William Lane Craig's Bible Dilemma Worries Christians (2021-06-21) #

0:00:00 you've got two options option one go
0:00:03 literal
0:00:04 and then this is completely against
0:00:06 science as william lane craig himself
0:00:08 knows
0:00:09 because you'd have to say that the
0:00:10 universe was created in six 24-hour days
0:00:12 and that is six thousand years old
0:00:14 or you go allegorical and if you go
0:00:16 allegorical you've still got the problem
0:00:18 of contradictory metaphors
0:00:25 it's the hijab 10 discount code for 10
0:00:28 discount on a wide range of products
0:00:30 including premium ethiopian black seed
0:00:33 products
0:00:35 how are you guys doing today i'm going
0:00:37 to be refuting william lane craig
0:00:39 dr william lane craig is a premier
0:00:42 season debate and apologists in the
0:00:44 christian world a scholar somebody who's
0:00:46 gone through the academic group
0:00:47 published many books
0:00:48 many many books in fact is almost uh 70
0:00:51 years old i think if not
0:00:53 he has passed that age so he's almost
0:00:54 double my age as somebody who's debated
0:00:57 some prominent figures from the atheist
0:00:58 community from even within his own
0:01:00 christian community and someone who
0:01:02 contributes and has done so
0:01:04 to the public discourse for i don't know
0:01:07 the last 30 40 years
0:01:09 what i'm going to be refuting him on is
0:01:11 his stance
0:01:12 on this genesis narrative in particular
0:01:15 and what he thinks
0:01:16 of it first of all let's take a look at
0:01:18 what he says in response to a question
0:01:20 that somebody asks from the audience and
0:01:22 then come back and comment on this
0:01:23 the first one the bible says god created
0:01:27 the earth
0:01:28 in seven days how does the big bang
0:01:31 theory fit
0:01:32 into this the big bang theory would be
0:01:35 incompatible with a literalistic
0:01:39 interpretation of genesis chapter 1. an
0:01:41 interpretation that
0:01:43 takes the days to be consecutive 24-hour
0:01:46 periods of time
0:01:48 however since the time of the church
0:01:50 fathers such as augustine
0:01:53 up until the present century most
0:01:56 biblical scholars
0:01:57 don't adopt that sort of literalistic
0:02:00 interpretation of the opening chapter
0:02:02 of genesis and i say that not on the
0:02:05 basis of modern science but on the basis
0:02:08 of the text itself there are indications
0:02:10 in the text itself that the author
0:02:13 didn't intend this to be taken in a sort
0:02:15 of wooden literalistic
0:02:16 way and so someone like saint augustine
0:02:19 for example
0:02:20 knew nothing of modern cosmology or
0:02:22 geology
0:02:23 um but didn't take this in a
0:02:25 literalistic way and i
0:02:26 i think that that is correct i would say
0:02:29 that
0:02:30 there are many different non-literal
0:02:34 ways of construing genesis 1 that are
0:02:36 open to biblically
0:02:38 faithful christians today and that are
0:02:40 wholly consistent and consonant with the
0:02:43 data of modern cosmology so as you can
0:02:45 see there
0:02:46 what we saw is william lynn craig
0:02:48 answering the question very frankly
0:02:50 he thinks that the approach that should
0:02:52 be applied
0:02:53 the hermeneutical approach is an
0:02:54 allegorical um or
0:02:56 allegorizing approach to the genesis
0:02:58 narrative or the creation narrative in
0:03:00 particular
0:03:01 when i looked into his website this is
0:03:03 what he had to say
0:03:05 as the reason why he does so this is
0:03:08 what he says he says
0:03:08 the author of genesis seems utterly
0:03:11 unconcerned
0:03:12 to iron out the inconsistencies between
0:03:15 chapter one and chapter two
0:03:17 that commentators have struggled with
0:03:19 for centuries
0:03:20 he does not seem to care that they're
0:03:22 inconsistent
0:03:24 an attitude suggestive of an intended
0:03:27 non-literal interpretation when he goes
0:03:30 on to
0:03:31 explain why he speaks about the fact
0:03:34 that in genesis chapter 1 that
0:03:38 you know the the plant had been created
0:03:40 on the the third day
0:03:42 in genesis chapter 1 verse number 14 or
0:03:45 verse number 12
0:03:46 and in genesis chapter 2 verse number 5
0:03:49 that no plant has sprung up yet
0:03:52 so he admits this is so telling and this
0:03:54 is extremely important
0:03:57 william lane craig one of the premier
0:03:59 apologists and scholars of the christian
0:04:01 world
0:04:02 admits candidly to one of the people
0:04:04 that are asking him
0:04:06 that there are contradictions in the
0:04:08 bible he admits that because of those
0:04:11 inconsistencies and contradictions that
0:04:13 there must be an allegorization
0:04:16 approach that is applied hermeneutically
0:04:18 to
0:04:19 the genesis creation story this is
0:04:22 extremely
0:04:23 important why because not just the fact
0:04:26 that it's mentioned in the quran
0:04:28 that if this book had been other from
0:04:30 other than god that would have been
0:04:32 left and kathira they would have found
0:04:34 in it many inconsistencies
0:04:36 but just a logical principle that if
0:04:39 something is true it has to fulfill
0:04:42 the basic criterion of consistency now
0:04:45 that is depending on or even if
0:04:48 one is depending on a coherentist
0:04:51 understanding of truth
0:04:52 and not necessarily a correspondence
0:04:55 theory understanding
0:04:56 of truth where truth must correspond
0:04:58 with the objective world
0:04:59 because one could ask a very important
0:05:01 question the question
0:05:03 someone may want to ask is why would you
0:05:06 have
0:05:07 or what use would there be of a
0:05:11 contradictory set
0:05:12 of metaphors in the bible because
0:05:15 they're saying it's metaphorized but why
0:05:17 should you have any kind of
0:05:18 contradiction anyway even if you have
0:05:21 metaphors that contradict each other
0:05:23 what function do they serve and does
0:05:26 this not
0:05:27 not meet unfortunately the basic
0:05:30 criterion for truth in so much as
0:05:33 it is inconsistent so this is the first
0:05:36 thing that you have a real hermeneutical
0:05:38 problem
0:05:39 on your hand the second thing which is
0:05:41 extremely
0:05:42 important is the fact that he stated
0:05:45 that the church fathers
0:05:47 the church fathers were allegorists
0:05:51 in the same way well if you really think
0:05:54 about it
0:05:54 you had an ecumenical writer or an
0:05:57 ecclesiastic writer origin of alexandria
0:05:59 who was very clear
0:06:00 in his allegorizing of these narratives
0:06:04 but the question is
0:06:05 why did he allegorize these narratives
0:06:07 and very similar for the to the reason
0:06:09 that craig employs he allegorized it
0:06:12 because
0:06:13 it was unintelligible if understood
0:06:15 literally
0:06:17 so before i get to that i want to take
0:06:20 one step back
0:06:21 and i will be quoting lots of
0:06:23 information here to prove these points
0:06:26 the first thing is the rabbis
0:06:29 in the what you call the mid rashem the
0:06:31 tafseer the exegesis of the bible they
0:06:34 all understood this
0:06:35 the bible to be understood in a literal
0:06:37 way i'm reading for example
0:06:40 this is the midrashim okay
0:06:43 and so this is what's mentioned in the
0:06:44 midrashim it was taught the light
0:06:47 which was created in the six days of
0:06:49 creation cannot illumine
0:06:51 by day because it would because it would
0:06:53 eclipse the light of the sun
0:06:55 nor by night because it was created only
0:06:57 to illumine by the day
0:06:58 then where is it is it stored up for the
0:07:01 righteous in the messianic future as
0:07:03 says moreover the light of the moon
0:07:05 shall be the light of the sun
0:07:06 and the light of the sun shall be
0:07:08 seven-fold the light of the days
0:07:10 and this is uh in isaiah chapter 30
0:07:13 verse number 26
0:07:14 and then the person who's executing this
0:07:17 who's a rabbi he says seven surely there
0:07:19 were only three since the libernaries
0:07:20 were created on the fourth day
0:07:22 so they problematized the
0:07:24 inconsistencies that were in the bible
0:07:27 but they did not allegorize the biblical
0:07:30 text
0:07:31 something different to what william lane
0:07:33 craig did okay this is very important
0:07:35 they prob
0:07:35 they problematized it but they did not
0:07:37 allegorize it
0:07:39 the second thing is this is their
0:07:40 cosmology the rabbi's cosmology in the
0:07:43 exegesis
0:07:44 they say the thickness of the firmament
0:07:46 equals that of the earth
0:07:48 compare it it is he that sitteth above
0:07:52 the circle of the earth isaiah 40
0:07:55 22 and he walketh in the circuit of the
0:07:58 heaven
0:07:59 job chapter 22 verse 14 the use of
0:08:02 hug in both verses teaches us they are
0:08:04 like so this is how the rabbis
0:08:06 understood it
0:08:07 this is one of the main
0:08:11 exegetes of the old testament a jewish
0:08:13 exegete of course
0:08:15 said in hanina's name
0:08:18 it is as thick as a metal plate all
0:08:21 right so these are like two metal thick
0:08:22 plates obviously this shows that their
0:08:24 cosmology was a flat earth cosmology
0:08:26 and that they were two like a sandwich
0:08:29 you know the heavens and the earth acted
0:08:31 like a sandwich
0:08:33 okay two thick plates above each other
0:08:38 like two fingers they say in thickness
0:08:40 so this clearly cannot mean
0:08:42 that the earth is round as some have
0:08:45 tried to use
0:08:46 uh isaiah 40 22 to indicate
0:08:50 now what origin as we mentioned before
0:08:53 mentions
0:08:54 is he mentions the same thing so he
0:08:56 problematizes
0:08:58 the inconsistencies in the verses but he
0:09:00 doesn't just stop there he allegorizes
0:09:02 it as a result of that problematization
0:09:04 so it says now what man of intelligence
0:09:06 will believe that the first the second
0:09:07 and the third day existed the evening in
0:09:09 the morning existed without the sun the
0:09:11 moon and the stars
0:09:12 and the first day if we may so call it
0:09:15 was even without heaven i do not think
0:09:19 anyone will doubt that these things are
0:09:20 made by scripture in a figurative manner
0:09:23 in order
0:09:24 that through them certain mystical
0:09:26 truths may be indicated
0:09:27 of course now the problem is you've got
0:09:30 two
0:09:31 options option one go literal and then
0:09:34 this is completely against science as
0:09:36 william lane craig himself knows
0:09:38 because you'd have to say that the
0:09:39 universe was created in six 24-hour days
0:09:42 and that is six thousand years old
0:09:44 or you go allegorical and if you go
0:09:46 allegorical
0:09:47 you've still got the problem of
0:09:48 contradictory metaphors the like of
0:09:50 which
0:09:51 was described by me beforehand namely
0:09:54 that you have the fact that the plants
0:09:56 were created for example in the
0:09:58 in the third day and in genesis chapter
0:10:00 two verse five no
0:10:01 plant has sprung up yet so you still
0:10:03 have these contradictory metaphors
0:10:05 now the thing is if we continue and we
0:10:07 ask another question
0:10:10 if you do go allegory on this and become
0:10:13 an allegorizer of this what would stop
0:10:16 you
0:10:17 from using this allegorization approach
0:10:19 in things which would be named or
0:10:21 understood to be
0:10:22 the main tenets of christianity so look
0:10:26 at what
0:10:27 origin of alexandria replied or how he
0:10:29 replied
0:10:31 when he was asked about
0:10:34 the crucifixion by celsus an apologist
0:10:36 who was a non-christian at the time he
0:10:38 said the events recorded to have
0:10:39 happened to jesus do not
0:10:41 possess the full view of the truth in
0:10:43 the mere letter and history for each
0:10:45 recorded event is shown to be a symbol
0:10:47 of something else
0:10:48 by those who read the scripture more
0:10:50 intelligently
0:10:51 so because celsius was interrogating him
0:10:54 on how could it be the case that a god
0:10:56 can die on a cross
0:10:58 if he's so powerful origin of alexandria
0:11:01 used an allegorization approach to at
0:11:04 least do away with some aspects of the
0:11:06 crucifixion
0:11:07 which may be anti-logic and this shows
0:11:10 you
0:11:10 that you can use this hermeneutical
0:11:12 principle to
0:11:14 wipe away the basic tenets of
0:11:16 christianity
0:11:18 so he mentions william lane craig
0:11:20 mentions
0:11:22 that augustine okay he allegorizes the
0:11:25 bible
0:11:26 and he mentions the church fathers and
0:11:28 this is actually deceptive type of
0:11:30 academics
0:11:30 because it's not the case that the
0:11:32 church fathers by and large
0:11:34 that they did this theodore and diodor
0:11:38 they saw that the um
0:11:43 that the interpretations of the bible in
0:11:45 genesis should be read literally
0:11:48 for example eusebius
0:11:51 john of christos jerome
0:11:55 and others who have we still have their
0:11:58 kind of
0:11:59 writings on their attitudes towards
0:12:01 origin especially in his allegorization
0:12:03 they didn't take the view of
0:12:05 allegorization so if you wanted to have
0:12:06 a general
0:12:07 and you wanted to have a rule the
0:12:09 general will be the literal
0:12:10 interpretation not just for
0:12:12 the rabbis who executed the bible but
0:12:15 also the bulk
0:12:16 of the church fathers who um
0:12:19 who exegeted the bible the rule would be
0:12:22 origin of alexandria who was not even
0:12:25 canonized in the church of the catholics
0:12:27 but having said that of course you have
0:12:29 a problem if you go with this
0:12:30 allegorization approach
0:12:32 or valid origin of alexandria then you
0:12:34 could be wiping away
0:12:36 the central tenets of christianity
0:12:39 why did august in the question is
0:12:40 because he mentions augustine why did
0:12:43 augustine why did he decide to
0:12:47 if he did because there's different
0:12:49 readings of it but let's assume that he
0:12:51 allegorized parts of the genesis
0:12:53 narrative though of course we must note
0:12:54 that he
0:12:55 named his book a literal interpretation
0:12:57 of genesis
0:12:58 and he had two such exegesis
0:13:02 why did he allegorize it so if we look
0:13:03 here there's something about the earth
0:13:06 the the heavens and other elements of
0:13:07 the world about the motion of the orbits
0:13:09 and stars
0:13:10 and even their size and relative
0:13:11 positions about the predictable eclipses
0:13:13 of the sun and the moon
0:13:14 now it's disgraceful and dangerous thing
0:13:16 for an infidel to hear a christian
0:13:20 presumably giving a meaning of the holy
0:13:22 scripture talking nonsense on these
0:13:23 topics
0:13:24 we should all um take all means to
0:13:27 prevent such an embarrassing situation
0:13:29 in which people
0:13:30 show up vast ignorance in christians and
0:13:33 laugh
0:13:34 to it it to scorn so he's doing it for
0:13:37 apologetic reason
0:13:38 reasons he was very aware of and this is
0:13:41 mentioned in david lindbergh's book on
0:13:42 these issues
0:13:43 he was very aware that the biblical
0:13:46 discourse was against the cosmologies
0:13:48 which were most respected and of course
0:13:50 he was aware of
0:13:51 aristotelian cosmologies and and
0:13:53 holistic cosmologies
0:13:54 and he's speaking about exegeting the
0:13:56 bible in a way
0:13:58 which is anti-cosmology of
0:14:01 whatever the most sophisticated
0:14:02 cosmologies were at that time and so the
0:14:04 reason why
0:14:05 he took the impetus if he did would be a
0:14:08 similar reason
0:14:09 that origen did in other words because
0:14:11 of the inconsistencies that he found of
0:14:13 the biblical discourse
0:14:14 and the external world and you can see
0:14:17 this again
0:14:19 in other places so really and truly here
0:14:22 i think
0:14:23 one can conclude it's a catch-22
0:14:25 situation or you can even call it
0:14:27 a hermeneutical dilemma if you want to
0:14:30 take the view of william lane craig that
0:14:32 the genesis narrative is allegory
0:14:35 then you must allow for at least the
0:14:36 possibility that this allegorization her
0:14:39 musical approach can be
0:14:40 applied to other more central tenants of
0:14:43 christianity including the crucifixion
0:14:44 of resurrection
0:14:46 this was the approach of at least origin
0:14:49 of alexandria who
0:14:51 allegorized large parts of central
0:14:53 doctrines in order to meet the
0:14:55 apologetic criterion
0:14:57 if one wants to say no in fact it's
0:14:59 literal then one will have to maintain
0:15:01 not only the contradictions
0:15:03 the internal ones but they'd have to say
0:15:05 that the universe is six thousand years
0:15:06 old
0:15:07 as per genesis chapter five and the
0:15:09 account of that and obviously the sixth
0:15:10 six 24-hour days
0:15:12 understanding in genesis chapter one
0:15:16 but in both cases you'd have to maintain
0:15:18 that there are contradictions in the
0:15:19 bible
0:15:20 and the muslim would say this why would
0:15:22 you believe a book with contradictions
0:15:25 is as simple as that
0:15:26 and why would you william lane craig who
0:15:29 is a premier christian
0:15:30 apologist and scholar of the christian
0:15:32 world candidly admit that your book is
0:15:35 erroneous
0:15:36 thereby admitting that it's not inerrant
0:15:39 which is one of the core doctrines of
0:15:40 the
0:15:42 evangelicals and christians more
0:15:44 christians
0:15:45 than just the evangelicals why would you
0:15:47 do this and continue believing in this
0:15:49 book as if
0:15:50 it is free from error why don't you seek
0:15:54 the truth
0:15:55 as your bible says and why would god be
0:15:57 the author of
0:15:58 confusion since the bible tells us that
0:16:00 god shall not be the author of confusion
0:16:03 how could god punish me for disbelieving
0:16:05 a book that is
0:16:06 fraught with contradictions in whatever
0:16:09 way you decide to interpret it
0:16:10 allegorical literal or otherwise i say
0:16:14 this is unfair
0:16:15 i say this is unjust and i say that
0:16:18 instead of this
0:16:19 one should be looking elsewhere for the
0:16:21 word of god
0:16:23 and if you want more information go to
0:16:25 kbih.co.uk
0:16:26 and download for free my article for the
0:16:29 proof of islam
0:16:30 and you will see some of the references
0:16:32 referred to in this video in the
0:16:33 description box
0:16:35 wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi