I really like Dr. Craig and thanks to his arguments, he has equipped me with many defenses for my faith in God, but I disagree with him on points like this. His theistic evolution view is probably the biggest problem I have with him. I don't think God would call creatures that were dying "very good." And I believe death is the result of sin, not of natural causes.
The moron asking the question has failed to provide evidence for his silly belief that God is not capable of designing anything "better" than the earth.
To those quoting the bible here as if it has any value, please explain the special meaning of the following verses, because I know you can't accept them as they are literally written.
Jeremiah 19:9 (KJV) - And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
@asleepforaweek what may not be of value to you personally, doesn't mean it does not render value to others. anyways, if you would read the passages that come before that starting at verse 7 it talks about how the people of judah and the inhabitants of jerusalem forsake the word of God and in turn later on in verses 8-9 He leaves them to their own doing since they have shut him out. This results in them having to result to war and perhaps cannabilism because they shut out God.
@asleepforaweek you can take my response in whatever way you want. it's all good. i usually try to read the verses before the one i refer to try and get a better understanding of it. anyways, be well.
@asleepforaweek As others have said it's talking about how the people of Jerusalem did not keep to God commands, and went on a wayward course which led to their downfall. They were warned about this by Moses, and later Jeremiah. (Deut. 30:19, 20; Jer. 19:9; Lev. 26:29) The fulfillment of those warning by God prophets came true during the Babylonian siege, when food was not to be found, they resorted to cannibalism.
There is actual scripture, that says that every bests of the earth, and every fowl of the air I have given every green herb for meant. That is indisputable that shows that all animals were vegetarians basically. Now, the Bible never says the age of the earth, so I'm not really on the side of the young earth, but I do believe it was much older. But that's really not the point.
I was under the impression the impression that Dr. Craig, accepted and upheld biblical truths and realities, because he knew and studied the bible and Messianic prophecies. Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air... I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. The restoration = Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the L-rd.
@Complaintdesk You are right. There is nothing in Genesis that would suggest "the chase" (the killing of animals) before the Fall. And as you quote Genesis 1:30 indicates that the animals were plant eater. Plants do not possess the same life as man and the animals do. The only real account of the killing of an animal is in Genesis 3:21 where God made garments of skins for Adam and Eve, which happened after the Fall
Romans 5:12 "....by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Death, in the cosmos, did not exist until sin was introduced through the fall of man. Second, to say that God would call something "Good" that was dying and imperfect is contrary to God's perfection of eternal life....thus not "Good." I like Craig, but this kind of stuff is very alarming, liberal theology.
@HalleluyahMAtt Don't be ridiculous. We get old and die essentially because of the second law of thermodynamics. Told hold to your view of no biological death at the fall, that would mean that the second law of thermodynamics did not exist before the fall. We know that to be false because stars have died before the fall and therefore the second law has always been around.
@HalleluyahMAtt You do realize that plants are living things too, right? According to what you just quoted, there was already death in Eden when the animals ate the plants.
What Craig is doing here is very charitable, by closely reading the text to see what it actually does and does not say. He could take the far more obvious - and accurate - approach that the Creation stories and Genesis are mythology, not history, and we shouldn't get persnicity about the details unless they have a meaning
The Earth needs death or a recycle process to survive. Making the claim that God would disapprove of this does not change the fact that this is how Earth has worked from day one. Craig understands that because it's what science is showing to be true
To deny these findings b/c a few scriptures might interpret it differently is disingenuous if the evidence is contrary.
It sounds as if Craig is having an awakening moment .
@HalleluyahMAtt i think ur wrong,What Paul had in mind in Romans 5:12 was the death of humans?Why would God introduce animal death later when it is Man who disobeyed,not the animals.Remember God is Just and everything is for his glory.
@axe414 Kent Hovind, while i appreciate his work, is not even on the same level as WLC. WLC has debated the top atheist and even the atheist leaders respect him.
@REDRAGON12345 How can you seriously appreciate Kent Hovind? He denies fundamental theories in Science and does interpret Genesis (And the whole Bible) as if it were a Science textbook... Can't believe someone would look up to him.
Additionally the last plague to befall the Egyptians, the death of the firstborns, did not apply to humans alone, but also to the cattle., Exo 11:5 and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die,...and all the firstborn of the cattle.
This also supports the idea that 'death' may apply to creatures with 'lifeblood' - and that the 'death' of plants is seen differently. Hence, in support of Gen 1:30, a plain reading of the scriptures indicates a pre-fall world without death of man nor beast.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
This is consistent with the understanding that animals in the pre-fall world did not die, at least from predation.
If there was a god, then he likely used evolution as a method for expressing it's creation in biology. Its fallacious to conflate evolution with atheism and non-Christian
@JesusSatanAllah "If there was a god, then he likely used evolution as a method for expressing it's creation in biology. Its fallacious to conflate evolution with atheism and non-Christian" i couldn't agree with you more! I think more of the conflict lies in origin where biology can't explain it well enough in terms of how a plan come about for cells.
There was no meat eating by man or animal before Noah's flood according to the Bible. All life was originally created to be vegetarian and meat eating was not allowed by God before the flood.
The lion will eventually lay down (again) with the lamb
Craig gave a shaky answer. The guy asked why God would design a world with natural evil where animals eat each other (by extension, he was asking why animals and human beings have always suffered and been in the way of natural calamity). By citing a nice example about caribou overpopulation, Craig ignores the hardest part of that question. 99% of all species that have ever existed aren't here any more. That's more grim than Craig's fluffy caribou example, theistically speaking.
Isaiah 65:25 says:: The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.
From the context, this verse is in accordance with Genesis 1:30. So it pretty much is saying that this is how God fashioned the eco-life systems in the Garden of Eden and also how it will be in the New Jerusalem.
I admire WLC for his research and apologetics in time, and the like, but his answer doesn't correlate with Genesis 1:30. "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." Plus on a future Prophecy concerning the New Jerusalem in Isaiah 65:25 it says otherwise.
@joshlazarus (Continued...) and we can infer this because the word "species" is never found in the Bible. The closest word we see is "kind," which isn't terribly specific. Some have theorized that many species can arise through natural selection from one created "kind." The second thing to consider is that God only presented before Adam land-dwelling creatures and birds. All the marine life and amphibians were probably not taken into account. (continued...)
@joshlazarus Here is one possibility to consider: you may think of Genesis 1 as a summary of the entire creation week, and Genesis 2 as a more in-depth look at Day 6. Obviously modern scientists classify organisms by species, genus, etc... Genesis makes reference to "kinds" of animals. Now, if you already consider Young Earth Creationism as a theory worth dissecting, you may find some important facts. First is that speciation has occurred since creation (continued...)
Did Bill Craig forget about Romans 5:12? "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:..." (KJV)
I'd very much be interested to know how he would go about responding to this... (I do not mean this to sound sarcastic or condescending, so don't take it as such).
@Legomyegoorj (Continued) Now, does it sound more plausible that Adam, with all the time he had that day, could have named every Kind of animal, become lonely from (and probably BORED of) this, and have God put him into a deep sleep to create Eve?
You be the judge, however. I'm not really trying to take any stance on the matter (we humans in our limited capacity cannot be absolutely sure.)
Amen. Our God is also a personal God--he didn't just light the fire and step back to watch it all happen--he has been active in his creation from the beginning.
@Danthemanlyman7 the earth doesn't have to be 6000 years old for god to be active in creation. Also, if your going to say craig doesn't serve the god of the bible, you might as well say that people like st.Augustine don't serve the god of the bible. Plus, the scientific evidence shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old....
The Eternal, All Powerful, All Knowing, Omnipresent, and Omniscient GOD that I serve, could create the universe in 6 days. William Lane Craig's god needs 13.7 billion years.
William Lane Craig does NOT serve the Christian God of the Bible.
@HolyRevelation "could create the universe in 6 days. William Lane Craig's god needs 13.7 billion years."
Could, but that doesn't mean He did. If you study cosmology you find that He made the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
I will point out however that since God is outside of time, from God's perspective it doesn't matter if it was 6 days and 13.7 billion years since to God's frame of reference both of these time periods are equivalent to a split second.
@HolyRevelation Actually from his perspective he did. Because he's outside of time both 6 days and 13.7 billion years are equivalent to a split second to him.
But we can tell directly from our perception within time, that the universe is 13.7 BY old, by using Hubble's law, and noting that according to relativity one light-year of space is also the same as one year of time -since space and time are linked in relativity. Since we can see 13.7 billion light-years that means 13.7 billion years.
@JohananRaatz@JohananRaatz From our perception within time, that is true but we know that the universe as well as light from the stars is expanding away from earth, faster and faster, ie red shift. The speed of light is subject to change, science can speed it up or slow it down.
Witch came first, heavy elements or stars?
Did you know that without heavy elements, you can't have stars and without stars, you can't have heavy elements?
@HolyRevelation The expansion is why the universe is that old. It's in Hubble's law. The velocity of an object is equal to it's distance (meaning how far back in time) times Hubble's constant. You then take the inverse of Hubble's constant to find the age of the universe, which comes out to about 13.7 BY.
The second generation stars came before the heavy elements. First gen stars only need helium and hydrogen. And the term for "made" in Genesis for "making stars" is actually "made apparent."
@JohananRaatz Just curious, do you believe that deliberate, intelligent design best explains creation or do you believe in accidental, spontaneous, generation?
@HolyRevelation Yes I do think God designed us. It's just I think He used guided evolution to do so. Actually if you look into the fossil record you discover that there are points in evolutionary history that appeared to have happened far too quickly to be explained by blind mutation. The Cambrian explosion is one instance, and then also there is the evolution of modern humans (they say evolution mysteriously accelerated by something like 200 times faster than normal to produce us).
I respectfully disagree, actually the fossil record shows that most animals living today exist in the fossil record, UNCHANGED. All of Gods creation is supernatural, if His word says 6 days, I see no reason to believe in 13.7 billion years. I believe that if God wanted use to believe in billions of years of evolution, He would have told use about it.
Gods word couldn't be any clearer, 6 days of creation and animals reproducing after their own kind, NOT billions of years of evolution.
@HolyRevelation But they have discovered quite a number of formerly missing links -fossils in "states of change." They've also found them just where they'd expect if evolution were true. Look at Tiktaalik for example: watch?v=_-iioE2Vd1s
"6 days"
You've heard of relativity right? Well it turns out that when you do the math, the Big Bang expansion causes 13.7 BY to actually BE 6 days -because the time is warped! A physicist named Gerald Schroeder found this by accident: watch?v=BsKhhIQJiaI
If fish evolved into land animals like Tiktaalik says, both male and female fish would have to evolve at the exact same time and also be sexually compatible.
You may believe that both genders of fish evolved at the exact same time, perfectly compatible for reproduction but the math says it's statistically impossible.
If Jesus could instantaneously created enough adult fish to feed multitudes of people, I see no need for evolution. Why would He use evolution instead of just creating them?
@HolyRevelation They evolved at the same time. Because it was a population at large that was evolving and spreading genes around. It wasn't a sudden leap from one species to the next but a transition -the statistics don't mess up when you do that..
"instead of just creating them"
That is a good question, but the overwhelming evidence suggests he did it that way for some reason.
"who do you trust?"
Both. 6 days = 4745000000000 days in relativistic time warp. (remember Schroeder's discovery)
Oh really Dr William Lane Craig... Well appreantly you forgot the part of the bible that says Romans 8:22 For we know that the WHOLE creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
So then how do you explain disease? Cancer, tumors, deformities? How do you explain dinosaurs? neanderthal men? By reinterpreting God's word into a 4.5 billion year old earth and taking progressive creationism as your position you might as well start reinterpreting alot of other passages as symbolic.
@cctman You have to deal with these difficulties. You have to understand that some of the Bible writters are 3000 yo or older. The Bible is not a biology book, it's a spiritual/moral guide and it's 100% true, but you have to interpret it. The Bible is in fact very rich: it has poetry, history, symbolic texts, etc. Note that the word "world" for Moses or Noah doesn't mean the same for us. They thought the world was Asia/Europe. That's why we all are Not descendants of Noah. Dinosaurs are a fact.
Chuck Missler had some interesting views regarding the temporal discrepancy between a 6 day creation and the accepted naturalistic view of a universe that is billions of years old.
His argument proposed that both may have been possible, now that the theories of relativity have given us insight into the nature of time - that it is not a unilinear absolute process, but a relative physical property. I'm not formally trained in physics, so I cannot comment on the plausibility of this claim.
@JCrownwell I am trained in physics, and I've actually heard this idea before -first from Gerald Schroeder. In terms of relativity it makes sense, and the numbers that come out of his calculations are amazing. When you divide the age of the universe by the Big Bang expansion factor it gives out something very close to six literal days.
Romans states that "death passed upon all men" because of the Fall; it says nothing about the animal kingdom, regardless of how much some try to argue otherwise. Also, it's noteworthy to mention that, in the Genesis account, God barred the way to the Tree of Life after man sinned, stating that man would live forever otherwise. But this suggests that man needed access to the Tree in order to live forever - necessitating that he would not have lived forever otherwise.
This is the point where I must disagree with Dr. Craig, although I have utmost respect for him, his arguments are sound, and logically presented, however I can see no reason(Perhaps Dr. Craig can present one) why an All Powerful,Omnipresent,and Omniscient GOD could create a universe,such as we observe today in 6 days,or 6 minutes if He chose to !
An Eternal, All Powerful, All Knowing GOD does not require billions of years for His Work to come to fruition
@bkeay100 But realize that if God created our world, then science shouldn't be in conflict with it. The study of his creation shouldn't contradict eachother. The unverse is billions of years old and man has evolved over tíme. Why is God restricted in time? If he could create the world in 6 days he could also do it in 0,000001 second, why didn't he? Because he isn't restricted in time, he is timeless. And when we study his creation we see that our unvierse was created 13,7 billion years ago. :)
Personally, I think a day spent on the killing floor of any slaughterhouse in the country would help some 'young creationists" you speak of more than the latest , hottest "young creationist" book.
@TheSixStringRevolver Great points.My primary concern is Craig's lack of grasp of Gen 1/ 2: I'm used to him having a good-to-excellent working knowledge of the Bible that I'm taken aback some.
Then again, I've studied and taught the Bible for 35 years now and I think that that passage is WAY under-appreciated by most everyone in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
"Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy" by Matthew Scully helped me to reach that conclusion.
Dr. Craig, what about Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25. What about the manna from the sky, there are no barns with flour in the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere, or are there?
Death is death, and the Bible says that it came through sin.
We simply know too little as to how we live and on what source to be able to say the entire specification of the fall.
Craig fan here. That said, this is undoubtedly the weakest argument I've ever heard Craig give and bespeaks a lack of awareness of Genesis 1 and 2 whereby animals and humans are made to be herbivores (Genesis 1:26-29)
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young ones shall lie down together; And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain..." Isaiah11:6-9
My view is simply this, Read Gen1:26 (man given dominion over everything on earth.) Man falls Gen 3. Read Gen 3:14. This doe's suggest that animals fell along with everything else. and thats why everything to this day DIE"S. God created things to live on.
GOT CURSED?... Welcome to genetic digression (Mutations) . Man lived for hundreds of years after the fall. Adam lived 930 years Gen 5:5, Noah lived 950 years Gen 10:29. Over time...Well...
Its quite possible animals lived a long time also.
@1984bornagain Two problems with that idea: insects and bacteria. Insects and bacteria have a very short life span. The common house fly has a life span of just a few days. Insects and bacteria reproduce at a phenomenal rate! They would soon overcrowd all other forms of life if not for death making room for new progeny.
@Challagar What isn't understood is what was Gods perfect plan had man not sinned to begin with. Before the fall no one can say what would have occurred once the earth was filled to Gods perfect will. Remember we were created by Him, and for Him... not for us. Perhaps this world was just the start and would have been expanded or another world utilized and so on. All creation was Gods very good work, Perfect. After the fall if you'll excuse the phrase, "All bets are off". Now we need a savior.
@1984bornagain I assume you believe in a literal 6 day creation. Well, if this were so, how do you explain the rebellion of Satan and his followers and his fall from heaven and his subsequent temptation of Eve? The depths of the pride that Satan descended to could not have rationally been achieved in such a short time. The answer is, it didn't happen that way.
If you study the original Hebrew, the word that we know of as "created" is really "fattened"....
@ChallagarFirst of all, We have to establish a clue of when satan may have been created. Read Ezekiel 28:13-15 for a clue. The word day in Heb text, YOME, from one sunset to the next. Also Job 38:4-7.
He was created sometime between day 1 and 3.
Also how long was Adam in the garden and then Eve before the fall? Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born so it was quite a long a bit of time. Created: Bara (baw-raw) also, to select or choose. Why use fattened in this context?
@1984bornagain "Created: Bara (baw-raw) also, to select or choose. Why use fattened in this context?" Watch the video "Genesis 1 verse 1 - Part 2 - Bara" by ancienthebreworg
@Challagar "The depths of the pride that Satan descended to could not have rationally been achieved in such a short time. The answer is, it didn't happen that way".
Why not? How long doe's it take to get puffed up and rebel?
@1984bornagain It would certainly take longer than a few days because he wasn't in it by himself. Satan had to have convinced a third of the angelic host to rebel with him. Politics is a subtle and sometimes complex undertaking. It takes time to instigate dissent and rebellion. He had to convince them that God somehow had hidden motives against them. Not only that, convincing a 3rd of heaven's host to rebel is not quite as simple as deceiving a newly created human to eat a piece of fruit.
@Challagar You speak as if these creatures are limited in their functioning as we are. For all we know time and action for them could be lightning fast. Lets not forget that these are not living breathing creatures as we experience and understand. Angels function on a completely different plain of existence from us. Wouldn't you agree? So then this may be a non issue for them. If we are to believe some scientific thoughts on relativity, well even in our realm it's quite thought provoking.
@Challagar A simple example from our perspective of how these fallen creatures function is how they zip all around us doing their best in wrecking havoc upon all of our lives every day. We should not under estimate the enemies powers or abilities.
@1984bornagain Read Daniel chapter 21. Notice in verse 13 that the angel was delayed for 21 days. If a minor skirmish of heavenly beings lasted for 21 days, imagine how much longer a major war of heavenly being would last, not even counting the politics that led up to it.
@Challagar We were talking about satans rebelion agains't God his Creator, No contest. The Almighty God casting down satan occurred sometime before the fall. It seems God just did it, Luke 10:18. Besides I already pointed out After the creation week satan had plenty of time no one knows how long but Its apparent sometime after day 6 he rebelled. Also notice time between Gen 2:25 and Gen 3 Eve was not tempted right away. They were both together in Eden for some time apparently.
@1984bornagain ... Also, why does it say that God created Light after water? Don't believe me? read it again. You notice that it says, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." The very next verse: "God said, Let there be light." From the original meaning of the text, and the conundrum of the existence of angels and the downfall of these angels in such a short time imply that there is much much....
@Challagar Are you under the assumption that light means sunlight, or when God moved on the face of the waters in means earthly waters?. The earth was formless (void)... it wasn't there. The earth wasn't created until Gen 9-10. " Do some critical thinking and more bible study before just being spoon fed the traditional reading of Genesis One"
Please, lets not be condescending. Lets reason with God together.
@1984bornagain "Are you under the assumption that light means sunlight, or when God moved on the face of the waters in means earthly waters?. The earth was formless (void)... it wasn't there. The earth wasn't created until Gen 9-10." God said Let there be light. Western culture applies an abstract concept to scriptures where the Hebrew does not. Genesis 9 says "gathered together", not created. It says, "appear" as in to be seen not to be created.
@1984bornagain ...much more to the Genesis account than we know. You have to understand that the translators of the Bible understood the world from a western perspective which has many abstract concepts. The original Hebrew had no such abstract concepts. In other words, much is lost in the translation! Do some critical thinking and more bible study before just being spoon fed the traditional reading of Genesis One
@Challagar We can know more than you think and believe me I do think critically. Old earthers and gap theorists just can't come to grips with God being able to pull this off in a short period of time. In my opinion we as a whole have been conditioned or (spoon fed) as you say for over 150 years this darwinian junk and some have a very hard time escaping its grip. Lets face it none of us were there period. It takes more faith to believe in millions of years. Evidence, I am not a blind monkey.
@1984bornagain I absolutely believe that God can do everything the Bible said he did in 6 days. But what convinces me that He didn't create from nothing (at that time) is the ancient Hebrew and the prior existence of angelic beings.
I do believe that God created the universe at some point in time. I don't doubt that for a second. But when He did it is another matter entirely. I am just following the facts where they lead me, no matter how uncomfortable it is to question established beliefs
@Challagar "I am just following the facts where they lead me, no matter how uncomfortable it is to question established beliefs" , Yes I have use similar thoughts to establish my point and I could just flip that around. I feel however that for some reason it is way to uncomfortable for progressive creationists and others to read Gods word in context they just can't wrap their brain around it. As I said similarly before, We all have been under an indoctrination if you will for over 150 years.
@1984bornagain I don't however believe that God created the Earth billions of years ago or that He used evolution to populate it. As for how scientists came up with 4.5 billion years I don't have a clue, but there is alot of evidence that they were wrong. Just look up Spike Psarris and watch his videos and read his website.
@Challagar I believe at looking for evidence on both sides of the argument thats how we grow. Science is a wonderful tool for this, after all God created science.
As I said before none of us were there, all we have is Gods word thoughtfully translated from reliable mainstream text.
@Challagar Before 1955, it was popular to believe the age of the earth was only 3 billion years. During 1955 an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson claimed the age of the earth to be the same as that of meteorites. He believed that the meteorites were left-over remains of material dating from the time of formation of the earth and other planets. The value of 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth is now the popular belief used by most evolutionary scientists.
@1984bornagain Also, you said "All creation was Gods very good work, Perfect." You are reading more into the text than is there. He said it was good. He did not say it was perfect....or even "very" good.
@Wittgensteinism Answering a question that's not to your liking doesn't mean a dodge. Please attempt to unplug your ears with your fingers when you watch the videos. That helps.
It was a dodge, or a misunderstanding. The question was why did God make a world where animals kill each other, and is that not a contradiction . Craig answered by first arguing that the Bible doesn't say there was no animals suffering "before the fall." He spends that last half talking about caribou. The only point where he vaguely addresses the question: "It may well be the case that when God looks at this ecosystem...He sees this as a beautiful whole."
@Wittgensteinism No he didnt dodge the question. The questioner was raising an assumption that Genesis 1 = Young Earth and al the issues of death and suffering prefall which go into it... Craig's essentially saying that this isn't the case at all. Hence the examples.
I think this is the only time I would disagree with Dr. Craig "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Genesis 1:29 KJV Suggest everybody was a vegetarian then. God is life & I don't believe he would create things to live for a short while and then die..I hold to the doctrine that Death & Suffering is a result of the fall
One evidence that I see is that the vast majority of insects have a minuscule lifespan compared with mammals and reptiles etc. Imagine how overcrowded the insect population would be if they all lived forever.
I am a Christian and I do believe in a literal creation by God, however I do believe that the "Gap" theory is a plausible alternative to the traditional interpretation of Genesis. With that in mind, I have to agree with Dr Craig in that the death curse spoken of in the Bible is special to the human race, not to all life. (continued)
@Brightstar27 I am not sure what the book is proposing from just reading the book description on the website. I will be eagerly awaiting its arrival in the bargain shelf of Walmart hehe.....My belief is that earth was previously inhabited by another race of beings, angels perhaps, and that judgment fell upon them. Much scriptural references imply that this is true...I would be glad to correspond with you privately on this topic since the character limit here is quite inconvenient (cont.)
@Brightstar27 .....Who knows how long the earth lay dormant between the previous habitation and Genesis One? We have no way of knowing how long it was inhabited or how long it lay dormant except for geological studies, and even geological evidence can be erroneous since the ones interpreting the evidence are only human after all.
Gaia hypothesis is amazing! land cyles, magnetic cycles, salt cycles, earth's erosion fine-tuned with tectonic subduction, etc etc... who else but God could have made a closed loop system with thousands of varyables!
Mr Craig may be a great philosopher but he certainly isn't showing good form on bible knowledge in this presentation.
The most obvious being that the claim to 'Goodness' made by God was in reference to the creation of man in the garden of Eden. However what lay out of this boundary(uncultivated area) was most likely not good. However, even at that, the statement need to apply to the land or the animals as much as it would be toward the setting from which his will would be carried out.
creationism is not wanting to know what is true. all the people always misunderstand reality and see what they want to see. it's elementary psychology.
@ fidesquaerensintel89- This is not a matter of interpretation but rather a matter of understanding.So many hundreds of atheists I have explained this to on youtube love to use this exact same "argument" to try to convince the world that the entire Bible is a lie.You are correct in that you only need to accept Jesus to obtain salvation-But even then if you say the Bible is a lie, you have no salvation and as arrogant as you were at first is a sin. I know God very well.
@fidesquaerensintel89 -In Genesis chapter 2, is not a new creation of animals.Chapter 2 simply gives more detail to the account in chapter one. Beasts were created before man on the 5th & 6th days-Here God was calling attention to the fact that He created them "out of the ground" as He did man,but man, who was a living soul in the image of God was to name them,signifying his rule over them.-Concerning the making of Eve, God had already created man before He made Eve.Man was created AFTER beasts.
@shotsxxx bro chill out. If your gonna attack fellow believers because they believe in an old earth, what does that say? Its an important topic, but not important to your salvation. Its thing like this that spit and divide the brotherhood of believers. Also your acting very self righteaous when you assume you know scripture better than others and telling them to depart. You dont have to be a 'young earther' to be saved. Its accepted jesus christ as the son of god that saves you.
@fidesquaerensintel89 Let me explain to YOU what I am saying since you are the one having troubles understanding ME.Re-read your posts.You say one thing one minute and twist what you said the next.I would think you have an understanding problem but I really believe you are just full of yourself- DO YOU BELIEVE GOD MADE THE CREATURES AND PLANTS EXACTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN IN GENESIS? DO YOU BELIEVE HE MADE MAN FROM DUST AND WOMAN FROM MANS RIB WITH NO EVOLUTION INVOLVED, 100% COMPLETE?
@fidesquaerensintel89 -I have understood you perfectly.You are not so far advanced mentally as you keep insisting you are.Give me a break, you are a joke.Get over yourself,you look very foolish not intelligent.Too much empty,false,self-pride - Sure there are metaphors in the Bible but the Creation account is not one of them.You are trying to confuse the two..... Just like the atheists do. You seem to be an impostor.
@fidesquaerensintel89 - I have just researched some things you wrote me about a week ago. You said John MacArthur holds to your "Hermeneutic" ideas- You told me a very big lie to try to make your stance appear correct. FACT= MacArthur believes the earth was Created in a literal 6-24 hour days. He holds hard to the Bible being taken literally- He believes the complete opposite as you have said. If you are so smart and correct, why did you lie to me? "No liar shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven
Nope--that's why we cannot interpret without the Holy Spirit. The biggest issue today with many modern doctrinal traditions passed down are ones that have been read-into the scriptures instead of read-out in context. The NIV, NLT, and a few others use inconsistent translations, and also have outright contradictions. I'm not a KJV onlyist--but it's got these issues corrected---I'm not going to pretend translations will ever be perfect---but newer versions are biased.
I would disagree with Dr Craig on this point because on gen 1:30 Got gave the animals herbs to eat, and on Rom 8 Paul expresses that the creation is flaud and waiting to be redeemed. God cursed the earth for man's sake. I know God didn't say animals, but I'm Rom 8 applifies Gen 3 on that matter in calling it the creation. And on the Palms I'm sure God was making it clear that he is the one who gives the lion his food aka prey. God wasn't saying it's a bliss that the lion preys on other animals
I don't know whether that really answers the question. The was was whether science falsifies or verifies the claim that God created a good world, and why God created a world where animals kill each other. Craig answered the second part of the question, but not the first. The answer to the first is that (1) science doesn't tell us anything about whether anything is good or bad, and (2) some scientific theories deny that God created the world, and some offer evidence that God created the world.
@fidesquaerensintel89 -And you just can't stop yourself from another self pat on the back. You are not a Christian. You are a very rotten person. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANYMORE. I study and understand the Bible better than you ever will. You are foolish. Depart from me before I get tempted to sin.
@fidesquaerensintel89 I pray and talk to God Himself and when I ask Him of a thing, He answers me. He said you are no better than an atheist. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANYMORE-
@fidesquaerensintel89 Thats very Christian of you to insult me and then try to make yourself appear more intelligent than me.You are not!!!!!-You even spoke "down" on me to someone else. What about "being kind to one another" or "humble yourselves" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or.... Oh wait, I forgot you don't take the Bible literally- At least you can try to twist it to suite you personally. You are an obvious troll,"DRCRAIGVIDEOS" rule is NO TROLLS ALLOWED. BLOCK-
@fidesquaerensintel89 - "Luke14:26"-A similar statement in Matt 10:37 is the key to understanding this difficult command.The "hatred" called for here is actually a lesser love.Jesus was calling His disciples to cultivate such a devotion to Him that their attachment to everything else-including their own lives-would seem like hatred by comparison.(see 16:13)-(Gen.29:30,31) for similar usages for the word "hate."-
@fidesquaerensintel89 -"the whole scripture is not to be taken literally"-That statement is only your OPINION based on nothing but your will to avoid the things you wish to NOT acknowledge.So if you decide to kill someone you can say the Bible didn't really mean "don't kill"- Or adultery,other idols,etc. Your way of thinking is given to us by Satan so we will dismiss as much of the Bible as possible-You only want to live by your own rules without feeling guilt- (please see my other post to you)
I don't believe that there was no pain or death before the fall. To say that there is no indication of animal/human pain or death b/c of the fall, would be suggesting that by default pain and death were apart of God's perfect creation. When Adam and Eve sinned, they hide themselves in the coverings of an Animal. This happened after the act of both of them being deceived, so an animal must have suffered (to what degree?) and died.
@fidesquaerensintel89 By "hermeneutics" you mean satanists? Because that's just the kind of thinking satan would want people to have. My definition of "satanist" is anyone who knowingly or unknowingly does the will of satan. If we don't take the Bible literally we wont have to be concerned with accepting Jesus and asking Him for forgiveness or believe He is the only way to salvation.Please give references to those ER trips because of what is in the Bible.No liar goes to heaven!
Now I understand that Dr. Craig believes his interpretation of Genesis as I believe mine and that he disbelieves my interpretation as I disbelieve his. And I respect that. But can anyone really argue that the old earth/theistic evolution interpretation is grounded in the scripture alone and not determined by an understanding of the world that is foreign to the Bible itself?
@gondorking86 I think an old earth, evolutionist view of creation comes from views "of the world" first and foremost at the root, with biblical influences coming in as the second layer blanketing it. I agree with you that I think in order to make theistic evolution work, you have to add a lot of the world to the scriptures.
@fidesquaerensintel89 "And if you give someone who hasn't studied Hermeneutics, biblical languages, ANE history and biblical criticisms a Bible and ask them what the Bible says on many topics, you will end up with heresy.
Why does Dr. Craig reduce the death in Romans 5 to spiritual death? Does he not think that the physical death of humans is a result of the fall? I had always thought of that passage as speaking of all the facets of death, physical as well as spiritual. Anyway, I don't know anyone who says that Romans 5 is talking about animal death; what YEC's would say about Romans is that the groaning of creation in chapter 8 is all natural evil, including disease and natural disasters as well as animal death.
Does Dr. Craig hold that there were no thorns on earth before the Fall? If so, how does he account for fossil thorns in rock layers that are allegedly millions of years older than humanity? One thing that Dr. Craig did not address was that Genesis 1:30 has all appearance of indicating an herbivorous animal kingdom. I wonder if Dr. Craig thinks that there will be predation in the New Earth or if he thinks that Isaiah 11 describes an unbalanced ecosystem?
No, I have no issue admitting if I've translated things incorrectly. What I will NOT do, in order to be consistent--is curve my thinking to believe that science and reason have the first hold on Scripture, and to mesh my beliefs with those of evolution or 2.6 billion year old earth---years is years, otherwise, we have apparent contradictions in the Bible. I used to hold a neutral stance on this, but cannot any longer... it's either all true Scripture, or it's useless.
If years isn't years... like some say, then we've got kids under the age of 5 being pregnant. In the scope of hermeneutics, Scripture outlines that the universe has changed(God stretched out the heavens). God also promises that His word will be protected... and of all things, we would expect God--who made us in His image, to not have contradictions or lies within His Scripture. It's just open to consistency... worldviews collide if one holds "in the Beginning" isn't what it is...
@drcraigvideos The disagreement over Genesis does not effect a true believer's salvation, but it is an ENORMOUS stumbling block for non-believers. If evolution is true than why do we need God. If naturalism is valid than God is necessarily invalid.
BTW, apathy7170 thanks you for blocking him. That is very "open to discussion of ideas" of you.
@creationcamp Tell apathey7170 he was never open to discussion to begin with, so I blocked him for being a putz. But those who accept evolution doesn't automatically make them a naturalist, otherwise, you'd have to say people like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Howard Van Til, Michael Behe, and William Dembski are naturalists, which isn't true. I would argue if evolution is true, we DO need God: watch?v=OuhVAV7xlBc.
I believe that it is fairly safe to say that you block almost anyone whom you disagree with, or if you don't care for the validity of the posters' argument. And anyone who posts on these sights is open to discussion, that is why we bother posting.
Just a quick thought; God can use any one to move the Spirit to Him. The YEC issue is that if Genesis be false (myth) then the Bible is suddenly in quicksand from it's inception and any part of it could be labeled as myth/legend. That is why God states that His word will stand forever as it is, it will not change even if our ideas about it do.
I really like Dr. Craig and thanks to his arguments, he has equipped me with many defenses for my faith in God, but I disagree with him on points like this. His theistic evolution view is probably the biggest problem I have with him. I don't think God would call creatures that were dying "very good." And I believe death is the result of sin, not of natural causes.
Hommel125 1 month ago
The moron asking the question has failed to provide evidence for his silly belief that God is not capable of designing anything "better" than the earth.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
To those quoting the bible here as if it has any value, please explain the special meaning of the following verses, because I know you can't accept them as they are literally written.
Jeremiah 19:9 (KJV) - And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
asleepforaweek 2 months ago
@asleepforaweek what may not be of value to you personally, doesn't mean it does not render value to others. anyways, if you would read the passages that come before that starting at verse 7 it talks about how the people of judah and the inhabitants of jerusalem forsake the word of God and in turn later on in verses 8-9 He leaves them to their own doing since they have shut him out. This results in them having to result to war and perhaps cannabilism because they shut out God.
FeineFeind 2 months ago
Comment removed
FeineFeind 2 months ago
@asleepforaweek you can take my response in whatever way you want. it's all good. i usually try to read the verses before the one i refer to try and get a better understanding of it. anyways, be well.
FeineFeind 2 months ago
@asleepforaweek During the siege of Jerusalem by Babylon, food supplies ran out and the populace resorted to cannablism.
polycarp256 1 month ago
@asleepforaweek You have (intentionally?) misquoted those verses, you shameful, bald-faced liar.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne lol, there was only the request for an interpretation, and you're accusing him of being a liar already. Christian minds are so cloudy.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@asleepforaweek As others have said it's talking about how the people of Jerusalem did not keep to God commands, and went on a wayward course which led to their downfall. They were warned about this by Moses, and later Jeremiah. (Deut. 30:19, 20; Jer. 19:9; Lev. 26:29) The fulfillment of those warning by God prophets came true during the Babylonian siege, when food was not to be found, they resorted to cannibalism.
ClannadChap 1 month ago
God said that it took Him 6 days to create the universe, Dr Craig and others say that it took Him about 4745000000000 days, who do you trust?
HolyRevelation 2 months ago
There is actual scripture, that says that every bests of the earth, and every fowl of the air I have given every green herb for meant. That is indisputable that shows that all animals were vegetarians basically. Now, the Bible never says the age of the earth, so I'm not really on the side of the young earth, but I do believe it was much older. But that's really not the point.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
I was under the impression the impression that Dr. Craig, accepted and upheld biblical truths and realities, because he knew and studied the bible and Messianic prophecies. Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air... I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. The restoration = Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the L-rd.
Complaintdesk 4 months ago 9
@Complaintdesk
Why do would-be predators already have sharp teeth?
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds To eat food?
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@Complaintdesk Isa 65:25 doesn't describe this actual life.
olivleonardo 1 month ago
@Complaintdesk Crap like that? I wouldn't buy it either.
alphaenemy 3 weeks ago
@Complaintdesk You are right. There is nothing in Genesis that would suggest "the chase" (the killing of animals) before the Fall. And as you quote Genesis 1:30 indicates that the animals were plant eater. Plants do not possess the same life as man and the animals do. The only real account of the killing of an animal is in Genesis 3:21 where God made garments of skins for Adam and Eve, which happened after the Fall
TheHistoryguy10 5 days ago
Romans 5:12 "....by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Death, in the cosmos, did not exist until sin was introduced through the fall of man. Second, to say that God would call something "Good" that was dying and imperfect is contrary to God's perfection of eternal life....thus not "Good." I like Craig, but this kind of stuff is very alarming, liberal theology.
HalleluyahMAtt 4 months ago 3
@HalleluyahMAtt Don't be ridiculous. We get old and die essentially because of the second law of thermodynamics. Told hold to your view of no biological death at the fall, that would mean that the second law of thermodynamics did not exist before the fall. We know that to be false because stars have died before the fall and therefore the second law has always been around.
AegeanKing 3 months ago
@HalleluyahMAtt You do realize that plants are living things too, right? According to what you just quoted, there was already death in Eden when the animals ate the plants.
What Craig is doing here is very charitable, by closely reading the text to see what it actually does and does not say. He could take the far more obvious - and accurate - approach that the Creation stories and Genesis are mythology, not history, and we shouldn't get persnicity about the details unless they have a meaning
CoryTheRaven 2 months ago
@HalleluyahMAtt "liberal theology" -heh, that's a new one :p
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@HalleluyahMAtt
The Earth needs death or a recycle process to survive. Making the claim that God would disapprove of this does not change the fact that this is how Earth has worked from day one. Craig understands that because it's what science is showing to be true
To deny these findings b/c a few scriptures might interpret it differently is disingenuous if the evidence is contrary.
It sounds as if Craig is having an awakening moment .
NoProofOfHell 2 weeks ago
@HalleluyahMAtt i think ur wrong,What Paul had in mind in Romans 5:12 was the death of humans?Why would God introduce animal death later when it is Man who disobeyed,not the animals.Remember God is Just and everything is for his glory.
MrUrosSrb 1 week ago
Dr. Craig should watch some of Kent Hovind's debates. I don't agree with him at all but I Loveee him!
axe414 5 months ago
@axe414 Kent Hovind, while i appreciate his work, is not even on the same level as WLC. WLC has debated the top atheist and even the atheist leaders respect him.
REDRAGON12345 5 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 How can you seriously appreciate Kent Hovind? He denies fundamental theories in Science and does interpret Genesis (And the whole Bible) as if it were a Science textbook... Can't believe someone would look up to him.
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
Additionally the last plague to befall the Egyptians, the death of the firstborns, did not apply to humans alone, but also to the cattle., Exo 11:5 and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die,...and all the firstborn of the cattle.
This also supports the idea that 'death' may apply to creatures with 'lifeblood' - and that the 'death' of plants is seen differently. Hence, in support of Gen 1:30, a plain reading of the scriptures indicates a pre-fall world without death of man nor beast.
J9Burgess 5 months ago
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
This is consistent with the understanding that animals in the pre-fall world did not die, at least from predation.
J9Burgess 5 months ago
If there was a god, then he likely used evolution as a method for expressing it's creation in biology. Its fallacious to conflate evolution with atheism and non-Christian
JesusSatanAllah 5 months ago 2
@JesusSatanAllah "If there was a god, then he likely used evolution as a method for expressing it's creation in biology. Its fallacious to conflate evolution with atheism and non-Christian" i couldn't agree with you more! I think more of the conflict lies in origin where biology can't explain it well enough in terms of how a plan come about for cells.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
There was no meat eating by man or animal before Noah's flood according to the Bible. All life was originally created to be vegetarian and meat eating was not allowed by God before the flood.
The lion will eventually lay down (again) with the lamb
toobsucker 5 months ago
Craig gave a shaky answer. The guy asked why God would design a world with natural evil where animals eat each other (by extension, he was asking why animals and human beings have always suffered and been in the way of natural calamity). By citing a nice example about caribou overpopulation, Craig ignores the hardest part of that question. 99% of all species that have ever existed aren't here any more. That's more grim than Craig's fluffy caribou example, theistically speaking.
OphirLooped 5 months ago
Isaiah 65:25 says:: The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.
From the context, this verse is in accordance with Genesis 1:30. So it pretty much is saying that this is how God fashioned the eco-life systems in the Garden of Eden and also how it will be in the New Jerusalem.
graceteam 5 months ago 2
I admire WLC for his research and apologetics in time, and the like, but his answer doesn't correlate with Genesis 1:30. "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." Plus on a future Prophecy concerning the New Jerusalem in Isaiah 65:25 it says otherwise.
graceteam 5 months ago
28 dislikes because they realized the bible fits in with science!
5starsoldier 6 months ago
Dumb young earth creationist. I'm a Xtian but can't stand them. They get in the way.
Why do lions naturally have sharp teeth and claws....why do some animals seem to be built to eat certain prey? yeah.........
AceofDlamonds 6 months ago
@joshlazarus (Continued...) and we can infer this because the word "species" is never found in the Bible. The closest word we see is "kind," which isn't terribly specific. Some have theorized that many species can arise through natural selection from one created "kind." The second thing to consider is that God only presented before Adam land-dwelling creatures and birds. All the marine life and amphibians were probably not taken into account. (continued...)
Legomyegoorj 6 months ago
@joshlazarus Here is one possibility to consider: you may think of Genesis 1 as a summary of the entire creation week, and Genesis 2 as a more in-depth look at Day 6. Obviously modern scientists classify organisms by species, genus, etc... Genesis makes reference to "kinds" of animals. Now, if you already consider Young Earth Creationism as a theory worth dissecting, you may find some important facts. First is that speciation has occurred since creation (continued...)
Legomyegoorj 6 months ago
Did Bill Craig forget about Romans 5:12? "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:..." (KJV)
I'd very much be interested to know how he would go about responding to this... (I do not mean this to sound sarcastic or condescending, so don't take it as such).
Legomyegoorj 6 months ago
@joshlazarus But the text doesn't specify the amount time between the naming of the animals and the creation of Eve.
Legomyegoorj 6 months ago
@Legomyegoorj (Continued) Now, does it sound more plausible that Adam, with all the time he had that day, could have named every Kind of animal, become lonely from (and probably BORED of) this, and have God put him into a deep sleep to create Eve?
You be the judge, however. I'm not really trying to take any stance on the matter (we humans in our limited capacity cannot be absolutely sure.)
Legomyegoorj 6 months ago
@HolyRevelation
Amen. Our God is also a personal God--he didn't just light the fire and step back to watch it all happen--he has been active in his creation from the beginning.
Danthemanlyman7 6 months ago
@Danthemanlyman7 the earth doesn't have to be 6000 years old for god to be active in creation. Also, if your going to say craig doesn't serve the god of the bible, you might as well say that people like st.Augustine don't serve the god of the bible. Plus, the scientific evidence shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old....
jamaicanification 6 months ago
The Eternal, All Powerful, All Knowing, Omnipresent, and Omniscient GOD that I serve, could create the universe in 6 days. William Lane Craig's god needs 13.7 billion years.
William Lane Craig does NOT serve the Christian God of the Bible.
HolyRevelation 6 months ago
@HolyRevelation "could create the universe in 6 days. William Lane Craig's god needs 13.7 billion years."
Could, but that doesn't mean He did. If you study cosmology you find that He made the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
I will point out however that since God is outside of time, from God's perspective it doesn't matter if it was 6 days and 13.7 billion years since to God's frame of reference both of these time periods are equivalent to a split second.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz The all powerful GOD that I serve could have created the universe in a split second.
Do you now how William Lane Craig gets13.7 billion years from the Bibles 6 day creation?
That's OK, nether does he!
HolyRevelation 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@HolyRevelation Actually from his perspective he did. Because he's outside of time both 6 days and 13.7 billion years are equivalent to a split second to him.
But we can tell directly from our perception within time, that the universe is 13.7 BY old, by using Hubble's law, and noting that according to relativity one light-year of space is also the same as one year of time -since space and time are linked in relativity. Since we can see 13.7 billion light-years that means 13.7 billion years.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
HolyRevelation 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz @JohananRaatz From our perception within time, that is true but we know that the universe as well as light from the stars is expanding away from earth, faster and faster, ie red shift. The speed of light is subject to change, science can speed it up or slow it down.
Witch came first, heavy elements or stars?
Did you know that without heavy elements, you can't have stars and without stars, you can't have heavy elements?
HolyRevelation 3 months ago
@HolyRevelation The expansion is why the universe is that old. It's in Hubble's law. The velocity of an object is equal to it's distance (meaning how far back in time) times Hubble's constant. You then take the inverse of Hubble's constant to find the age of the universe, which comes out to about 13.7 BY.
The second generation stars came before the heavy elements. First gen stars only need helium and hydrogen. And the term for "made" in Genesis for "making stars" is actually "made apparent."
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz Just curious, do you believe that deliberate, intelligent design best explains creation or do you believe in accidental, spontaneous, generation?
HolyRevelation 3 months ago
@HolyRevelation Yes I do think God designed us. It's just I think He used guided evolution to do so. Actually if you look into the fossil record you discover that there are points in evolutionary history that appeared to have happened far too quickly to be explained by blind mutation. The Cambrian explosion is one instance, and then also there is the evolution of modern humans (they say evolution mysteriously accelerated by something like 200 times faster than normal to produce us).
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
I respectfully disagree, actually the fossil record shows that most animals living today exist in the fossil record, UNCHANGED. All of Gods creation is supernatural, if His word says 6 days, I see no reason to believe in 13.7 billion years. I believe that if God wanted use to believe in billions of years of evolution, He would have told use about it.
Gods word couldn't be any clearer, 6 days of creation and animals reproducing after their own kind, NOT billions of years of evolution.
HolyRevelation 3 months ago
@HolyRevelation But they have discovered quite a number of formerly missing links -fossils in "states of change." They've also found them just where they'd expect if evolution were true. Look at Tiktaalik for example: watch?v=_-iioE2Vd1s
"6 days"
You've heard of relativity right? Well it turns out that when you do the math, the Big Bang expansion causes 13.7 BY to actually BE 6 days -because the time is warped! A physicist named Gerald Schroeder found this by accident: watch?v=BsKhhIQJiaI
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
If fish evolved into land animals like Tiktaalik says, both male and female fish would have to evolve at the exact same time and also be sexually compatible.
You may believe that both genders of fish evolved at the exact same time, perfectly compatible for reproduction but the math says it's statistically impossible.
If Jesus could instantaneously created enough adult fish to feed multitudes of people, I see no need for evolution. Why would He use evolution instead of just creating them?
HolyRevelation 2 months ago
@HolyRevelation They evolved at the same time. Because it was a population at large that was evolving and spreading genes around. It wasn't a sudden leap from one species to the next but a transition -the statistics don't mess up when you do that..
"instead of just creating them"
That is a good question, but the overwhelming evidence suggests he did it that way for some reason.
"who do you trust?"
Both. 6 days = 4745000000000 days in relativistic time warp. (remember Schroeder's discovery)
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Thank you for your feedback.
I've added Gerald Schroeder to my reading list.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
Oh really Dr William Lane Craig... Well appreantly you forgot the part of the bible that says Romans 8:22 For we know that the WHOLE creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
So then how do you explain disease? Cancer, tumors, deformities? How do you explain dinosaurs? neanderthal men? By reinterpreting God's word into a 4.5 billion year old earth and taking progressive creationism as your position you might as well start reinterpreting alot of other passages as symbolic.
cctman 7 months ago 2
@cctman You have to deal with these difficulties. You have to understand that some of the Bible writters are 3000 yo or older. The Bible is not a biology book, it's a spiritual/moral guide and it's 100% true, but you have to interpret it. The Bible is in fact very rich: it has poetry, history, symbolic texts, etc. Note that the word "world" for Moses or Noah doesn't mean the same for us. They thought the world was Asia/Europe. That's why we all are Not descendants of Noah. Dinosaurs are a fact.
joel230182 2 months ago
Eeh, I don't know about this one.
markderosa 8 months ago
Chuck Missler had some interesting views regarding the temporal discrepancy between a 6 day creation and the accepted naturalistic view of a universe that is billions of years old.
His argument proposed that both may have been possible, now that the theories of relativity have given us insight into the nature of time - that it is not a unilinear absolute process, but a relative physical property. I'm not formally trained in physics, so I cannot comment on the plausibility of this claim.
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@JCrownwell I am trained in physics, and I've actually heard this idea before -first from Gerald Schroeder. In terms of relativity it makes sense, and the numbers that come out of his calculations are amazing. When you divide the age of the universe by the Big Bang expansion factor it gives out something very close to six literal days.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 9 months ago
Romans states that "death passed upon all men" because of the Fall; it says nothing about the animal kingdom, regardless of how much some try to argue otherwise. Also, it's noteworthy to mention that, in the Genesis account, God barred the way to the Tree of Life after man sinned, stating that man would live forever otherwise. But this suggests that man needed access to the Tree in order to live forever - necessitating that he would not have lived forever otherwise.
phoenix1861 9 months ago
This is the point where I must disagree with Dr. Craig, although I have utmost respect for him, his arguments are sound, and logically presented, however I can see no reason(Perhaps Dr. Craig can present one) why an All Powerful,Omnipresent,and Omniscient GOD could create a universe,such as we observe today in 6 days,or 6 minutes if He chose to !
An Eternal, All Powerful, All Knowing GOD does not require billions of years for His Work to come to fruition
bkeay100 9 months ago
@bkeay100 But realize that if God created our world, then science shouldn't be in conflict with it. The study of his creation shouldn't contradict eachother. The unverse is billions of years old and man has evolved over tíme. Why is God restricted in time? If he could create the world in 6 days he could also do it in 0,000001 second, why didn't he? Because he isn't restricted in time, he is timeless. And when we study his creation we see that our unvierse was created 13,7 billion years ago. :)
thetraceur123 8 months ago
Personally, I think a day spent on the killing floor of any slaughterhouse in the country would help some 'young creationists" you speak of more than the latest , hottest "young creationist" book.
TheXiantruth 10 months ago
@TheSixStringRevolver Great points.My primary concern is Craig's lack of grasp of Gen 1/ 2: I'm used to him having a good-to-excellent working knowledge of the Bible that I'm taken aback some.
Then again, I've studied and taught the Bible for 35 years now and I think that that passage is WAY under-appreciated by most everyone in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
"Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy" by Matthew Scully helped me to reach that conclusion.
TheXiantruth 10 months ago
Dr. Craig, what about Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25. What about the manna from the sky, there are no barns with flour in the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere, or are there?
Death is death, and the Bible says that it came through sin.
We simply know too little as to how we live and on what source to be able to say the entire specification of the fall.
PeaceAndGloryMB 10 months ago
Is that Plantinga second from the left?
empreme 11 months ago
@empreme yeah ;]
graceteam 9 months ago
Craig fan here. That said, this is undoubtedly the weakest argument I've ever heard Craig give and bespeaks a lack of awareness of Genesis 1 and 2 whereby animals and humans are made to be herbivores (Genesis 1:26-29)
TheXiantruth 11 months ago
@TheXiantruth
that's a great point
GoldenbanjoDJ 10 months ago
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young ones shall lie down together; And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain..." Isaiah11:6-9
freakingengel 11 months ago
Comment removed
freakingengel 11 months ago
Comment removed
freakingengel 11 months ago
Comment removed
freakingengel 11 months ago
My view is simply this, Read Gen1:26 (man given dominion over everything on earth.) Man falls Gen 3. Read Gen 3:14. This doe's suggest that animals fell along with everything else. and thats why everything to this day DIE"S. God created things to live on.
GOT CURSED?... Welcome to genetic digression (Mutations) . Man lived for hundreds of years after the fall. Adam lived 930 years Gen 5:5, Noah lived 950 years Gen 10:29. Over time...Well...
Its quite possible animals lived a long time also.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain Two problems with that idea: insects and bacteria. Insects and bacteria have a very short life span. The common house fly has a life span of just a few days. Insects and bacteria reproduce at a phenomenal rate! They would soon overcrowd all other forms of life if not for death making room for new progeny.
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar What isn't understood is what was Gods perfect plan had man not sinned to begin with. Before the fall no one can say what would have occurred once the earth was filled to Gods perfect will. Remember we were created by Him, and for Him... not for us. Perhaps this world was just the start and would have been expanded or another world utilized and so on. All creation was Gods very good work, Perfect. After the fall if you'll excuse the phrase, "All bets are off". Now we need a savior.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain I assume you believe in a literal 6 day creation. Well, if this were so, how do you explain the rebellion of Satan and his followers and his fall from heaven and his subsequent temptation of Eve? The depths of the pride that Satan descended to could not have rationally been achieved in such a short time. The answer is, it didn't happen that way.
If you study the original Hebrew, the word that we know of as "created" is really "fattened"....
Challagar 11 months ago
@ChallagarFirst of all, We have to establish a clue of when satan may have been created. Read Ezekiel 28:13-15 for a clue. The word day in Heb text, YOME, from one sunset to the next. Also Job 38:4-7.
He was created sometime between day 1 and 3.
Also how long was Adam in the garden and then Eve before the fall? Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born so it was quite a long a bit of time. Created: Bara (baw-raw) also, to select or choose. Why use fattened in this context?
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain "Created: Bara (baw-raw) also, to select or choose. Why use fattened in this context?" Watch the video "Genesis 1 verse 1 - Part 2 - Bara" by ancienthebreworg
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar "The depths of the pride that Satan descended to could not have rationally been achieved in such a short time. The answer is, it didn't happen that way".
Why not? How long doe's it take to get puffed up and rebel?
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain It would certainly take longer than a few days because he wasn't in it by himself. Satan had to have convinced a third of the angelic host to rebel with him. Politics is a subtle and sometimes complex undertaking. It takes time to instigate dissent and rebellion. He had to convince them that God somehow had hidden motives against them. Not only that, convincing a 3rd of heaven's host to rebel is not quite as simple as deceiving a newly created human to eat a piece of fruit.
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar You speak as if these creatures are limited in their functioning as we are. For all we know time and action for them could be lightning fast. Lets not forget that these are not living breathing creatures as we experience and understand. Angels function on a completely different plain of existence from us. Wouldn't you agree? So then this may be a non issue for them. If we are to believe some scientific thoughts on relativity, well even in our realm it's quite thought provoking.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@Challagar A simple example from our perspective of how these fallen creatures function is how they zip all around us doing their best in wrecking havoc upon all of our lives every day. We should not under estimate the enemies powers or abilities.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain Read Daniel chapter 21. Notice in verse 13 that the angel was delayed for 21 days. If a minor skirmish of heavenly beings lasted for 21 days, imagine how much longer a major war of heavenly being would last, not even counting the politics that led up to it.
Challagar 11 months ago
@1984bornagain Correction, Daniels chapter 10, I had the number 21 stuck in my head somehow hehe
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar We were talking about satans rebelion agains't God his Creator, No contest. The Almighty God casting down satan occurred sometime before the fall. It seems God just did it, Luke 10:18. Besides I already pointed out After the creation week satan had plenty of time no one knows how long but Its apparent sometime after day 6 he rebelled. Also notice time between Gen 2:25 and Gen 3 Eve was not tempted right away. They were both together in Eden for some time apparently.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain ... Also, why does it say that God created Light after water? Don't believe me? read it again. You notice that it says, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." The very next verse: "God said, Let there be light." From the original meaning of the text, and the conundrum of the existence of angels and the downfall of these angels in such a short time imply that there is much much....
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar Are you under the assumption that light means sunlight, or when God moved on the face of the waters in means earthly waters?. The earth was formless (void)... it wasn't there. The earth wasn't created until Gen 9-10. " Do some critical thinking and more bible study before just being spoon fed the traditional reading of Genesis One"
Please, lets not be condescending. Lets reason with God together.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain "Are you under the assumption that light means sunlight, or when God moved on the face of the waters in means earthly waters?. The earth was formless (void)... it wasn't there. The earth wasn't created until Gen 9-10." God said Let there be light. Western culture applies an abstract concept to scriptures where the Hebrew does not. Genesis 9 says "gathered together", not created. It says, "appear" as in to be seen not to be created.
Challagar 11 months ago
@1984bornagain ...much more to the Genesis account than we know. You have to understand that the translators of the Bible understood the world from a western perspective which has many abstract concepts. The original Hebrew had no such abstract concepts. In other words, much is lost in the translation! Do some critical thinking and more bible study before just being spoon fed the traditional reading of Genesis One
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar We can know more than you think and believe me I do think critically. Old earthers and gap theorists just can't come to grips with God being able to pull this off in a short period of time. In my opinion we as a whole have been conditioned or (spoon fed) as you say for over 150 years this darwinian junk and some have a very hard time escaping its grip. Lets face it none of us were there period. It takes more faith to believe in millions of years. Evidence, I am not a blind monkey.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain I absolutely believe that God can do everything the Bible said he did in 6 days. But what convinces me that He didn't create from nothing (at that time) is the ancient Hebrew and the prior existence of angelic beings.
I do believe that God created the universe at some point in time. I don't doubt that for a second. But when He did it is another matter entirely. I am just following the facts where they lead me, no matter how uncomfortable it is to question established beliefs
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar "I am just following the facts where they lead me, no matter how uncomfortable it is to question established beliefs" , Yes I have use similar thoughts to establish my point and I could just flip that around. I feel however that for some reason it is way to uncomfortable for progressive creationists and others to read Gods word in context they just can't wrap their brain around it. As I said similarly before, We all have been under an indoctrination if you will for over 150 years.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@1984bornagain I don't however believe that God created the Earth billions of years ago or that He used evolution to populate it. As for how scientists came up with 4.5 billion years I don't have a clue, but there is alot of evidence that they were wrong. Just look up Spike Psarris and watch his videos and read his website.
Challagar 11 months ago
@Challagar I believe at looking for evidence on both sides of the argument thats how we grow. Science is a wonderful tool for this, after all God created science.
As I said before none of us were there, all we have is Gods word thoughtfully translated from reliable mainstream text.
1984bornagain 11 months ago
@Challagar Before 1955, it was popular to believe the age of the earth was only 3 billion years. During 1955 an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson claimed the age of the earth to be the same as that of meteorites. He believed that the meteorites were left-over remains of material dating from the time of formation of the earth and other planets. The value of 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth is now the popular belief used by most evolutionary scientists.
pjumpy 6 months ago
@1984bornagain An excellent source for unlocking the meaning of the original Hebrew is the Youtube channel ancienthebreworg
Challagar 11 months ago
The Bible repeatedly says "And God saw that it was good." Notice that He didn't say that it was perfect?
Challagar 11 months ago
@1984bornagain Also, you said "All creation was Gods very good work, Perfect." You are reading more into the text than is there. He said it was good. He did not say it was perfect....or even "very" good.
Challagar 11 months ago
craig completely dodged the question.
Wittgensteinism 11 months ago
@Wittgensteinism Answering a question that's not to your liking doesn't mean a dodge. Please attempt to unplug your ears with your fingers when you watch the videos. That helps.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago 37
@drcraigvideos
It was a dodge, or a misunderstanding. The question was why did God make a world where animals kill each other, and is that not a contradiction . Craig answered by first arguing that the Bible doesn't say there was no animals suffering "before the fall." He spends that last half talking about caribou. The only point where he vaguely addresses the question: "It may well be the case that when God looks at this ecosystem...He sees this as a beautiful whole."
mellamosean 4 months ago
@Wittgensteinism No he didnt dodge the question. The questioner was raising an assumption that Genesis 1 = Young Earth and al the issues of death and suffering prefall which go into it... Craig's essentially saying that this isn't the case at all. Hence the examples.
Brightstar27 11 months ago
I think this is the only time I would disagree with Dr. Craig "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Genesis 1:29 KJV Suggest everybody was a vegetarian then. God is life & I don't believe he would create things to live for a short while and then die..I hold to the doctrine that Death & Suffering is a result of the fall
Law19157 1 year ago
Where can I watch the whole thing?
yehudaful1 1 year ago
One evidence that I see is that the vast majority of insects have a minuscule lifespan compared with mammals and reptiles etc. Imagine how overcrowded the insect population would be if they all lived forever.
Challagar 1 year ago
I am a Christian and I do believe in a literal creation by God, however I do believe that the "Gap" theory is a plausible alternative to the traditional interpretation of Genesis. With that in mind, I have to agree with Dr Craig in that the death curse spoken of in the Bible is special to the human race, not to all life. (continued)
Challagar 1 year ago
@Challagar John H. Walton's "Lost World of Genesis One." Look it up on amazon ;)
Brightstar27 11 months ago
@Brightstar27 I am not sure what the book is proposing from just reading the book description on the website. I will be eagerly awaiting its arrival in the bargain shelf of Walmart hehe.....My belief is that earth was previously inhabited by another race of beings, angels perhaps, and that judgment fell upon them. Much scriptural references imply that this is true...I would be glad to correspond with you privately on this topic since the character limit here is quite inconvenient (cont.)
Challagar 11 months ago
@Brightstar27 .....Who knows how long the earth lay dormant between the previous habitation and Genesis One? We have no way of knowing how long it was inhabited or how long it lay dormant except for geological studies, and even geological evidence can be erroneous since the ones interpreting the evidence are only human after all.
Challagar 11 months ago
Gaia hypothesis is amazing! land cyles, magnetic cycles, salt cycles, earth's erosion fine-tuned with tectonic subduction, etc etc... who else but God could have made a closed loop system with thousands of varyables!
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
I missed the part in nature where god hands prey to the lions.
GoogleVideoMan 1 year ago
Mr Craig may be a great philosopher but he certainly isn't showing good form on bible knowledge in this presentation.
The most obvious being that the claim to 'Goodness' made by God was in reference to the creation of man in the garden of Eden. However what lay out of this boundary(uncultivated area) was most likely not good. However, even at that, the statement need to apply to the land or the animals as much as it would be toward the setting from which his will would be carried out.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
creationism is not wanting to know what is true. all the people always misunderstand reality and see what they want to see. it's elementary psychology.
insanewarlock666 1 year ago
Anyone that believes in a theist god is delusional. If you are experiencing delusions you are crazy by definition. SEEK HELP NOW!
Delusion: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
face1003book 1 year ago
@face1003book
do you have evidence to invalidate the hypothesis of a theist God?
041882 1 year ago
I love Dr. Craig, but the verse he is referencing is Psalms 104:21, not Proverbs. Minor mistake.
SonofDust777 1 year ago
@ fidesquaerensintel89- This is not a matter of interpretation but rather a matter of understanding.So many hundreds of atheists I have explained this to on youtube love to use this exact same "argument" to try to convince the world that the entire Bible is a lie.You are correct in that you only need to accept Jesus to obtain salvation-But even then if you say the Bible is a lie, you have no salvation and as arrogant as you were at first is a sin. I know God very well.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 -In Genesis chapter 2, is not a new creation of animals.Chapter 2 simply gives more detail to the account in chapter one. Beasts were created before man on the 5th & 6th days-Here God was calling attention to the fact that He created them "out of the ground" as He did man,but man, who was a living soul in the image of God was to name them,signifying his rule over them.-Concerning the making of Eve, God had already created man before He made Eve.Man was created AFTER beasts.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx bro chill out. If your gonna attack fellow believers because they believe in an old earth, what does that say? Its an important topic, but not important to your salvation. Its thing like this that spit and divide the brotherhood of believers. Also your acting very self righteaous when you assume you know scripture better than others and telling them to depart. You dont have to be a 'young earther' to be saved. Its accepted jesus christ as the son of god that saves you.
jamaicanification 1 year ago
Where was this debate? Where can I see the full version?
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Let me explain to YOU what I am saying since you are the one having troubles understanding ME.Re-read your posts.You say one thing one minute and twist what you said the next.I would think you have an understanding problem but I really believe you are just full of yourself- DO YOU BELIEVE GOD MADE THE CREATURES AND PLANTS EXACTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN IN GENESIS? DO YOU BELIEVE HE MADE MAN FROM DUST AND WOMAN FROM MANS RIB WITH NO EVOLUTION INVOLVED, 100% COMPLETE?
shotsxxx 1 year ago
where are the rest of this debate?
danielsk 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 -I have understood you perfectly.You are not so far advanced mentally as you keep insisting you are.Give me a break, you are a joke.Get over yourself,you look very foolish not intelligent.Too much empty,false,self-pride - Sure there are metaphors in the Bible but the Creation account is not one of them.You are trying to confuse the two..... Just like the atheists do. You seem to be an impostor.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 - I have just researched some things you wrote me about a week ago. You said John MacArthur holds to your "Hermeneutic" ideas- You told me a very big lie to try to make your stance appear correct. FACT= MacArthur believes the earth was Created in a literal 6-24 hour days. He holds hard to the Bible being taken literally- He believes the complete opposite as you have said. If you are so smart and correct, why did you lie to me? "No liar shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
Nope--that's why we cannot interpret without the Holy Spirit. The biggest issue today with many modern doctrinal traditions passed down are ones that have been read-into the scriptures instead of read-out in context. The NIV, NLT, and a few others use inconsistent translations, and also have outright contradictions. I'm not a KJV onlyist--but it's got these issues corrected---I'm not going to pretend translations will ever be perfect---but newer versions are biased.
droptozro 1 year ago
I would disagree with Dr Craig on this point because on gen 1:30 Got gave the animals herbs to eat, and on Rom 8 Paul expresses that the creation is flaud and waiting to be redeemed. God cursed the earth for man's sake. I know God didn't say animals, but I'm Rom 8 applifies Gen 3 on that matter in calling it the creation. And on the Palms I'm sure God was making it clear that he is the one who gives the lion his food aka prey. God wasn't saying it's a bliss that the lion preys on other animals
EndOfNumbers 1 year ago
I don't know whether that really answers the question. The was was whether science falsifies or verifies the claim that God created a good world, and why God created a world where animals kill each other. Craig answered the second part of the question, but not the first. The answer to the first is that (1) science doesn't tell us anything about whether anything is good or bad, and (2) some scientific theories deny that God created the world, and some offer evidence that God created the world.
philochristos 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 -And you just can't stop yourself from another self pat on the back. You are not a Christian. You are a very rotten person. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANYMORE. I study and understand the Bible better than you ever will. You are foolish. Depart from me before I get tempted to sin.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 I pray and talk to God Himself and when I ask Him of a thing, He answers me. He said you are no better than an atheist. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANYMORE-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Thats very Christian of you to insult me and then try to make yourself appear more intelligent than me.You are not!!!!!-You even spoke "down" on me to someone else. What about "being kind to one another" or "humble yourselves" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or.... Oh wait, I forgot you don't take the Bible literally- At least you can try to twist it to suite you personally. You are an obvious troll,"DRCRAIGVIDEOS" rule is NO TROLLS ALLOWED. BLOCK-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 - "Luke14:26"-A similar statement in Matt 10:37 is the key to understanding this difficult command.The "hatred" called for here is actually a lesser love.Jesus was calling His disciples to cultivate such a devotion to Him that their attachment to everything else-including their own lives-would seem like hatred by comparison.(see 16:13)-(Gen.29:30,31) for similar usages for the word "hate."-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 -"the whole scripture is not to be taken literally"-That statement is only your OPINION based on nothing but your will to avoid the things you wish to NOT acknowledge.So if you decide to kill someone you can say the Bible didn't really mean "don't kill"- Or adultery,other idols,etc. Your way of thinking is given to us by Satan so we will dismiss as much of the Bible as possible-You only want to live by your own rules without feeling guilt- (please see my other post to you)
shotsxxx 1 year ago
I don't believe that there was no pain or death before the fall. To say that there is no indication of animal/human pain or death b/c of the fall, would be suggesting that by default pain and death were apart of God's perfect creation. When Adam and Eve sinned, they hide themselves in the coverings of an Animal. This happened after the act of both of them being deceived, so an animal must have suffered (to what degree?) and died.
ladyEulaelie 1 year ago
@ladyEulaelie
*I do not believe that there was pain and death before the fall.
ladyEulaelie 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 By "hermeneutics" you mean satanists? Because that's just the kind of thinking satan would want people to have. My definition of "satanist" is anyone who knowingly or unknowingly does the will of satan. If we don't take the Bible literally we wont have to be concerned with accepting Jesus and asking Him for forgiveness or believe He is the only way to salvation.Please give references to those ER trips because of what is in the Bible.No liar goes to heaven!
shotsxxx 1 year ago
Now I understand that Dr. Craig believes his interpretation of Genesis as I believe mine and that he disbelieves my interpretation as I disbelieve his. And I respect that. But can anyone really argue that the old earth/theistic evolution interpretation is grounded in the scripture alone and not determined by an understanding of the world that is foreign to the Bible itself?
gondorking86 1 year ago
@gondorking86 I think an old earth, evolutionist view of creation comes from views "of the world" first and foremost at the root, with biblical influences coming in as the second layer blanketing it. I agree with you that I think in order to make theistic evolution work, you have to add a lot of the world to the scriptures.
b0de 1 year ago
Good response on the issue from Dr. Craig. The issue is certainly interpretation. YECs do read the "no animal death" issue into the Genesis account.
markriser1 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 "And if you give someone who hasn't studied Hermeneutics, biblical languages, ANE history and biblical criticisms a Bible and ask them what the Bible says on many topics, you will end up with heresy.
fidesquaerensintel89 14 hours ago" - fidesquaerensintel89
And if you give someone all of those things and he don't have the Spirit of God living in him, you will still end up with heresy.
gondorking86 1 year ago
Why does Dr. Craig reduce the death in Romans 5 to spiritual death? Does he not think that the physical death of humans is a result of the fall? I had always thought of that passage as speaking of all the facets of death, physical as well as spiritual. Anyway, I don't know anyone who says that Romans 5 is talking about animal death; what YEC's would say about Romans is that the groaning of creation in chapter 8 is all natural evil, including disease and natural disasters as well as animal death.
gondorking86 1 year ago
Does Dr. Craig hold that there were no thorns on earth before the Fall? If so, how does he account for fossil thorns in rock layers that are allegedly millions of years older than humanity? One thing that Dr. Craig did not address was that Genesis 1:30 has all appearance of indicating an herbivorous animal kingdom. I wonder if Dr. Craig thinks that there will be predation in the New Earth or if he thinks that Isaiah 11 describes an unbalanced ecosystem?
gondorking86 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89
No, I have no issue admitting if I've translated things incorrectly. What I will NOT do, in order to be consistent--is curve my thinking to believe that science and reason have the first hold on Scripture, and to mesh my beliefs with those of evolution or 2.6 billion year old earth---years is years, otherwise, we have apparent contradictions in the Bible. I used to hold a neutral stance on this, but cannot any longer... it's either all true Scripture, or it's useless.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro: Why the dichotomy? Please explain.
hawke123 1 year ago
@hawke123
If years isn't years... like some say, then we've got kids under the age of 5 being pregnant. In the scope of hermeneutics, Scripture outlines that the universe has changed(God stretched out the heavens). God also promises that His word will be protected... and of all things, we would expect God--who made us in His image, to not have contradictions or lies within His Scripture. It's just open to consistency... worldviews collide if one holds "in the Beginning" isn't what it is...
droptozro 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos The disagreement over Genesis does not effect a true believer's salvation, but it is an ENORMOUS stumbling block for non-believers. If evolution is true than why do we need God. If naturalism is valid than God is necessarily invalid.
BTW, apathy7170 thanks you for blocking him. That is very "open to discussion of ideas" of you.
creationcamp 1 year ago
@creationcamp Tell apathey7170 he was never open to discussion to begin with, so I blocked him for being a putz. But those who accept evolution doesn't automatically make them a naturalist, otherwise, you'd have to say people like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Howard Van Til, Michael Behe, and William Dembski are naturalists, which isn't true. I would argue if evolution is true, we DO need God: watch?v=OuhVAV7xlBc.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos we really don't need this debate on theological ground evolution is scientificly dead. period
BlessedShreder911 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
I believe that it is fairly safe to say that you block almost anyone whom you disagree with, or if you don't care for the validity of the posters' argument. And anyone who posts on these sights is open to discussion, that is why we bother posting.
creationcamp 1 year ago
@creationcamp
"but it is an ENORMOUS stumbling block for non-believers."
How so?
"If evolution is true than why do we need God. If naturalism is valid than God is necessarily invalid."
I agree.
sypher113 1 year ago
It's interesting to hear Craigs take on young earth creationism.
Jayoung1000 1 year ago
So sad people that are so 'smart' would rather trust in scientists then the bible.
mrswbrock 1 year ago
I agree that the death brought on by sin was a spiritual death.
seinfan9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Rickhard529 1 year ago
@Rickhard529
Just a quick thought; God can use any one to move the Spirit to Him. The YEC issue is that if Genesis be false (myth) then the Bible is suddenly in quicksand from it's inception and any part of it could be labeled as myth/legend. That is why God states that His word will stand forever as it is, it will not change even if our ideas about it do.
creationcamp 1 year ago