First Twenty Minutes of Dr. Craig and Dr. Ken Keathley

Once Again, the Truth of Tota Scriptura is not the Error of Sola Scriptura, Young Earth Creationism is NOT Protestantism · First Twenty Minutes of Dr. Craig and Dr. Ken Keathley

Four Views on Adam and Eve | A Conversation on the New Book
Reasonable Faith Video Podcasts | 14 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9nTB8_QR5c

My comments start out with one on the "Columbus crisis" leading to the publication of Sublimis Deus.

14:47 A solution proposed (I think by a Jesuit) was that "Indians" / First Nations came over to the Americas on a land bridge, which according to Plato's account of Solon's acount of Egyptian priests sank. A giant island called Atlantis.

As far as I am concerned, I'm very happy with this solution.

Also, if the Black Sea was slowly rising and Atlantis had just sunk just before, Nimrod had an excuse, like what Josephus said.

"He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!"
(from Antiquities, Book I, chapter 4, § 2)

Not a sufficient excuse, God had made a promise in Genesis 9, and He hadn't broken it and still hasn't broken it. But kind of a social excuse for what he was telling the guys.

Those who held on to God's promise could be told "can't you see what's happening?"

18:02* And prior to the 1880's, the majority position among Catholics was, the Earth was young.

Here's a Young Earth Creationist NOT regretting the conversion to Catholicism.

david janbaz

@davidjanbaz7728

Do some actual research on the Church Fathers about Genesis 1-11 and their views.

They AREN'T YEC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@davidjanbaz7728 You said "they" as in "all of them" ...

Let's distinguish "YEC" from "six-literal-days" ... I'm aware some weren't six literal (normal) days, St. Augustine was in that camp, as seen from a discussion books IV to VI in De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII.

But he was as clearly YEC. It's very clear over books XII to XVI in City of God (which you can read in English on Newadvent dot org).

I'd like you to examplify a Church Father who was NOT YEC, and that without confusing the issue over two other ones:

• six days being aspects of one moment
• six creation days having corresponding millennia after creation.

So, where is your prime example?

Next day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@davidjanbaz7728 My reply seems to have been lost, I'm reposting it: [reposted all of above]

Next day

a bit later, the reply was again lost. Or deliberately deleted. Malfeasance.

Someone else

responded to david janbaz

Alistair Kentucky-David

alistairkentucky-david9344

@davidjanbaz7728 What are you talking about? They were all YEC, can you cite even one who denied it?

Richie Journey

@richiejourney1840

At least one of them thought each day was 1,000 years. 7x6=42k years. They all had a variety of belief’s on Gen 1-11. They did think “young earth” but did not really give an age. But, they didn’t have modern knowledge either just like flat earth, earth center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc…

Alistair Kentucky-David

@richiejourney1840 That's completely false (your first claim). You're thinking of early millenarians, who said that each day of creation (and rest) corresponded to 1000 years of history, meaning that 7000 years after creation, Christ would return and the world would end. They noted that since (at their time) the world was about 4000 years old, there was still a long time to go.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both of you.

"At least one of them thought each day was 1,000 years"

Well, no, he said each day corresponds to 1,000 years subsequently after creation. He may have used the word "is" but it is pretty clear from context it was what he meant.

I think that was St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

"They did think “young earth” but did not really give an age."

Some did, some didn't. The admission they did think Young Earth pretty much confirms what I said.

"like flat earth, earth center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc…"

Flat Earth were pretty few. Lactantius and possibly St. Hippolytus of Rome. St. Basil was undecided and uninterested. Some others accepted the Greek knowledge of a spheric earth, like St. Augustine did.

Earth center of the universe and everything below the Heaven of God revolves around it, that is correct. I believe that too.

"You're thinking of early millenarians, who said that each day of creation (and rest) corresponded to 1000 years of history, meaning that 7000 years after creation"

1) You didn't have to be a Millennarian to believe that creation days correspond to 1000 years of history.
2) Millennarians thought Christ would return 6000 years after creation, since they thought He would reign visibly for another thousand years.
3) Other people thought that too. St. Augustine takes the thing corresponding to the creation Sabbath as the eternal reign of Christ after the general resurrection.

For my part, I consider:

1) Christ came the sixth millennium (or sixth lifespan of Adam) after Creation (5199 after Creation, both before Anno Mundi 6000 and before Anno Mundi 5580)
2) Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday are creation days of the new creation.
3) So the Christian era begins in the remainder of the sixth millennium, then goes on to 1000 or 930 years corresponding to Holy Saturday, basically most of the Middle Ages if we take Adamic lifespans, and Christ returns from Heaven, as He returned from the grave, in the 8th millennium or 8th Adamic lifespan. We are in it. If it's Adamic lifespans, the world is likely to end before 2241 AD.

"They noted that since (at their time) the world was about 4000 years old, there was still a long time to go."

Not quite true, they usually thought it was more than 5000 years old, since they used (typically) LXX based chronology.

St. Hilary of Poitiers was so worried about some of the Emperors he expected the Antichrist to come within if not his time, the time of his younger contemporaries.

18:46 Prior to 1920, the only three Catholic views were:

• YEC
• Gap Theory (Cardinal Wiseman)
• Day Age (popularised in France c. 1880 by Fulcran Vigouroux).

As you mentioned the Scofield Bible, it came nearly a century after another Study Bible, this one Catholic, the Haydock Bible.

It was Young Earth Creationist. While it came before the geological discoveries, it's prestige was such among English speaking Catholics, Haydock being a nephew or cousin several degrees and c. 3 centuries removed of a Catholic martyr, that this remained the standard study Bible for Catholics even after Gap Theory and Day Age came out.

Here is the comment on Genesis 3, attached to the comment on the last verse, but really about all of the chapter (and Genesis 2 too), as follows:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

This is my problem with WLC's view, placing Adam in 750 000 BP makes a roughly speaking faithful transmission of events humanly speaking impossible. And he does that.

19:24 Evangelicals have long been emulating Freemasons in making the Galileo case a point against Catholicism.

I haven't done that. When I converted, I was still a Heliocentric, but I had a very careful explanation why Geocentrism would have been the most reasonable position prior to 1820's.

When I came across Distant Starlight Problem, I took the time off internet between two days, 23 and 24 of August 2001 to reflect on the answer which was not favouring Kent Hovind's reply "a very skinny triangle" ... while that is also true, finally, the parallax would seem to be reliably measured, and it gives rise to other cues about stellar distances.

Supposing the premise is true, as in "we view alpha Centauri** move 0.76 arc seconds back and forth, because it's earth that's moving" ...

If earth isn't moving, if the parallax, aberration and proper movements of any star, like the retrogrades and spirograph patterns of planets, are angels moving celestial bodies, then the whole argument against YEC falls apart.

So, I've been a strict YEC (again) since before last of June 2000. I've been no longer Heliocerntric since 24 Aug 2001. And I'm doing fine in debates. Though I tend to get fewer of them.

I'd say, on day IV, stars were one light day up.

1) Adam and Eve could see them the first Sabbath evening, when day VI ended
2) fish and birds that have geolocation tied to star patterns could get that geolocation programmed on day V.

Distant Starlight Problem — a non-problem. At least for a Geocentric.

19:52 "supposedly 120 000 light years away"

Thank you very much for "supposedly" ...

Jonathan W

@jonathanw1106

You get fewer debates because you're not arguing in good faith. You don't like one theory and can't overcome it with evidence (star light) so you are arbitrarily abandoning a a totally different and easily testable scientific fact (heliocentric model). Since you didn't abandon it due to actual good faith reasons, there isn't much of a point of arguing with you. Fortunately, these issues aren't relevant to your salvation

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jonathanw1106 Evidence about star light is, there is no evidence for 13.8 billion light years.

You pretend Heliocentrism is easily testable, don't run away, what exact test?

@jonathanw1106 Speaking of good faith, how about me more and more often getting answers from empty channels.

I don't mean just they haven't made videos. I haven't either.

But I did upload descriptions and links to youtube favourites, and give my (basically) full name.

Afraid of the copy of this debate showing your arguments in such a bad light you prefer not to be personally tied to "Jonathan W" (which there are millions of, I presume)?

Jonathan W

@hglundahl the seasons, constellations, lunar cycles, day length variability, orbital tracking of the planets, seasonal variability of sun distance, lunar luminosity, relational distances to other planetary objects, actual visual observation from space, and I'm sure countless other tests that I can't think of off the top of my head. You do realize heliocentricity was proposed and proven in the 1500s through observation right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 "the seasons, constellations, lunar cycles, day length variability, orbital tracking of the planets,"

All known to and already explained by Geocentrics.

"seasonal variability of sun distance, lunar luminosity, relational distances to other planetary objects, actual visual observation from space,"

Pick one, and give the implications.

"and I'm sure countless other tests that I can't think of off the top of my head."

I can think of better ones I've refuted.

"You do realize heliocentricity was proposed and proven in the 1500s through observation right?"

No, I realise it was proposed by Nicole Oresme and dismissed for lack of decisive evidence, and it was reproposed but not proven in the 1500's.

Jupiter's four moons was one of Galileo's proposed arguments, and as an argument against strict Ptolemaic tradition, it can hold, but that's far from disproving Tychonian Geocentrism which his judges (or in 1616 actually just the judges of his book Saggiatore, he was not yet on trial himself) were very well aware of.

Debater track,
starting 16.VIII.2024

david janbaz = 15.VIII.2024 (attacked on Church Fathers, not back so far, perhaps because my response was deleted?)
Jonathan W = 16.VIII.2024 (attacked on Heliocentrism and Distant Starlight, back I time, no more)
Alistair Kentucky-David & Richie Journey
= 17—18.VIII.2024, III times between them before I came in, the former on my side.

Notes:

* He mentioned the majority view among Evangelicals prior to Whitcomb and Morris was Old Earth.
** Just in case some think I'm obsessed with alpha Centuari, no, it's just the "closest" star with the biggest (positive) parallax, so it's the one I remember. Couldn't be bothered to recall the parallax angles of Vega or Sirius, even if available.