing/correcting the mistake, or offering different view/interpretation, but don't act like you're the only theologian who can share mind/study or calling them/him less christian or not deserve to defend his faith in biblical or philosophical way. 🙏
Has Dr White lost some of his mind? He used to be much more clear, and though we disagreed, he used to be a much more rigorous thinker. This vid is trash.
How important this video is. Wow
Is his name now William "Line" Craig? Come on guys, you are hyoercritical of everyone else. Dr. CRAIG is an apologetic giant, and you know it. Not all christiam are Ref ormed Baptist. I can't believe you went to Fuller Theological Seminary, I thought they were broadly Evangelical. Are all the faculty @ GCTS unbelievers too? We are not all fundamentalists. Calm down.
Did anyone hear Craig say that we need to start considering neanderthals as human bevause qe run the risk of being racist?! Hahaha. He really did!
He also says the young earth is preposterous and he often says he isn't arguing for the exact Christian God but that there is a deity in general.
Both Adam's in man read and disagree, first always read the Bible as secular history and blinds them not knowing Imagination is God in man. Looking and waiting for God is thought by great people and think their awake. John Baptist (allegory) great man expert about OT but blind by looking outside for Jesus/God not realizing the second Adam awakes not outside, it awakes inside so he was blind. Rome 2:25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. If you can't pray John 17:5 then you read outside secular history that happens to men reading the stories are happening outside, 2Adam knows its inside.
The reformers were largely ignorant of Jewish literary style. The book of Genesis is not a literal account of what happened but it is a story that is in conversation with other ancient creation myths. We do not have to take the Genesis 1 account literally to take the words of Jesus literally.
Whatever....
I will take the mystery over creation any day over the non mystery and utterly incoherent mental feces that believes that the universe is created from nothing.
That's the problem that we have today: God created this universe and everything falls in line with that. I guarantee you the work of the academic rock stars can be falsified.
@@johnnyfreeman4551 I don't know what you're talking about but it's not an either or situation. My point is about the text: the Genesis narrative is not being literal. We have to take the authors as they intend to be taken
Yes I would agree with you that Genesis is not a book of science but it's a book of Revelation.
If the religion of scientism was not ingrained in every discipline and every subject we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.
There would be a lot of people who would line up with a book of Genesis on a more literal standpoint because giving God the benefit of the doubt wouldn't cost so much shame and embarrassment as it would today.
@@johnnyfreeman4551 St Augustine was not influenced by scientism and he did not believe the Genesis account was literal. Also, the ancient Jews did not take the story literally - Christians during the Reformation created this idea. It is not true that we all would think that talking snakes existed if there wasn't scientism. Jesus is Lord either way.
@@spikeboon123 that's not true.
It boils down to this Jesus believed in a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Jesus did not take the Genesis story as mythology or a creation account to explain the world.
Matter of fact the New testament writers firmly believe that Jesus created the world EX Nihlio by the words of his own mouth
Craig is right though that most scholars do coincide with biblical narrative. I am not sure of your beef with them. I get throwing around the extremely broad term secularism, but that hardly is enough for those of us seeking. Name calling is just a dismissive tactic for the emotionally invested!!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Lane*
William lying craig
And I'm about to tear up Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Aron Ra in a video Im dropping soon.
That should be entertaining.... I'll take a view
@@houghton841
ruclips.net/video/mtn921LSofY/видео.html
part 2
ruclips.net/video/0UeL13At42U/видео.html
Part 3 is nearly done, maybe tonight. Then theres two other parts afterwards.
@@isaacleillhikar4566 Thanks
I think the best video to watch to hear WLC's position from his own mouth is the one he did recently with Sean McDowell. The Bible, since it is true, should align with reality and the physical evidence we have on our planet and WLC shows that it does, even if evolution is true.
Hard to defend evolution with a Christian worldview or for that matter a scientific one.
You meant to say he defines it so widely.
I think he meant he defines the central core of "mere Christianity" narrowly
I’m going to take a phrase from James White and apologia and turn it back on them
I don’t think James White has ever read William Lane Craig or the scholarship James refers too
JW Know WLC is working for the upcoming generation who ask deeper questions and are more informed. WLC destroyed you in the Calvinist debate.
I'm loving this rage against Craig in recent weeks. It reminds me, no matter how crap he is, the majority of Yanks are crazier than his crapness.
WLC affirms the historical Adam throughout this book. Referring to him as among the seats of unbelievers, questioning his Christianity, is outrageously horrible.
It seems that there are two ways Christians approach origins… either you dogmatically state there is one interpretation of Genesis 1 and that’s the literal interpretation; or you believe in framing our understanding of the scriptures in light of physical reality that we understand through scientific process. The reason fundamentalism is on the decline is because people are far less willing to consider faith reasonable when wrapped in denial of physical reality. At that point you have borderline cultish behavior and those in that system are so immersed in the dogma that they are unable to even conceive of how off from reality they truly are.
TF with the Buddhist monk, clothes?
L I N E
Hey man, you were lucky to escape Biblicist's plot. Watching!
Did you see Sam Shamoun blocked me and kicked me out the channel ?
But I think there was a missunderstanding.
You should watch that video, though, because theres stuff admiting prayer is only for God.
ruclips.net/video/3RqxNWZ4oko/видео.html
my comment near the end shoul rather have been "prayer to within them."
I wonder if James White even has a relationship with God or he’s just letters ???
What surprises me is how Dr. White attacks the circular resoning of KJVO movements (I agree with him on that) yet he is hard core presuppositionalist!! Presuppositionalism is also a form of circular reasoning!!
William lane Craig again.
James seemed to be more interested in being “right” all the time and rebuking former Christian’s than actually being focused on unity in the church and bringing more to Christ, he comes across as a jealous child. Only seeming to offer more respect to the Muslims than his brothers in the lord Yeshua. Petty
"GOD is ONE."
Meaning: HE is One SPIRIT---One HOLY SPIRIT. There are no
Others!
Jesus, on the other hand, is the "SON of GOD."
Notice: "OF."
@M M Greetings. Did you bother to read all my comments?
@M M Check out my comments on Whites' "Ted Alexander"
Thread.
@M M Well, I offer you a friendly opportunity to prove me
Wrong. I go into a pretty detailed study.
Remember---You are the one that responded to Me! If you truly
believe I know Not what I'm talking about, then, shouldn't you at
Least make an effort to Biblically refute ALL that I provided?
Thank you.
@M M Friend---Let me ask you Point-Blank! Are you well-studied
on this issue, or are you simply offering a Comment without any
Real back-up?
@M M Ya' know, despite the fact I only seek to shed light on a
Subject that is so misunderstood in the Church-World---I get these
people who offer nothing more than condescending castigation.
You're telling me that I'M "Narcissistic," and yet, it is You, brother,
Who appears to be assuming these things about Me!
When an individual chooses your mode of approach, without off-
ering a SHRED of Biblical reasoning---THAT, my friend speaks
Volumes about a person's "Character."
But why don't we back Up a bit. You have us started on the wrong
Foot.
This isn't ABOUT you, or me...It's about GOD'S word!
Can we, or can we Not, conduct an intelligent, civil discussion?
Thank you.
James White thinks he is a good scholar or whatever he thinks he is but he is terrible