The Problems With "Is Genesis History?" (Christian Critique) 

Gavin, thank you for making this video. You described my journey from being raised as a Christian, getting a doctorate and turning towards atheism, to turning back to Christianity after I got deeper into apologetics and having my own spiritual experiences. I have been reading the comments on this video and many are misinterpreting your message. Your argument is not to convert YEC to OEC. Your argument is to deflect against the pull of atheism among those that cannot genuinely accept a young earth philosophy.

I am a YEC, and I think you are spot on. While I believe that YEC is the correct view, we YECs should present other views fairly, but to be fair, OEC nor Theistic Evolutionists rarely, if ever, give this kind of fairness to YEC. I wish we could all do better in this area. Thank you for this video, and God bless. Proverbs 9:7-9 He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

I rarely comment on videos in general, but your short summary is spot on necessary to help avoid a faith crisis for some younger likely Christians. I believe in an old earth. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the gospel. Dr. Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe Ministry has given me peace in his gentle but precise scientific joining with the inerrancy of scripture. I am going to be 81 shortly but my mind is not gone quite yet. I am offended by the Ken Hamm heavy handed interpretation of scripture and the harm it can cause to some Christians caught in the trap. I have found that I will be joining my grandchildren on a trip to the ARK this winter. I found it necessary to have a teaching session with them to explain the controversy to them and not allow it to have an effect on their faith in the love and truth of Jesus in our lives. Your presentation is probably too deep for them to absorb at their age, but grateful for your consise summary of the errors in the movie

I'm a YEC, and I agree that the group can be overly dogmatic, and I apologize for anyone that has struggled with their faith because of it. But if I may say something in our defense, it does often feel like we're often standing alone against the rest of the world. Even other Christians often treat us like the black-sheep of the faith, lumping us together with flat-earthers and geocentrists. I appreciate how you don't ostracize us for our different opinion and I ask that you forgive us if we tend to be oversensitive, we've been picked on a lot over the years and we generally feel backed into a corner. Its made us overly defensive and quick to lash out.

I think YECs in general tend to always create this dichotomy though. That’s not unique to this video, which you seem to be implying. I grew up with belief in YEC and it was always taught to me as a dichotomy - either you believe in God or you believe in old earth evolution atheism. It was very much presented as an either/ or. In fact, I was in my 40’s before I ever ran across Christians who believed in OEC. I’m still working through what I actually believe, personally, for what it’s worth.

False dichotomies are some of the worst forms of sloppy thinking - and even deception. I belong to a YEC church - they are lovely people who love Jesus and give their hearts to Christ - but I see this danger too: If they are exposed to other views, they either have to clamp down or will lose their faith. I love your distinction between being literal and being historical. I have heard YEC speakers mock and disparage Old Earther using false dichotomies and misrepresentations. Their clinging to textual interpreters who reinforce their viewpoint is perhaps their biggest weakness.

I'd like to see you have a dialogue between you and some prominent young earth creationists.

Thank you for speaking into this topic Gavin! I work in college ministry and just yesterday met with a guy who had serious doubts because he had been shown he HAS to interpret Genesis 1 as literal and didnt know how to reconcile that with the science classes he is taking. I have a science degree and am an OEC myself, and hearing the love and thoughtfulness in your arguments is extremely helpful! Bless you for doing Gods work to help bridge this gap culture is trying to create

Would you consider doing a video of some exegetical unpacking/teaching on Genesis 1:1-2:3? I think it would really serve people to see an older earth position clearly expounded from the text!

I appreciate your heart in these things! My comment would be in my observation and experience in the scientific community at large there does seem to be hostility toward not just the historicity of Genesis but the idea that this universe is intelligently designed. So in my mind it's not unreasonable to at the very least ask the question of what presupposition are these scientists interpreting the data from? This in my mind seems to be what the "Is Genesis History and people?" at Answers in Genesis are combating. In your videos I haven't really heard you address that as being the case from the "other side." The Atheistic evolutionary scientists present sort of the same dichotomy. Overall though I agree with your heart and premise that there is room to for discussion and even disagreement on these things and still remain faithful to Christ! I wonder if it would be helpful to do a video or series of videos that talk about the views that are very problematic and ones that one can hold and still remain faithful to the text. Thanks for your heart and ministry!

This channel is such a good resource for people struggling with issues like this.

Gavin, first, I appreciate your willingness to challenge certain views knowing many in your audience might not like it. That authenticity is greatly valued. On your first point, while I would also appreciate a recognition of the middle ground that the movie neglected, all variations apart from YEC do in fact borrow heavily from the conventional (naturalistic) paradigm. Speaking of clarification, when you clarify YEC has taken a big role in American culture only fairly recently, you didn't clarify that our culture has also accused YEC of being invented only recently (which is false). I appreciate the fact your video has only certain points you want to address, but so does the movie you are critiquing. Second, no one in the movie claimed a literal (or literalistic) take of the creation account equates to thinking EVERYTHING in the bible is meant to be taken as literal. This is a false equivalency, and a very common, though false, accusation. The YEC I've researched freely recognize differing genres of writing in scripture (I know of no credentialed speaker/author/teacher in YEC who thinks the parables of Jesus are meant to be taken literally, for example). The genre of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is also highly disputed, so the non-literalistic interpretations also need to be justified. Many people claim they know the genre (such as the contested "mytho-history" genre) but because there are so many differing interpretations (a lot of middle ground) let us be careful to recognize all sides need to make a good case. I think you recognize that, but it's worth reiterating. Third, you made a good clarification on the Grand Canyon. However, mainstream science (and many Old Earthers) present a false authority (pretending to have it all figured out) as a matter of standard practice in all scientific matters. This is in fact one of the things this movie is reacting against. On the Hebraist matter, while Dr. Boyd does indeed believe the days of creation are literal 24 hour days, you'll notice did not put those words in anyone else's mouth. He did not claim all the Hebrew experts argue the Genesis creation account teaches 24 hour days - he said they all argue Genesis is written in narrative form; a literalistic reading of the nature of the creation days is a separate matter. You've made a false equivalence here, akin to the same problems you highlight in this video. Lastly, when you explain how you feel this movie might prove a stumbling block to some, you actually deferred to the false authority of mainstream science, making no distinction between the data and interpretation of data (a major distinction and one constantly pointed out by YEC). The creation narrative is not the only thing at stake; the reliability of scripture is also on the table, and the creation account is only one area where people struggle to accept the biblical description. Astrophysics teaches blind, unguided nature created the universe and thus there is no need to appeal to a supreme being to explain it; I doubt you would defer to the scientific consensus and challenge the notion God created the universe. You would likely distinguish between the data and mainstream interpretations of that data. If mainstream science returns to an eternal universe model (and once again deny the universe was created at all) would you accept that claim and reinterpret the biblical teaching that God is the creator? A similar problem applies to the exodus out of Egypt, where the mainstream evidence seems to contradict (as a matter of interpretation) the biblical claims. That is the battle YEC fights - separating interpretation from the evidence. We should also recognize the stumbling block created by claiming certain miracles, such as the virgin birth, or resurrection from the dead, or talking plants or animals. A lot of believers (perhaps not you personally) prefer to explain way the supernatural aspect of much of what scripture describes. I hope this comment contributes more to "iron sharpening iron", as I believe your video is also intended to do.

Thank you for being a consistent, peaceful, challenging and encouraging voice on this topic.

So helpful as usual. Very much appreciate your patient and clear response.

I almost broke up with my now husband when we were courting and he brought up that he was not a YEC. I was so convinced that a person could not be a Bible believing, Scripture loving, faithful Christian and believe anything else. My two greatest problems with anything other than an YEC view: I could not accept death and decay being present on earth before the Fall, and I could not get over terminology that indicated 24 hour days (day and night) or a worldwide flood (repeated emphasis on flooding over the WHOLE world). But discovering Hough Ross as well as meeting sincere Christians that I respected and saw loving God’s word who did not have a YEC view helped me widen my acceptance of other viewpoints and wanting to help other Christians in my age range who might deconstruct over this issue. Needless to say, I am glad that I did not break up with my now husband over this issue. I also feel badly that the YEC view is treated as the only view a consistent, fully devoted follower of Christ can have.

Listening to InspiringPhilosophy actually helped me to see that old earth is not necessarily outside of possibility or even orthodoxy. Then I stumbled upon your videos which are also very helpful. I am still kind of working through it right now.

Wonderful topic that deserves so much more attention. Thanks Gavin for another great video!

A young man I now mentor left the faith because he was raised to believe this false dichotomy. Please keep preaching on this.

I was under the impression that all theologically orthodox Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox) before the 19th century believed that the universe was created around 4000 to 5500 B.C.

Yes, Exodus 31:17 is litteral. God was not using it figuratively saying, "in 6 epochs thou shall work and on the 7th epoch thou shall rest......." Talk about a long work week 😅

All the world best Hebrew scholars agree on the grammatical laws on the use of a number and yom, and they all agree the use of tov, the fact that some dogmatically then jettison the rule they all assert to accommodate naturalistic worldviews does not change that fact.

Thank you Gavin. As a Christian who is also a scientist, I find it frustrating how the scientific data is often misinterpreted by young earth creationists. It is also frustrating how often some of these same people insist it is science vs religion and that I have been indoctrinated by science or that I’m compromising on my reading of scripture. I take scripture very seriously and have spent years thinking about this issue. I find the forced dichotomies nonproductive. Thank you for being respectful and desiring to see Christians unite in our love of the gospel.

Hey Gavin, have you read any of John Walton's work on Genesis? I'd be curious to hear your take.

Authors intent: Well what did the ancient Hebrews believe? ““Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” So the Israelites needed to interpret what day meant? They didn’t take that as literal days? No, that’s exactly how they took it.

Fascinating stuff, but I wish you would stop conflating "poetic" with "allegorical". Look to poetic examples like Psalm 105 and 106, they describe what I expect you would call "literal history", but do so poetically. What you need to find are indicators in the text of allegory, parable, hyperbole, etc, it is not enough to simply look at the style the words were arranged as poetic and then conclude a non-literal reading is intended. It would be like if someone sung letters of the alphabet, but because they put it to music, you assume they must be presenting an alphabet with artistic liberties taken in the content as well as the presentation. It simply does not follow.

I'm most interested in your critique of the misleading appeals. I agree with your critique of Austin's statement about the Grand Canyon. But I disagree that there is a problem with Boyd's statement. Boyd stated, "First of all, it's not poetry, the world's greatest Hebraists all affirm this is a narrative." In no way does Boyd claim, as you take him, that all of them believe in 24 hour 6 day creation. Many of the world's greatest Hebraists don't believe in the inspiration of that narrative, so they obviously don't hold to a 24 hour/6 day creation. Nonetheless, does this statement serve the creationist perspective? Yes. But only as it addresses the debate about the genre of the creation text. So when you say "It's not at all true that the world's greatest Hebraists all hold to 24 hour days", you really aren't addressing what Boyd was saying. Boyd is an expert on Hebrew. And not only that, he is an expert on who the world's greatest Hebraists are, have been, and what their views are. He knows they don't all hold to 24 hour days; but he does know, as he states, that they hold to Genesis 1 being narrative, which is all he states here.

I was almost one of those guys who lost their faith over having to view it as literal. This channel has been one of the most helpful resources with strengthening my faith. Thanks!

I'm glad to see clarification on the importance of the age question in relation to the age of the earth, and pushback against those who try to claim a literal reading of genesis is essential to being Christian. I'm concerned however that there's a general dismissal of the scientific claims that YEC people make. If the issue on the YEC side is to dismiss the theological claims and reasoning of OEC supporters, then the OEC problem is a tendency to simply ignore or disdain YEC scientific evidence. As I continue studying to become an engineer, and strive to enhance my understanding of science and the natural world as a part of this, I continue to see more and more evidence amass in favor of a young earth. I'm concerned that the theological elitism of some YEC supporters which leads them to dismiss OEC people out of hand as having sided with the secular world is being mirrored by a scientific elitism among OEC supporters which leads them to dismiss all YEC supporters as being those who reject science and the evidences available. Both of these are problems that must be corrected for productive discourse to occur between us. I myself am a YEC supporter and I believe in this because of the combined weight of both the theological and scientific evidence. I do not however disdain or disown as brothers in Christ those who disagree with this position based on sound reason and Biblical principle.

This is a really important video. Like others in the comments, I've come across individuals who believe there are only 2 options (YEC vs naturalism) when it comes to this topic and they walk away from Christianity as a result. Thank you for this video Gavin. I pray your message reaches many who need to hear it!

My college experience was very similar to the one you mentioned. Although I never lost my faith, I went through a long period of doubt. In the end, my faith was strengthened, no thanks to the young earth creationists.

Great work Gavin, a well made video as always! Content such as this is not only informative and edifying but also incredibly fascinating. God bless

Gavin, you do such a good job with this kind of work. Always sensible and based in the word but also in the context of issues. I've struggled with this issue for a while, more so from other believers acting as though this false dichotomy makes me less of a Christian. Kierkegaard and other historic figures like Augustine clearly would think that is irrelevant, but it still makes you feel like an outsider. I'd like to hear you talk about Dispensationalism at some point, your guidance and scriptural understanding would be a blessing because I feel it's a similar sort of issue.

Here's where we differ: If I make a video presenting what I firmly believe, while also responding to a particular viewpoint, I don't have to go into all the other "options". For instance, if I make a video on soteriology, I can present my view that I'm thoroughly convinced of and explain how it is different from a given opposing view. I don't have to present all the other views of soteriology as options for the viewer. I'm not robbing the viewer of the chance to decide in that case; I can make a video about whatever I want. It's the same with _Is Genesis History?_ The filmmakers are not doing anything wrong by presenting their view as opposed to a common secular view. They don't have to present your view. You can make your own video and present your beliefs as additional options. And that's exactly what you've done. I'm not sure why you're disappointed in the movie.

I think many of your concerns with the movie have to do with the limitations of the format. They necessarily have to simplify and summarize to make a sharp, focused movie that holds the viewer's attention. If they present several alternative views and argue against them it may not work well in this format. And if they're going to keep it simple, doesn't it make sense to contrast the view they are promoting with its most prominent alternative, the one that we are continuously indoctrinated in by the prevailing secular culture? That may be frustrating if your own view is not discussed in the film, but what would happen if they added a third view? People who hold a fourth view would complain about the false trichotomy in the film. Unfortunately, I would agree that some of the statements made in the movie are oversimplified and perhaps could have been stated in a more careful way to avoid giving the wrong impression. Dr. Austin's statement sounds a bit surprising. Perhaps he means that among those geologists who are actively researching and publishing on the formation of the Grand Canyon, most of them are increasingly invoking catastrophic mechanisms in their explanations. That seems compatible with the context of his statement. But is it true? I have no idea, I don't read the geological literature. What research did you do to check his claim? Dr. Boyd's statement about Hebraists, if I recall, was in the context of an explanation of how the grammatical features of Genesis 1 are those of Hebrew narrative. Is it false that Hebraists identify those features in the text? In both of these cases I can see how someone might get the wrong impression, but the way you've presented their statements without context ironically may be misleading about how misleading their statements are. It shows how tricky it is to avoid these issues with concise summary videos. Regarding the concern about this being a stumbling block, this seems to be a concern for all views on Genesis. People from every viewpoint are making this claim about the other views, and they all have anecdotes to share. I don't know how to adjudicate these claims. It seems like whatever you say about Genesis, or even if you don't say anything at all, someone somewhere is going to find a way to stumble because of that. But I suppose most would say "if the truth makes you stumble, then so be it." So which stumbling is a concern depends on which view you think is true. If the truth makes people stumble, are we obligated to present a false view as an alternative? If the Trinity makes people stumble, do we present unitarianism just in case? If not, then what are we to do?

Helpful and clarifying review. Thanks, Gavin!

This is not a salvific issue. YEC and OEC are both fine. Interpretation of historical scientific evidence is also very subjective, and secular pseudoscience has won out in the arena of "public education."

IIRC there was a geologist named Glenn who had a site correcting YEC and later remove his work from the internet and said the only ones using his work seems to be atheist who attacking Christians. He rebuked OEC on a Christian forum as they always sided with the atheist against YEC. He wrote YEC are still his brothers and sisters and didn't have much use for atheism. He seem to agree with Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." I have a feeling your video will more likely just give atheist ammo against YEC and not much more. I believe God has a sense of humor and it would be funny if it turns out YEC were right all along.

I'd like to pose a question to OEC. Why is the flood included in along with the creation account as being non-literal? I understand the arguments, especial, with the creation week and agree there seems to be a lot of poetic language and symbolism, however i'd argue the flood seems very different. Even if you accepted Genesis 1-2 was figerative, why place the figurative nature of genesis all the way to chapter 11? Textually it seems arbitrary and i havn't heard a solid answer to this question

Exodus 20 clears up the issue. 1 Day was 1 Day, evening and morning, and in like manner the commandments follow God’s pattern of work for 6 days and rest the 7th

I don't think the earth's age is a hill to die on. There is no Bible passage where the writer's intent was to tell the audience the earth's age. Jesus and the apostles never preached the earth's age. Since it's not in the Bible therefore my conclusion is that it's not fundamental to the Gospel.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. As a pastor and college professor, I've seen the negative impact YEC on many students, and it was part of my decision as a teen (many years ago) of why I decided to become an atheist for a while. This video, your video responding to Ken Ham, and your Noah's Flood video are all so helpful and needed. I've met pastors who know OEC is true, but do not have your courage. They refuse to say anything because they fear the negative pushback from many of their church members who have been convinced of YEC. Please keep speaking up.

Fifteen years ago I would have appreciated this. But then I learned enough molecular biology to understand that the notion that all life evolved from a microbe is mythology, unsupported by modern science. It's not a "false dichotomy" to categorize all views into two categories. The view that all life was created recently is _extremely_ different from all other views, which all hold that all life "evolved" from a mythical first life, regardless of how they may each differ in detail.

Great video! I wish I could like it more than once. As a new theistic evolutionist, I think the one strength YEC has is the simplicity of explaining how sin entered the world and how Adam’s sin spread to all of humanity. I would love it if Dr. Ortlund (or anyone else) could make a video or direct me to one answering these questions: 1. If Adam and Eve weren’t the first humans, then how did their sin apply to all humanity? 2. When did all of humanity become “made in God’s image?” 3. Death entered the world through Adam’s sin, but Adam and all humans were created through death (natural selection). How does this work?

Im not saying you have to be a young earther to be saved. Church history shows many people who believe diffrent things and are all saved. But i do think that if Jesus quotes in the begining He made them male and female and cited that to confirm He made only 2 genders, they are meant to marry and never divorce. Jesus doesnt state you can take that as a myth or different interpretation. So creation week also seems to also simple and straight forward.

Great analysis, Gavin! I began to watch “Is Genesis History?”, but I was bothered by some of the same things that you were. I see that many of the comments here are from Young Earth Creationists (with a few from Theistic Evolutionists). I’d place myself in the Progressive Creationist camp (Hugh Ross, et al).

Thank you. Like you, I am concerned that Christian “fence-sitters” may view these movies, and other similar information, and decide against Christianity because the views in these movies present only two choices.

Is that intro new? It’s nice 🔥

Great work Gavin! I grew up YEC and eventually changed once I understood genre analysis, myth as a genre, and literalistic vs literal readings. I love our YEC family and encourage them to at least understand that we're not "siding with the world" against the Bible or something, we simply have a genuinely different, and well attested, understanding of what the Bible is communicating.

For those saying there’s no false dichotomy between YEC and atheistic naturalism: not all OEC hold to strict naturalistic evolution or even theistic evolution. The whole intelligent design movement (Stephen meyer, behe etc) hold to old earth creationism but disagree with evolution

Regardless of one's interpretation of genesis 1 and 2 it is at the very least inexcusable to use incorrect evidence or statistics to support one's claim.

So when a YEC movie presents its case, it must go through all the other various views as well for them to not do harm? Since when do old earth creationists do this for young earth creationists? I’ve never seen Hugh Ross from “Reasons to Believe” make this effort.

I think some of these interviewers are either willfully ignorant or dishonest. Probably the former.

I really love this video. I’m currently in the Theistic evolution frame but grew up with the YEC idea being almost a non-negotiable thing. I actually think this is one of the biggest issues in the modern church. Great content I’ve been watching for a few weeks and love this channel!

Hey Dr. Ortlund, could you make a video addressing the problem of evolutionary evils. Prior to me accepting theistic evolution, I remember this issue really being a stumbling block from YEC. Today, I’ve been exposed to a handful of reasonable theodicies, but I wonder what your thoughts are.

I’m a young earth creationist, but I agree with Gavin, we shouldn’t exclude the old earth creation positions and lead people to believe they don’t exist. I don’t think giving old earth creation as a safety net for Christians struggling in school is wise, but it should still be fairly represented and argued against.

It’s so sad that relationships have been destroyed because of this whole debate. As a Christian since 1983 and a Christ Follower who’s NEVER believed in a young Earth, I’ve had friends who are brothers in Christ who are no longer friends to me as a result. One telling me that in their eyes I’m no longer a Christian.

Gavin, do you have any opinions about John Walton’s view on creation? I read his book a long time ago but I remember it being very compelling.

Regarding the Grand Canyon, there are two important things: (1) It *could* plausibly have formed catastrophically and (2) There are mainstream geologists who believe this, so it is not kooky to suppose it did. I think everyone knows that mainstream geologists all also believe in millions of years, so I'm not sure that is misleading. As for your geologist friends, I used to be a research physicist and there are MANY things that I don't know especially if they were current after my undergraduate time when I was studying physics most broadly. And I am constantly learning about new things that there just wasn't time to cover at the time, and much of that is through youtube creators! I have also learned many little-known facts via YEC people. For example, did you know that warmer oceans would cause the interior antarctic icesheets to grow due to much increased precipitation? To a physicist this is obvious once the idea is presented, but the mainstream has never discussed this; the mainstream always only ever states the facts and hypotheses that might cause us to catastrophize over global climate change.

The question, 'Is Genesis History,' while sincere, presupposes all cultures communicate what 'history' means in the same way. They do not. The Ancient Near East was not concerned with the mechanics of the physical world, at least not over and against what the gods were up to. Of course modern scientism only believes in the existence of a mechanized universe, no gods, no invisible powers (although there are forces and laws). Genesis was written TO the latter culture, not the former. Christians can both accept what we have discovered since Newton about physical laws AND believe in the existence of principalities and powers, but it is best to read the biblical texts with the latter in the front of our minds.

Hi, Gavin - fair point, that it would have been helpful to go through the options. However, if you believe in the biblical young earth, and evolution is destroying people's faith and lives, then this would be the main battle they pick. The crisis is more because Christians think they need to believe the Bible, and that evolution has been proven which it has not. Evolution is based on faith, just like Christianity is based on faith, but with more evidence and more reason. "Very recent" - several thousand years is very, very old ... it is only because we have been trained to "think" in billions of years. There is no real middle, the evolutionists know that the theistic evolution does not make sense. They know it contradicts the Bible. Does that mean that theistic evolutionists are not Christians? Not at all. It does mean they do not believe what God, Jesus, and Paul say about the core event which gave us all being. Progression through death is a huge reason to believe the Bible as it is written. When you say it is historical, then you mean it is not a made up story about a historical event. Gilgamesh was not historical, it was mythical, about a historical event. Genesis is historical, telling the history of what happened. The only reason "young" earth is more defended is because since Darwin, evolution has taken hold, without proof or evidence, and brainwashes the whole of society, even the church. Evolutionary time scale is huge, most of the strata can only be explained by a worldwide flood. Polystrate fossils like long tree trunks going through "millenia" of strata. Folds of many metres of strata - must have been soft. Mt St Helens showing rapid strata production, and rapid valley formation. Dating methods are way off - look at the samples of modern vulcanism dated to thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years. Stasis of the genome due to regulatory error detection and correction. To mention a few. Genesis 1-2 has been proven to be written in historical Hebrew, not poetical. It comes from a much earlier period, so like our language, it will have changed. I think you have hit the mark with some fair criticism, but missed the mark with the main point they are making. Your God is too small ... and I too suffer from the same, we are recovering sinners with rescue under way🙂 By the way, any genuine intermediaries yet? Anyway, appreciate your gentle attitude, keep on seeking the truth, as we all need to, and may the God of Truth bring us all to the unity of faith in Christ Jesus.

Hey Gavin, I got locked out of my patreon account so can't get in to comment, but wanted to suggest that consider responding to "the cessationist" documentary that G3 put out. As someone who is cessationist by tradition, it would be really helpful to hear your voice on the topic!

I'm a young earth creationist and most likely always will be, but I think you can be a Christian and believe God used Evolution. I mean I think its bizarre but as long as you believe He's the one that did it, I don't know if the how exactly matters, and as long as you believe in Jesus and are connected to the vine, then you is a Christian. Look, God called many unlearned (according to the bible) I don't think He is going to hold us up to a vigorous level of intellectual truths. nope, Faith! that's what God wants, I believe, faith

I'm a YEC and I really don't think we're being ignorant in the glaring gaps in evolution. There are serious issues that aren't addressed because it would lead to YEC and people aren't willing to accept that.

I really appreciate this video. I almost feel afraid to let other Bible believing Christians know I that I believe in an Old Earth because that is seen as nearly heretical. However, as I have done some lay reading on astronomy and cosmology, I see a beauty in the processes that appear to be in place which would require long lengths of time to complete. There is an elegant beauty in the systems God built into the Universe that allow for the creation of stars, the fusion of hydrogen and helium into heavy metals, and the development of new star systems, and many other long-term processes.

Ive flipped back and forth on this issue ultimately ended up yec still wrestling through issues like the ages of the patriachs not sure if i consider them literal but i do think this debate isn't who has the facts but how we interpret the same facts according to our presuppositions

8:58 note to self to look up Deborah and Barak - 2 versions

The movie is super well produced and super fun to watch. Shame that the theological or scientific content is not the best.

I think the Documentary is fair, so far as what it purports to do. Young Earth Creationism is the view of those who produced the Documentary, and they are bringing that conviction to bear, not against the plethora of other views held among Christians as well as naturalism, but simply against naturalism. I don't see this as anymore imbalanced than should a theistic evolutionist produce a documentary that contends with naturalism. He doesn't necessarily have to interact with other views, like Young Earth Creationism. So, I guess I'm just curious to know why the creator of the documentary is under obligation to broaden the scope of his project?

12:34 they’re not claiming false authority you are. Your claiming science is the authority, however, Christians would claim the Bible is the authority.

There’s also one part in the film where they’re talking about carbon dating and I can’t remember the numbers exactly so excuse me but the guy was saying that it can only date back to around 6,000. But when I went looking on my own other scientists were saying no it’s more like 60,000.

You can believe what God says He did, or you can listen to the foolishness of men and call God a liar. It's an easy choice for me. I believe God!

Yes, it is, it is literal because anybody that reads it can see the writers of Genesis and other books, made clear distinctions of their intent, and what they intended to portray. In other words, the adjectives and time frames that were given were intentional therefore there is no ambiguity.

As Christians we despise straw man arguments. Therefore YECs shouldn’t use straw man arguments to justify their own fundamentalist interpretation.

It's not a young Earth or Universe, it's as old as we have determined but it was created that way, just as all the animals, plants and even Adam and Eve were created at a certain age. However, it was created thousands of years ago, at the age God determined they needed to be created.

Not to be overly pedantic, but as an historian, my biggest gripe is the title itself. The title, “Is Genesis Truth?” would have been more fitting, as it makes the assumption that history (a process of inquiry and evidence-sifting) and truth are the same, which they are not. Anyway, thanks for the review; I’m really enjoying the channel so far!

Thank you 🎉❤. God bless you

I am a young earth creationist from Australia, and I have two primary problems with your arguments. Firstly, the documentary Is Genesis History was made to set out the young earth creation model rather than going into old earth creation. Therefore, the documentary is correct for the purpose intended. The end of your critique, I felt, was an emotional guilt trip with that example of a young girl reading her geology textbook and her supposing that there are only two options. Well, that girl can go onto a young earth creation website which will show her the amazing research that confirms the young earth creation model and will ultimately strengthen her faith. Furthermore, this scarecrow argument posits a university student that does no additional research. I put it to you that this person doesn’t exist in universities by design. I put it to you that people watching this documentary and looking further at young earth creation research will actually strengthen their faith, which I would say I am one of them. I regard you as a brother in Christ and you are doing great work for the gospel. Jude

I don't think the criticism is valid. The film takes head-on the overwhelming view presented by society, contrasting it with the most classic Christian view. It is not a survey of all possible creation views. It is not obliged to acknowledge all points of view. The idea that young earth creationism has developed in recent centuries goes without saying: It has to respond to a radical shift in popular belief. The moviemaker's position is firm and defends an uncompromised Biblical view and does it extremely well. The six-day creation account in Genesis is extremely clear in referring to six distinct days. Even if these are interpreted as "long days", the account makes no sense from the perspective of naturalism. It is only coherent as a divine act of creation. The film illustrates that by ceding the authority of Genesis long ago, the church opened the door to increasing disregard for scripture overall, which is undeniably true, regardless of whether a few Christians claim to represent a compromise position. Those believers perhaps should undertake the same kind of education program to present their own point of view.

This is great, but let’s talk about Genesis 6 and giants!

6:32 what are the other perspectives, then. Isn’t it only whether or not God created? Which he did, of course

4:22 it’s not, it’s one of those two either God created or he didn’t. And of course, the truth, and fact of the matter is, he did

0:38 they are, and it is. You know how I know, because the infallible word of God says so.

Dr. Nelson taught a summer session I once attended on evolutionary biology (which is the area where his philosophical experience lies). In my experience, he was a very open, honest, and fair thinker towards views different than his own...and that's coming from a person who holds different views than him on the subject of creationism. I am not surprized he distanced himself from some of the more misleading implications of the documentary.

Reasons why Genisis is literal 1. The Bible is God's word. God does not lie. 2. If it was not literal, then Jesus would have corrected it 3 When God finished His creation, He called it good. 4. At the time, when emphasis wanted to be placed on words, it was done through repetition. The word "day" is repeated over and over in Gen 1 6. If the day is a long period of time, then how long did Adam and Eve have to rest on the 7th day? 7. Death came through man's sin. If it was a long period, then death came before sin. 8. The reason for the genealogy in Genisis 6 is exactly because God knew false priests would come in the last days. You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about and ate being deceived by the devil. The basic trick of the devil is, "did God really say...?"

Agreed Gavin. I believe a lot of people have unnecessarily stumbled away from faith over this issue. Praying that the future will hold a more generous posture for those who disagree on this issue and that its history will be fully considered.

I personally am a young earth creationist, for various reasons, but I really appreciate the points you brought up. Love your channel!

I've also seen the argument made about this not being Hebrew poetry and that may be the case, but that does not mean that it isn't poetry. I think there is evidence outside Israel in the greater Ancient Near East (ANE) that seem to qualify Genesis as part of the ANE creation myth genre. It also very clearly refutes the idolatry of all other ANE myths.

I don’t think the movie ever says there aren’t other options apart from naturalistic evolution and YEC. It just presents them as two popular paradigms to contrast.

Objection 1) false dichotomy: just because someone is comparing or contrasting two ideas it does not imply that those are the only two ideas on the table. That was something read in by the critic. Objection 2) literal vs historical. I agree that those are different things and could have been parsed more carefully. The critic also played a little fast and loose however with the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle applies to true dichotomies, i.e. a proposition and it’s negation. Not fundamentalism vs another belief. Kinda of a semantic dispute related to the first objection. Objection 3) the scientific objection. I’m not sure it’s fair to call this objection scientific considering the examples given have nothing to do with science. The objections are over appeals to scientific and linguistic authorities. I feel like the critic confuses misleading with unsubstantiated. The actual charitable thing to do here would be to at least try clarify what the speaker meant by what they said and ask for evidence.

Thanks Gavin. Much needed. Long time Dr. Hugh Ross adherent here. Plus he exhibits much fruit of the Spirit in his communication. Keep it up.

As a YEC, I don't care much for the documentary, but for different reasons. Your logic is valid when it can be established that a 3rd option is possible. But there are many YEC who don't believe there *is* a 3rd option, and they have a right by conscience to hold to it. If Gen 1 is literal, then accepting alternative interpretations would be problematic. Your argument is strengthened only if OEC is truly possible, and the point of the documentary is to argue there is no 3rd (or 4th) option. Is the documentary wrong? I think some of the argumentation is poorly conceived for sure, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. I love reading Spurgeon, Warfield, and CS Lewis, but as you know, there are many fine theologians who disagree as there are those who agree. I know this kind of discussion can get stressful, but I have to say, I'm willing to push back and say a literal 24 hour interpretation is correct, and that there is no other option. What remains is how well a literal view can be communicated, which I don't think the documentary does very well. BTW - I'm not concerned if Paul Nelson walked back - it's not up to him!

It’s encouraging to hear your take. I’ve been trying to give this same understanding regarding the false choice a voice for many years. Thank you

Well I appreciate your approach to speaking into these topics even while I think you are incorrect on evolution. I think you underestimate the damage that view does to peoples faith.

I appreciate the gracious tone, but I couldn't disagree more with the view that a young earth creation position is anywhere near as damaging to evangelism as the day-age convoluted mess. Also, the point about the young earth model being the new kid on the block... that is so far off the mark. An age of thousands of years held sway as the majority view right up until a world looking for a naturalistic alternative to God needed a massive timeframe to seem plausible.

Hey Gavin, this comment isn’t specific to this video but what are the odds you would do a video on the Lordship/Free Grace Controversy? Most channels speak uncharitably and often turn to belittling each other. It would be nice to hear a gentle and charitable voice on the discussion that gives clarity like yours. Thanks for all the work you do!

Thankyou Dr. Ortlund, your videos introduced me to the other options that are our their on interpretation of Genesis.

my question for you then is how far do you go? I understand the idea that the earth might be very old as that could exists and not undermine the truth of the bible. What I would struggle with is biological evolution. To say that for millions of years life was evolving in that process dying over and over again would seem to contradict the bibles view on death being the consequence of sin, death being only part of creation after sin, and imperfection in the life of organisms due to God's curse on the earth. And then i would wonder how do we see the flood? if that did actually happen that would change the earths surface dramatically, so was it that Colorado river that cut through the canyon or the flood or both??

The geologists in these films seem either deluded or dishonest.

Gavin I appreciate your heart and willingness to approach these issues with nuance. That being said I am going to offer some push back. It is sad to hear you and many others use the "genre" argument to say the days of creation aren't literal 24 hour days. If you believe scripture to be inherent as you say then why don't you and others use the same argument to claim that the Sabbath is not a literal 24 hour day. Since the commandment in Exodus 29 specifically references the 6 days of creation and the 7th day God rested as the establishment of Sabbath how is this not God contradicting Himself? Further Christ references the days of creation when talking about Sabbath and He spoke of Adam as a literal person. The biggest problem with the genre argument is that other scripture refutes it. So you either have to say scripture isn't inherent or you have to argue that the Sabbath Commandments are not referring to a literal 24 hour day. Also I would challenge you to find believers who subscribed to any old earth creation before 1809.

The reason Creation has taken on the role it has so recently is due to the theory of evolution. The church figured they could take and use geological long ages, sure insert a gap between "The world was formless and void". But then this opened the door for the theory of evolution which makes death a natural part of God's "Very good" creation which negates the significance of sin and Jesus's death on the cross. The foundation of our salvation. That's why creationists have become so utterly staunch on the subject. Opening the door to compromise with the world has only compromised the church.