I would wonder what are some way to make apologetics more marketable to the point those who peruse a career are confident of the options they have. That being in academia or in the secular arena.
[1/2] First of all I appreciate your comment. I welcome discussion on these important subjects, and it is one of the things I most appreciate about Substack.
Apart from William Lane Craig, the ideas that I mentioned in my comment above are common and important in the church today.
When it comes to Craig, I below are [1] some comments from a review I believe is accurate and fair.
After the review, I will post [2] evidence from WLC's website Reasonable Faith which show in WLC's own words that the review is an accurate one.
Since that will be too long for one comment, I'll post the two parts separately.
[1]The review states - correctly, in my view - that
(a) WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be found to agree.
(b) The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally.
(c) That there was a historical Adam, but he did not come into being in the way described in the Genesis account.
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration . . .
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1 [1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33].
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.”
(1/2) First of all I appreciate your comment. I welcome discussion on these important subjects, and it is one of the things I most appreciate about Substack.
Apart from William Lane Craig, the ideas that I mentioned in my comment above are common and important in the church today.
When it comes to Craig, below are [1] some comments from a review I believe is accurate and fair.
After the review, I will post [2] evidence from WLC's website Reasonable Faith which show in WLC's own words that the review is an accurate one.
Since that will be a long post, I will divide it into two separate comments.
[1] The review states - correctly, in my view - that
(a) WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be found to agree.
(b) The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally.
(c) That there was a historical Adam, but he did not come into being in the way described in the Genesis account.
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration . . .
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1 [1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33].
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.”
Truly this is in God's good and sovereign hands. And we have a blessed part. I am grateful to serve as an elder with three staff elders/pastors committed to answers. Our sermon last week , as we are finishing a long and edifying series in Luke (22:63- 22:16) reminded everyone that there are answers and to not doubt that promise, including offering four books as invitations to pursue answers. We offered a rare morning pulpit to Mark Mittelberg last fall with an evening Q&A later. I miss you here in Colorado.
I just finished presenting to the youth group of my church an introduction to apologetics. I separated the pursuit of formal apologetics found in university debates and offerings. (think William Lane Craig) from informal apologetics which is the street-level conversations where one seeks to remove the barriers to faith in Christ. The difference between these must be maintained because many Christians dismiss apologetics, thinking of only the first. My pastor is one of them.
Apologetics is an approach to faith that counters the atrocity of the widespread definition in the Christian Church of faith to be related to a belief without (or worse yet, contrary to) evidence. It is much more than having answers. It is a biblical way of walking in Christ. From my chair, evidential faith is superior to emotional or experiential faith, especially in terms of evangelism. It is far more transferable.
Apart from God’s intervention, I see a bleak future for apologetics as long as the threat that Jordan Peterson poses to many remains. With his growing influence on young men in particular, as well as in various evangelical Christian and conservative circles, he poses a great danger that has gone almost unnoticed in the apologetics community. Various apologists have often encouraged his influence on Christians in the West rather than having flagged it as dangerous. Even the very few apologists who have criticized Peterson have done so with kid gloves.
I used AI to search through your list of apologists—and even threw in extras like Sean McDowell and Wes Huff—for public statements about Jordan Peterson. All I got was apologists either not engaging at all or using great deference in their critiques of Peterson.
Are they not aware of Peterson’s “third way” for achieving world peace? Or his two decades plus of practicing Kundalini Yoga? Or his transforming the Bible into a Kundalini Yoga indoctrination manual? If not, why not?
Could they not see the introduction of Eastern mysticism on the jacket cover of We Who Wrestle with God? Since when does the Bible teach “Adam and Eve and the eternal fall of mankind” as Peterson so openly displays on that cover? Is there no second Adam?
Or when does the Bible tell us that “The continually ascending progress represented by a series of uphill climbs, each with its peak experience, is a variant of the path of ascension represented by Jacob’s Ladder, the spiraling rise into the heavens toward the Kingdom of God, with God Himself beckoning at the high point—on the apex of the highest conceivable mount.”? It doesn’t! But Peterson does, as a clear re-purposing of Jacob’s ladder from a representation of the intermediatory work of Jesus Christ to a representation of the serpent coiled at the lowest chakra spiraling upward to the next, and then the next, etc., aiming ever upward toward the highest, to achieve Moksha, oneness with the Brahman!
I could go on, and have done so in a series of carefully researched articles at steinarbremnes.substack. I hope this can help to steer apologetics in the right direction regarding Jordan Peterson, a Nicodemite cloaking his true beliefs as a stealth missionary for Eastern Mysticism. Of course, God could choose to bypass the entrenched apologists and raise up some fishermen, carpenters, etc., to do the same work, only in a way that is effective. Either way, I believe that God will ensure an effective future for apologetics.
This is just quibble, so please don't read too much into it, but as both a Talbot graduate (MA Apologetics, MA Theology) and a great admirer of JP Moreland, I might pushback on the claim that "Talbot School of Theology has been led by JP Moreland." While JP is an icon and pillar at Talbot, no doubt about that; still, both the school and even the philosophy department have been lead by many great theologians, bible scholars and philosophers. The last was my dean, NT scholar Clint Arnold, and most recently Tim Pickavance, a certified genius, who has been heading up the Phil department. That said, yes, with WLC now at Houston Christian and Doug Geivett retired, JP is the last of the old guard there.
The fact that he can do this and still be praised as having a ministry with “a strong academic backbone” and be called a “high-level philosopher” indicates that there are serious problems at the heart of what may be called “the new Evangelical scholasticism.”
I call it that, because it does seem to me that modern evangelical apologetics is drifting significantly away from the “simplicity of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3) in its efforts to prove the academic respectability of Christianity.
Just like the Christian scholastics of the Middle Ages sought to harmonize Christianity with the blind pagan Aristotle, so today some are seeking to harmonize Christianity with the false, ugly and socially destructive theory of Darwinism.
Not that I am against apologetics - there is a place for it. However, Christ and the apostles did not engage in apologetics. They presented biblical truth, and God opened the hearts of some to accept that truth by the gift of faith.
This does not mean that their message was a simple one. Christ and the apostles did not just say “Trust in Christ or accept Christ and you could go to heaven.” The Bible goes far beyond that, into the highest and deepest mysteries of life. But neither did they use academic and philosophical terms to prove how intelligent they were, and to make Christianity acceptable to the academic pagans of the day.
More importantly, the failure to recognize the necessity of the historicity of Genesis is deeply troubling.
The Bible teaches that the cosmos, the galaxies, our solar system, our planet and all the marvels that were in it were created by God out of nothing, by his spoken word alone. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
All of this is completely beyond the range of science. Science has nothing to say about it. Secular science and wisdom can explain how the laws of science work, but not how those laws came into being in the first place, or why they assumed the forms they did.
Science is an extremely limited human endeavor. It cannot tell us what happens after death, if Christ rose from the dead, what sin is, what God requires of us. Making science the arbiter of what is and is not real, and making it the standard to which the bible must conform, is conformity to the world and capitulation to the world on the deepest level.
It reflects a carnal Christianity - and, there is such a thing as a carnal Christian (I Corinthians 3:3). To be carnally minded is death (Romans 8:6).
Moreover, a little leaven does leaven the whole loaf.
“But you can’t ignore science,” say some. We can when it contradicts the word of God. Science is not the only mode of knowing. There are many things beyond the range of science. How the cosmos and all that is in it came into being is one of those areas.
But, we don’t have to stop with “The Bible says so.” We can give reasons and explanations. That is legitimate Christian apologetics - as long as it holds fast without compromise to biblical truth.
For example, we don’t have to ignore the apparent age of the earth.
When the earth was being formed on the third day of creation, what if all of the millions of years of geological development really did take place, but in a few hours, or in an instant of time? What if the crust shifted and the mountains arose and the canyons were carved out by rivers, and the glaciers advanced and receded, all in due course, but in a moment of time, or in four or five hours? Or 24 hours? That would be a light and easy thing for God to do.
But why would he do such a thing? To deceive us? No, to wrap the origins of the earth in mystery so that unbelievers might have room to disbelieve.
We read in Isaiah 45:15 that God is a God who hides himself.
We read in I Corinthians 1:21 that God has deliberately set up a system in which he cannot be found by human knowledge. We have a hidden wisdom, which none of the princes and the philosophers and the scientists and the scholars of the world knew (I Corinthians 2:7-8).
Moreover, Paul refers to Genesis to explain how sin came into the world. If he was wrong about the origins of sin, how can we have any confidence in what he presents as the remedy for sin?
Denying the first few chapters of Genesis leaves the entire rest of the Bible grounded solidly on fantasy, and introduces mythological elements into the teachings of Christ himself.
Fascinating! WLC would be very disappointed in your misrepresentation of his view. You just need more time ACTUALLY studying his position and than you will understand why his view on Gen. 1-11 like other views is perfectly consistent with scripture. Until you do that your critique will be invalid because the position you’re critiquing is not WLC’s view!
First of all I appreciate your comment. I welcome discussion on these important subjects, and it is one of the things I most appreciate about Substack.
Apart from William Lane Craig, the ideas that I mentioned in my comment above are common and important in the church today.
When it comes to Craig, I will post [1] some comments from a review I believe is accurate and fair.
After the review, I will give [2] evidence from WLC's website Reasonable Faith which shows in WLC's own words that the review is an accurate one.
Since that will make for a very long comment, I will divide this into two parts.
[1] The review states - correctly, in my view - that
(a) WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be made to conform.
(b) The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally.
(c) That there was a historical Adam, but he did not come into being in the way described in the Genesis account.
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration . . .
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1 [1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33].
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.”
For starters, the review by Scott Aniol is a great review, but unfortunately, even the review misrepresents Dr. Craig in some ways. The fact that your understanding of Dr. Craig’s view seems to be based upon one review by Scott Aniol who also does not entirely understand Dr. Craig‘s perspective helps me better understand why you are simply incorrect. Respectively, you clearly are not well acquainted with Dr. Craig‘s sophisticated yet biblically consistent understanding of Genesis 1-11. I think your first mistake is appealing to this review as if the review is entirely correct and then basing your own understanding upon the review itself instead of thoroughly researching Dr. Craig‘s material. Even the few videos you appealed to where you claim Dr. Craig’s “own words” support your perspective of his view is incorrect. This seems to be because you are starting with the assumption that you rightly understand Craig and then look to a few videos to “confirm” your assumption instead of listening with an open mind and making an honest attempt to examine as much of Dr. Craig’s content before drawing such conclusions. This is called confirmation bias. Now you don’t strike me as someone who is dumb or unwilling to seek truth. Nonetheless, given the extensive amount of time I’ve spent listening to and reading Dr. Craig’s work, I’m confident you do not entirely understand Craig’s perspective on this matter. I don’t agree on every point with Craig. But disagreeing with someone and simply straw manning another’s perspective are two different things. Unfortunately, it’s a straw man that’s at play, which is why I’m taking the time to respond to you. I will leave it to you to do your homework, but I will provide you with a few resources and responses to hopefully help you see that it is possible that there is more to Dr. Craig’s view than you may think.
You said “WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be made to conform.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. Consider the following YouTube video where Craig in his own words explains his methodology in His book on the historical Adam.
His explanation of his methodology runs contrary to your misrepresentation of his view. I would encourage you to write Dr. Craig personally in a “question of the week” on his website if you still need further clarification on his position. In addition, God is the author of both the book of nature and the book of Scripture. If this is true, then the two books could never contradict each other. At best, we may run into apparent contradictions between these two books but never real contradictions. The Bible confirms God as the author of both books in the following verses.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1, NASB)
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20, NASB)
“For the music director. A Psalm of David. The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands.” (Psa 19:1, NASB)
As Dr. Craig notes in that video, he is simply trying to see if the science is consistent with the biblical data. You can also see where Dr. Craig stands on hive view of scripture by going through his defenders classes which I have personally done twice found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org
You said “The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally” in regards to Dr. Craigs view on Gen. 1-11.
Do you understand what Dr. Craig means by Mytho-History as the literary genre of Genesis 1-11? Please review the following video link.
Consider the following example. Sometimes when describing someone who carries a pistol, we say they are carrying a firearm. The use of the phrase “firearm” refers to a literal object, namely, a pistol. But the phrase itself is NOT meant to be taken to literally mean an “arm on fire.” In a similar way, Dr. Craig is suggesting that some of the descriptions found in Genesis should be taken in this way. For example, when the Genesis account speaks of God “walking in the garden,” we should interpret this as referring to a literal theological truth without thinking we must be committed to the idea that an in-material God has a physical body and was literally walking in the garden. God as the creator of space, time, matter, and energy cannot himself be made of matter himself. The effect cannot also at the same time be the cause which produces the effect. Therefore, God as the Creator of space, time, matter, and energy cannot himself be comprised of matter. He transcends everything that is created as Gen. 1:1 clearly states.
I would simply encourage you to do more digging into Dr. Craig’s view before jumping to premature conclusions. I could provide many more examples and video resources for you, but I feel that if you are really serious about understanding Dr. Craig‘s position, you will do the research yourself. The content can be found on YouTube, Reasonable Faith, and also in his published work. Maybe you will disagree with him on some or many points. But it would be better to disagree with someone while rightly representing their position rather than misrepresenting them altogether. Not everything stated in the review by Dr. Scott was incorrect. Nonetheless the points that I addressed here I do believe fail to accurately represent Dr. Craig’s view.
Below I have provided some content for you to look at. If you would like to have further discussion on this or any other topics for that matter you can reach me at crazybibleninja@gmail.com
Many thanks for your time and effort. I appreciate your willingness to look into this and am, once again, glad to spend some time on these serious and important biblical questions. The literal truth of the opening chapters of the Bible is of great significance, and an important part of Christianity as a whole.
I was puzzled about your comment that the review I quoted and linked to was “a great review,” but that it misrepresents Dr. Craig “in some ways.” First, that it misrepresents Dr. Crain in some ways means that it does not misrepresent him in all ways. It would have been helpful if you had pointed out in which areas the review represented Craig correctly, and the ways in which you think it was erroneous.
Since all of the comments in the review assert that WLC does not take a literal view of the opening chapters of Genesis, if even some of those are correct, that raises serious questions.
Secondly, I don’t think you should assume that all of my understanding was based on the review, merely because I quoted it first by way of introduction. Perhaps I should have clarified that. I have been interested in Christian apologetics for some time, had heard of Dr. Craig long before this, and have read and seen some of his writings and videos, so was not merely swayed by a review.
Thirdly, you did not respond to any of the quotes I presented (with links) from Dr. Craig’s own videos on his main website. There Dr. Craig states, in no uncertain terms, that
• Genesis chapters 1-11 is a literary genre of a type that does not need to be taken literally.
• Adam and Eve belonged to the species Homo heidelbergensis, meaning that God took a pre-existing hominid form and elevated them with spiritual and intellectual gifts.
• Jesus maybe was referring to a literary Adam rather than to a historical one.
• It is difficult to correlate scientific evidence with the creation account in the Bible.
I do not see where those quotes leave any room for doubt. Instead, they more than confirm the description of Dr. Craig’s views given in the review.
Instead of dealing with those vital points directly, you state that I am not well acquainted with Dr. Craig’s “sophisticated yet biblically consistent understanding of Genesis 1-11.”
I confess that my understanding of the creation account in Genesis is not “sophisticated” in the modern understanding of the word. I believe that the narrative we have there is a literal account of what happened. Whether or not it agrees with science is irrelevant to me.
Christ walking on the water, healing a man blind from birth, being born of a virgin, raising a man from the dead that had been in a tomb four days – naturalistic science says that all of those things are impossible. My response to that is that science is wrong, that there is a divine power operative in the world that infinitely transcends any feeble and irrelevant scientific objections. That applies to the creation account in Genesis. God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” and science as science has nothing to say about it.
You say that because I was swayed by the review I didn’t listen with an open mind or make an honest attempt before drawing conclusions. But I liked the review because I thought it was accurate based on previous understanding – and, I did make an honest attempt to find some information in Dr. Craig’s own words, which I quoted. Those quotes completely validate the review. Yet you responded to none of the quotes from Dr. Craig that I presented. So, I think my approach does not remotely represent a straw-man argument, and that I have presented Dr. Craig’s denial of the historicity of genesis fairly and accurately.
Is failure to deal with my evidence the result of bias on your end?
You do say you do not agree with every point of Craig's. Can you tell me, are there any aspects of Craig’s theories about Genesis you do not accept? If so, what might they be?
Now, I believe I have thoroughly responded to the first point of your response, as you did not respond to mine.
Moving on, you want to clarify Dr. Craig’s views by giving me many links. I looked at the first one, “Scripture & Science: The Appropriate Methodology.”
It was – thankfully – a short video. Below is some text I copied from it (a significant portion). I am really glad you brought this link up, because it presents many significant issues that are relevant for contemporary discussions on Genesis.
"The teaching of Scripture takes priority . . . I deal first not with science but with scripture . . ."
That sounds very good – but there is more. Craig also says:
"I want to read the scripture responsibly, according to the literary genre to which it belongs, apart from the input of modern science . . . is the existence of such a person incompatible with what the modern scientific evidence says?"
So what does this mean?
“The teaching of Scripture takes priority . . .I deal first not with science but with scripture” - I believe that is true of Dr. Craig’s approach to the New Testament. When he reads or explains Jesus walking on water, or rising from the dead, or being born of a virgin, Scripture does take priority over science.
When, however, it comes to the creation account in Genesis, Craig reads this portion of the Bible as truth, but as truth expressed in mythological terms. Thus, he says above that he reads Scripture “according to the literary genre to which it belongs.” In other words, it is not to be read literally. This is seen in the following quote taken directly from Craig’s website:
"Genesis chapter 1 to 11, which include the stories of Adam and Eve, belong to a literary genre or type that need not be interpreted literalistically . . . my contention that I argue in considerable detail is that Genesis 1 to 11 also belongs to a type of literature that is concerned with historical events but which should not be read in a literalistic way. It, too, is written in the colorful and figurative language that shouldn't be taken at just face value." https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/two-major-takeaways-from-historical-adam-research
So, once he decides that THE OPENING CHAPTERS OF GENESIS ARE IN A MYTHICAL GENRE, then he seeks an explanation that is compatible with contemporary science, while taking a more orthodox historical literal approach to other parts of the Bible.
So, Craig is not using science to prove the existence of a historical Adam. I never said he was. He is using science to explain what the actual, literal truth might be behind the truth which Genesis allegedly states in mythological terms – the truth that God created Adam and Eve.
I admit, when I said that WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be made to conform, I was speaking too generally. I should have limited that to the opening chapters of Genesis, and other mythological places in the Old Testament that Craig has problems with, such as Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel:
"In his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam, distinguished Christian apologist William Lane Craig labels the Genesis accounts of Noah’s Flood, the Table of Nations, and the Tower of Babel as “fantastic elements.”[1] By this designation, Craig means that these Genesis accounts cannot be interpreted as literal history." [1] William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 104–129.
So, the video you sent shows that Craig does not subordinate the Bible to scripture, UNLESS Scripture happens to be written in a mythological genre, in which case the real answer concealed behind mythological truth must be answered in a manner consistent with the findings of modern science. The Bible is, therefore, subordinated to science in these areas.
At one point you asked: “Do you understand what Dr. Craig means by Mytho-History as the literary genre of Genesis 1-11?” Yes, I do. Craig explained it himself in a quote which I gave earlier, to which you did not respond:
"Genesis chapter 1 to 11, which include the stories of Adam and Eve, belong to a literary genre or type that need not be interpreted literalistically . . . my contention that I argue in considerable detail is that Genesis 1 to 11 also belongs to a type of literature that is concerned with historical events but which should not be read in a literalistic way. It, too, is written in the colorful and figurative language that shouldn't be taken at just face value."
Mytho-History means historical fact (that God created Adam and Eve) that is presented in a mythical way. In other words, the Bible’s assertion that God created the first man and woman is true, but the manner in which it is presented is only mythology.
I believe that approach is completely false, and destructive to the Christian faith – as we can see by WLC’s denial of the flood, and the Tower of Babel. This clearly subordinating the Word of God to human reason and leads to disastrous results.
As I’ve already stated, I would be happy to discuss this further by email or some other form of media like Discord. My email address is crazybibleninja@gmail.com.
I look forward to having further discussions with you with hopes of showing you how your understanding of Dr. Craig’s view is not accurate. This is a deep discussion and may even warrant a Zoom call. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses and willingness to try and understand Dr. Craig. It’s taken me some time as well (like 3 years) to finally get a grip on what he is putting forth in regards to Gen. 1-11. Nonetheless, with the time that I’ve spent engaging with his material and others, I can be confident to some degree that you’re making many of the same mistakes that most critics of Craig make.
The review by Scott was great in the sense that it was a thoughtful review of his book. Nevertheless, this doesn’t make everything he says true or accurate. The points that I chose to respond to you with are the same issues I would take with the review by Scott but not strictly limited to those points alone. I personally don’t have the time to give a full written response given the busyness of life at the moment with preparations for my upcoming deployment for the military. I would encourage you to reach out to me directly by email so we can try to establish a Zoom meeting possibly. You can also write Dr. Craig directly with your concerns at his website www.reasonablefaith.org
I have started looking at Craig's book and do not think I am mistaken in my understanding of his views.
However, as per our phone conversation I am going to put down some of my views on the nature of Scripture, and then respond to some of the comments in Craig's book. Since this is a long, complex and important concept, I think I will not only send that to you, but also post them as Substack essays once I complete the one I am currently working on.
When it comes to these seven links below, I have two other links from you for which transcripts were available, and have saved those in a file. I also have Craig's book In Quest of the Historical Adam. I may be able to look at these 7 links and incorporate them into my writing.
I am not sending you any links on this subject because I don't use the internet much, and have not looked at and evaluated any videos on this subject. If I find one that looks worthwhile I will send it, but I doubt think anyone will handle this the way I plan to.
I do believe though that Genesis 1-11 is not "mytho-historical" but historical. And I think the "woodenistically" literal reading as I have seen it presented is definitely a strawman. Here is why I say that.
Take the following literal historical statement:
"In 1781, George Washington defeated General Cornwallis at the battle of Yorktown with the help of the French General de Grasse."
That is a simple straightforward statement of history with no mythological element whatever. However, reading it as literal historical fact does not prevent me from thinking about it and analyzing it more deeply, and seeking more knowledge of it elsewhere.
The fact that I read it literally does not prevent me from wondering "How did the French get involved?" and then wanting to research the diplomacy of the period.
A literal reading does not prevent me from wondering "How did Washington win the battle?" or "What sort of a man was Cornwallis? What mistakes did he make? What was his background?" In fact, the knowledge that I am reading about something that really happened stimulates thought in various directions.
But reading that "Washington won the battle of Yorktown with the help of ancient Indian spirits who were pleased with him because he respected Indian graves on his property" does not stimulate serious thought.
A literal "woodenistic" reading does not prevent me from thinking about the contents and getting more information elsewhere.
To look at it another way:
If you read the material in the gospels woodenistically to understand that Christ really did die on the cross and rise from the dead, that it is not mythology or mytho-history, but a simple statement of what actually occurred, the literal reading of this fact does not prevent you from trying to understand it more deeply. A literal reading does not prevent you from looking at Romans and Hebrews and Galatians for a deeper understanding of those events, or from using other verses to deepen your understanding. It does not mean you can only take the words directly on the page without personal engagement, feeling and reaction.
In fact, interpreting those events mythologically, as all myth with no historical substance, or as mytho-history, meaning you need to find additional explanations agreeable to the modern mind, hinders understanding (in my view).
Similarly, if I read Genesis 3:1-5 literally, and believe that there actually was a talking snake, this does not mean I am forbidden to try and understand it further. To say that reading any biblical passage literally means that you cannot think about it, and compare it to other scriptures in a search for deeper understanding, reduces literal reading to something that no serious Bible reader does.
I can take Genesis 3:1-5 literally and still seek to understand it and compare it to other scriptures, and to say that literal reading means I cannot do this is a completely false understanding of literal reading.
When I look at Genesis 3:15 and see that prophecy involving the snake which is consistently applied to Satan, I am allowed to use that to inform and illuminate my literal reading of the passage and say Satan was involved with the snake.
Now we are in a spiritual dimension about which modern science qua science is completely blind and has nothing to say.
Whereas to dismiss the whole story as fantastic and mythological, only because it does not measure up to our false modern standards is a very bad mistake.
When someone says, That story is fantastic and clearly mythological, I think that person is wrong. It is not fantastic to the spiritual mind, nor is it mythological.
When I am told that a literal reading forbids me to think about the passage and forbids me to use scripture to explain scripture, that I cannot think beyond the words on the page, I think that is a reductively simplistic description of what it means to read the Bible literally.
In this video, Craig states "Genesis chapter 1 to 11, which include the stories of Adam and Eve, belong to a literary genre or type that need not be interpreted literalistically . . . my contention that I argue in considerable detail is that Genesis 1 to 11 also belongs to a type of literature that is concerned with historical events but which should not be read in a literalistic way. It, too, is written in the colorful and figurative language that shouldn't be taken at just face value."
"As a result of my study, I am absolutely convinced that Neanderthals were fully human, and that therefore if there was an Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve had to be prior to the divergence of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. And that would place them at the time of a human species called Homo heidelbergensis, or Heidelberg man, who was a human being that had a brain capacity comparable to modern Homo sapiens, a modern appearance, and yet who lived around 750,000 years ago. My proposal is that we identify Adam and Eve with two members of this species Homo heidelbergensis who were then the progenitors of subsequent human species so that every human being is descended from this primordial foundational pair. I would note that that is fully consistent with the evidence of population genetics and paleoanthropology. That's the position I defend in the book."
"The question here would be whether Jesus might simply be referring to the literary Adam, that figure that features in the stories of Genesis 2 and 3, rather than speaking of a historical individual. I think that's certainly very possible. We can refer to literary figures without committing ourselves to their historicity . . . So at one level I don't think that the teachings of Jesus entail that Adam was a historical figure, but if Jesus did believe that Adam actually lived and wrought then I think that does commit someone who believes in the deity of Christ to the historicity of Adam."
[My comment - so, it is possible Jesus was not speaking of a historical Adam. After all, we do not know if the Good Samaritan was a real historical figure or not, and that does not affect the point Jesus was teaching. If Jesus was speaking of a literal Adam then we should believe that, because Jesus was infallible. But if Jesus was not speaking literally, then we do not have to believe it literally either - and Craig makes it clear elsewhere he does not believe Christ was speaking of a literal, historical Adam].
[c]How Can One Coordinate Both the Scientific & Biblical Data on a Historical Adam?
Craig says in this video that it is difficult to correlate scientific evidence with the Bible - but it is not difficult at all, if we believe that God spoke the creation into being out of nothing by his word alone.
Craig goes on to say that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of Homo sapiens and of Neanderthal man, and elaborates: "Who was the ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal? Well, it was a hominid called Heidelberg man . . . Adam and Eve did belong to the species Heidelberg man, and he was not some kind of an ape man or something like that. He was an intelligent, gifted and cognitively modern human being which is ancestral to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens."
Craig specifically refers his viewers to refer to Heidelberg man on Wikipedia, which approaches the whole matter from an entirely secular viewpoint.
Craig thus shares the viewpoint of C.S. Lewis, that there was a primitive hominid species that emerged by natural means, and then God endowed two of them with the special powers of reason that made them human.
I think you misrepresent WLC or don't understand him. The Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis has multiple valid definitions. It can mean a 24 hour period OR a long epoch of time. WLC takes it to mean the later as used in Genesis I and II. A long epoch makes sense because there wouldn't have been a 24 hour Earth day on Day 1 in the Genesis account. I suggest reading Hugh Ross on this subject.
Personally I think the 24 hour day is best, as morning and evening are specified, but it could be 6 distinct eons of creation, as long as the distinct stages are preserved and in the proper order. The word "day" can be used in different ways as you say. I don't think anyone has ever understood "the day of the Lord" to refer only to a 24 hour period. So, I don't dispute that, but the question of human origins is a very different matter.
I don't think I misinterpreted Craig at all. The following coincides with what I have heard and read from Craig in videos or books:
Reasonable Faith or Faithful Reason? Reflections on William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam [review of Craig's book IN QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL ADAM.
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. This past week at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I had the opportunity to hear Craig further explain and defend his views concerning what some claim to be a denying of the historical Adam.
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.” As James White correctly noted when I quoted Craig on Twitter:
"In other words, if Scripture were Craig’s ultimate authority, he would begin with the assumption (based on Scripture itself) that Moses is the author of Genesis and that his narrative in the first eleven chapters actually happened as written. He would then interpret the scientific evidence through that lens. But since “scientific evidence” is Craig’s authority, he must try to make sense of the biblical narrative within evolutionary presuppositions.
"Second, Craig argues that a historical Adam and Eve could have existed, but at the earliest 500,000+ years ago (based on “scientific evidence”) and having evolved from “pre-human” hominins. In other words, evolution happened as science “proves,” and at some point, God appointed Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race. Here is a brief summary of his argument:
"We may imagine an initial population of hominins—animals that were like human beings in many respects but lacked the capacity for rational thought. Out of this population, God selected two and furnished them with intellects by renovating their brains and endowing them with rational souls. One can envision a regulatory genetic mutation, which effected a change in the functioning of the brain, resulting in significantly greater cognitive capacity. Such a transformation could equip the individuals with the neurological structure to support a rational soul. Thus the radical transition effected in the founding pair that lifted them to the human level plausibly involved both biological and spiritual renovation. 2
"We may 'imagine' indeed."
What need is there of any quest for the historical Adam when he is readily explained by the book of Genesis.
This is a good article, though I think another challenge for apologetics in the future is the emergence of "analytic Atheism" or "philosophical Atheism." In the same way, there has been a growth with academic apologetics, there has also been a growth with academic Atheism, and many of these insights are being translated into the contemporary foray and being used to devastating effect against traditional apologetics. I'd love to see apologetics focusing on more sophisticated forms of Atheism.
Check our Impact 360! They work with talbot/biola and sean mcdowell as well as JP moreland are visiting professors. I think Huf’s ministry, Apologetics Canada is also doing great stuff
Great overview of the history of apologetics and its future. I became a Christian from atheism in 1971 through the ministry of apologists, so have had several decades to see what you described. The Apostle Paul wrote multiple times that Christians are in spiritual 'warfare,' and we know that apologetics is one of the primary weapons in the 'armor' God has given us to wage war with the enemy. I especially liked what you wrote at the beginning and ending of your article - "The future of apologetics—and of everything—is in God’s good and sovereign hands." Agreed, sir.
This is very good, but omits an important and I hope, growing apologetics influence and direction, that of the “classical” approach. I would direct our attention to the work of my friend, Dr Richard Howe, (richardghowe.com) at Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu).
Richard, an evangelical Thomist, can not only make cogent arguments based upon Natural Law, but adopting the second of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, using ‘esse,’ the essence/existence distinction, can make a logical demonstration that God must exist. From there it is a matter of using evidence to show that this God is the God of the Bible.
A 42-minute introduction to Richard’s thinking, ‘How Theology Needs Philosophy’
I would wonder what are some way to make apologetics more marketable to the point those who peruse a career are confident of the options they have. That being in academia or in the secular arena.
[1/2] First of all I appreciate your comment. I welcome discussion on these important subjects, and it is one of the things I most appreciate about Substack.
Apart from William Lane Craig, the ideas that I mentioned in my comment above are common and important in the church today.
When it comes to Craig, I below are [1] some comments from a review I believe is accurate and fair.
After the review, I will post [2] evidence from WLC's website Reasonable Faith which show in WLC's own words that the review is an accurate one.
Since that will be too long for one comment, I'll post the two parts separately.
[1]The review states - correctly, in my view - that
(a) WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be found to agree.
(b) The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally.
(c) That there was a historical Adam, but he did not come into being in the way described in the Genesis account.
The review is "Reasonable Faith or Faithful Reason? Reflections on William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam" by Scott Aniol https://g3min.org/reasonable-faith-or-faithful-reason-reflections-on-william-lane-craig-and-the-historical-adam/?srsltid=AfmBOooSIvQvFq4vkfGwAIi4VVKAuAk-DLZSjR96lfYTO9nW4Qye4rjh (accessed April 6, 2025)
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration . . .
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1 [1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33].
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.”
(1/2) First of all I appreciate your comment. I welcome discussion on these important subjects, and it is one of the things I most appreciate about Substack.
Apart from William Lane Craig, the ideas that I mentioned in my comment above are common and important in the church today.
When it comes to Craig, below are [1] some comments from a review I believe is accurate and fair.
After the review, I will post [2] evidence from WLC's website Reasonable Faith which show in WLC's own words that the review is an accurate one.
Since that will be a long post, I will divide it into two separate comments.
[1] The review states - correctly, in my view - that
(a) WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be found to agree.
(b) The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally.
(c) That there was a historical Adam, but he did not come into being in the way described in the Genesis account.
The review is "Reasonable Faith or Faithful Reason? Reflections on William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam" by Scott Aniol https://g3min.org/reasonable-faith-or-faithful-reason-reflections-on-william-lane-craig-and-the-historical-adam/?srsltid=AfmBOooSIvQvFq4vkfGwAIi4VVKAuAk-DLZSjR96lfYTO9nW4Qye4rjh (accessed April 6, 2025)
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration . . .
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1 [1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33].
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.”
Doug,
Truly this is in God's good and sovereign hands. And we have a blessed part. I am grateful to serve as an elder with three staff elders/pastors committed to answers. Our sermon last week , as we are finishing a long and edifying series in Luke (22:63- 22:16) reminded everyone that there are answers and to not doubt that promise, including offering four books as invitations to pursue answers. We offered a rare morning pulpit to Mark Mittelberg last fall with an evening Q&A later. I miss you here in Colorado.
I just finished presenting to the youth group of my church an introduction to apologetics. I separated the pursuit of formal apologetics found in university debates and offerings. (think William Lane Craig) from informal apologetics which is the street-level conversations where one seeks to remove the barriers to faith in Christ. The difference between these must be maintained because many Christians dismiss apologetics, thinking of only the first. My pastor is one of them.
Apologetics is an approach to faith that counters the atrocity of the widespread definition in the Christian Church of faith to be related to a belief without (or worse yet, contrary to) evidence. It is much more than having answers. It is a biblical way of walking in Christ. From my chair, evidential faith is superior to emotional or experiential faith, especially in terms of evangelism. It is far more transferable.
That's great that you're teaching apologetics to young people at your church. I wish every youth leader would do the same.
Apart from God’s intervention, I see a bleak future for apologetics as long as the threat that Jordan Peterson poses to many remains. With his growing influence on young men in particular, as well as in various evangelical Christian and conservative circles, he poses a great danger that has gone almost unnoticed in the apologetics community. Various apologists have often encouraged his influence on Christians in the West rather than having flagged it as dangerous. Even the very few apologists who have criticized Peterson have done so with kid gloves.
I used AI to search through your list of apologists—and even threw in extras like Sean McDowell and Wes Huff—for public statements about Jordan Peterson. All I got was apologists either not engaging at all or using great deference in their critiques of Peterson.
Are they not aware of Peterson’s “third way” for achieving world peace? Or his two decades plus of practicing Kundalini Yoga? Or his transforming the Bible into a Kundalini Yoga indoctrination manual? If not, why not?
Could they not see the introduction of Eastern mysticism on the jacket cover of We Who Wrestle with God? Since when does the Bible teach “Adam and Eve and the eternal fall of mankind” as Peterson so openly displays on that cover? Is there no second Adam?
Or when does the Bible tell us that “The continually ascending progress represented by a series of uphill climbs, each with its peak experience, is a variant of the path of ascension represented by Jacob’s Ladder, the spiraling rise into the heavens toward the Kingdom of God, with God Himself beckoning at the high point—on the apex of the highest conceivable mount.”? It doesn’t! But Peterson does, as a clear re-purposing of Jacob’s ladder from a representation of the intermediatory work of Jesus Christ to a representation of the serpent coiled at the lowest chakra spiraling upward to the next, and then the next, etc., aiming ever upward toward the highest, to achieve Moksha, oneness with the Brahman!
I could go on, and have done so in a series of carefully researched articles at steinarbremnes.substack. I hope this can help to steer apologetics in the right direction regarding Jordan Peterson, a Nicodemite cloaking his true beliefs as a stealth missionary for Eastern Mysticism. Of course, God could choose to bypass the entrenched apologists and raise up some fishermen, carpenters, etc., to do the same work, only in a way that is effective. Either way, I believe that God will ensure an effective future for apologetics.
This is just quibble, so please don't read too much into it, but as both a Talbot graduate (MA Apologetics, MA Theology) and a great admirer of JP Moreland, I might pushback on the claim that "Talbot School of Theology has been led by JP Moreland." While JP is an icon and pillar at Talbot, no doubt about that; still, both the school and even the philosophy department have been lead by many great theologians, bible scholars and philosophers. The last was my dean, NT scholar Clint Arnold, and most recently Tim Pickavance, a certified genius, who has been heading up the Phil department. That said, yes, with WLC now at Houston Christian and Doug Geivett retired, JP is the last of the old guard there.
William Lane Craig has denied the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis.
"William Lane Craig denies the literal history of Genesis because he has accepted the secular view of origins, namely, a big bang followed by billions of years of cosmic and then geologic evolution."https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/william-lane-craig-on-young-earth/#:~:text=However%2C%20William%20Lane%20Craig%20denies,cosmic%20and%20then%20geologic%20evolution
The fact that he can do this and still be praised as having a ministry with “a strong academic backbone” and be called a “high-level philosopher” indicates that there are serious problems at the heart of what may be called “the new Evangelical scholasticism.”
I call it that, because it does seem to me that modern evangelical apologetics is drifting significantly away from the “simplicity of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3) in its efforts to prove the academic respectability of Christianity.
Just like the Christian scholastics of the Middle Ages sought to harmonize Christianity with the blind pagan Aristotle, so today some are seeking to harmonize Christianity with the false, ugly and socially destructive theory of Darwinism.
Not that I am against apologetics - there is a place for it. However, Christ and the apostles did not engage in apologetics. They presented biblical truth, and God opened the hearts of some to accept that truth by the gift of faith.
This does not mean that their message was a simple one. Christ and the apostles did not just say “Trust in Christ or accept Christ and you could go to heaven.” The Bible goes far beyond that, into the highest and deepest mysteries of life. But neither did they use academic and philosophical terms to prove how intelligent they were, and to make Christianity acceptable to the academic pagans of the day.
More importantly, the failure to recognize the necessity of the historicity of Genesis is deeply troubling.
The Bible teaches that the cosmos, the galaxies, our solar system, our planet and all the marvels that were in it were created by God out of nothing, by his spoken word alone. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
All of this is completely beyond the range of science. Science has nothing to say about it. Secular science and wisdom can explain how the laws of science work, but not how those laws came into being in the first place, or why they assumed the forms they did.
Science is an extremely limited human endeavor. It cannot tell us what happens after death, if Christ rose from the dead, what sin is, what God requires of us. Making science the arbiter of what is and is not real, and making it the standard to which the bible must conform, is conformity to the world and capitulation to the world on the deepest level.
It reflects a carnal Christianity - and, there is such a thing as a carnal Christian (I Corinthians 3:3). To be carnally minded is death (Romans 8:6).
Moreover, a little leaven does leaven the whole loaf.
“But you can’t ignore science,” say some. We can when it contradicts the word of God. Science is not the only mode of knowing. There are many things beyond the range of science. How the cosmos and all that is in it came into being is one of those areas.
But, we don’t have to stop with “The Bible says so.” We can give reasons and explanations. That is legitimate Christian apologetics - as long as it holds fast without compromise to biblical truth.
For example, we don’t have to ignore the apparent age of the earth.
When the earth was being formed on the third day of creation, what if all of the millions of years of geological development really did take place, but in a few hours, or in an instant of time? What if the crust shifted and the mountains arose and the canyons were carved out by rivers, and the glaciers advanced and receded, all in due course, but in a moment of time, or in four or five hours? Or 24 hours? That would be a light and easy thing for God to do.
But why would he do such a thing? To deceive us? No, to wrap the origins of the earth in mystery so that unbelievers might have room to disbelieve.
We read in Isaiah 45:15 that God is a God who hides himself.
We read in I Corinthians 1:21 that God has deliberately set up a system in which he cannot be found by human knowledge. We have a hidden wisdom, which none of the princes and the philosophers and the scientists and the scholars of the world knew (I Corinthians 2:7-8).
Moreover, Paul refers to Genesis to explain how sin came into the world. If he was wrong about the origins of sin, how can we have any confidence in what he presents as the remedy for sin?
Denying the first few chapters of Genesis leaves the entire rest of the Bible grounded solidly on fantasy, and introduces mythological elements into the teachings of Christ himself.
Fascinating! WLC would be very disappointed in your misrepresentation of his view. You just need more time ACTUALLY studying his position and than you will understand why his view on Gen. 1-11 like other views is perfectly consistent with scripture. Until you do that your critique will be invalid because the position you’re critiquing is not WLC’s view!
1 of 2
First of all I appreciate your comment. I welcome discussion on these important subjects, and it is one of the things I most appreciate about Substack.
Apart from William Lane Craig, the ideas that I mentioned in my comment above are common and important in the church today.
When it comes to Craig, I will post [1] some comments from a review I believe is accurate and fair.
After the review, I will give [2] evidence from WLC's website Reasonable Faith which shows in WLC's own words that the review is an accurate one.
Since that will make for a very long comment, I will divide this into two parts.
[1] The review states - correctly, in my view - that
(a) WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be made to conform.
(b) The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally.
(c) That there was a historical Adam, but he did not come into being in the way described in the Genesis account.
The review is "Reasonable Faith or Faithful Reason? Reflections on William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam" by Scott Aniol https://g3min.org/reasonable-faith-or-faithful-reason-reflections-on-william-lane-craig-and-the-historical-adam/?srsltid=AfmBOooSIvQvFq4vkfGwAIi4VVKAuAk-DLZSjR96lfYTO9nW4Qye4rjh (accessed April 6, 2025)
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration . . .
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1 [1. William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33].
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.”
Joe,
For starters, the review by Scott Aniol is a great review, but unfortunately, even the review misrepresents Dr. Craig in some ways. The fact that your understanding of Dr. Craig’s view seems to be based upon one review by Scott Aniol who also does not entirely understand Dr. Craig‘s perspective helps me better understand why you are simply incorrect. Respectively, you clearly are not well acquainted with Dr. Craig‘s sophisticated yet biblically consistent understanding of Genesis 1-11. I think your first mistake is appealing to this review as if the review is entirely correct and then basing your own understanding upon the review itself instead of thoroughly researching Dr. Craig‘s material. Even the few videos you appealed to where you claim Dr. Craig’s “own words” support your perspective of his view is incorrect. This seems to be because you are starting with the assumption that you rightly understand Craig and then look to a few videos to “confirm” your assumption instead of listening with an open mind and making an honest attempt to examine as much of Dr. Craig’s content before drawing such conclusions. This is called confirmation bias. Now you don’t strike me as someone who is dumb or unwilling to seek truth. Nonetheless, given the extensive amount of time I’ve spent listening to and reading Dr. Craig’s work, I’m confident you do not entirely understand Craig’s perspective on this matter. I don’t agree on every point with Craig. But disagreeing with someone and simply straw manning another’s perspective are two different things. Unfortunately, it’s a straw man that’s at play, which is why I’m taking the time to respond to you. I will leave it to you to do your homework, but I will provide you with a few resources and responses to hopefully help you see that it is possible that there is more to Dr. Craig’s view than you may think.
You said “WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be made to conform.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. Consider the following YouTube video where Craig in his own words explains his methodology in His book on the historical Adam.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2yNKjTyoIZA&pp=ygU4d2lsbGlhbSBsYW5lIGNyYWlnIG9uIGRvZXMgc2NpZW5jZSBjb21lIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgYmlibGU%3D
His explanation of his methodology runs contrary to your misrepresentation of his view. I would encourage you to write Dr. Craig personally in a “question of the week” on his website if you still need further clarification on his position. In addition, God is the author of both the book of nature and the book of Scripture. If this is true, then the two books could never contradict each other. At best, we may run into apparent contradictions between these two books but never real contradictions. The Bible confirms God as the author of both books in the following verses.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1, NASB)
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20, NASB)
“For the music director. A Psalm of David. The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands.” (Psa 19:1, NASB)
As Dr. Craig notes in that video, he is simply trying to see if the science is consistent with the biblical data. You can also see where Dr. Craig stands on hive view of scripture by going through his defenders classes which I have personally done twice found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org
You said “The Genesis account is true, but in a mythological sense, not literally” in regards to Dr. Craigs view on Gen. 1-11.
Do you understand what Dr. Craig means by Mytho-History as the literary genre of Genesis 1-11? Please review the following video link.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4wPh4jBtGHg&pp=ygUgV2lsbGlhbSBsYW5lIGNyYWluIG15dGhvIGhpc3Rvcnk%3D
Consider the following example. Sometimes when describing someone who carries a pistol, we say they are carrying a firearm. The use of the phrase “firearm” refers to a literal object, namely, a pistol. But the phrase itself is NOT meant to be taken to literally mean an “arm on fire.” In a similar way, Dr. Craig is suggesting that some of the descriptions found in Genesis should be taken in this way. For example, when the Genesis account speaks of God “walking in the garden,” we should interpret this as referring to a literal theological truth without thinking we must be committed to the idea that an in-material God has a physical body and was literally walking in the garden. God as the creator of space, time, matter, and energy cannot himself be made of matter himself. The effect cannot also at the same time be the cause which produces the effect. Therefore, God as the Creator of space, time, matter, and energy cannot himself be comprised of matter. He transcends everything that is created as Gen. 1:1 clearly states.
I would simply encourage you to do more digging into Dr. Craig’s view before jumping to premature conclusions. I could provide many more examples and video resources for you, but I feel that if you are really serious about understanding Dr. Craig‘s position, you will do the research yourself. The content can be found on YouTube, Reasonable Faith, and also in his published work. Maybe you will disagree with him on some or many points. But it would be better to disagree with someone while rightly representing their position rather than misrepresenting them altogether. Not everything stated in the review by Dr. Scott was incorrect. Nonetheless the points that I addressed here I do believe fail to accurately represent Dr. Craig’s view.
Below I have provided some content for you to look at. If you would like to have further discussion on this or any other topics for that matter you can reach me at crazybibleninja@gmail.com
Hi Drew,
Many thanks for your time and effort. I appreciate your willingness to look into this and am, once again, glad to spend some time on these serious and important biblical questions. The literal truth of the opening chapters of the Bible is of great significance, and an important part of Christianity as a whole.
I was puzzled about your comment that the review I quoted and linked to was “a great review,” but that it misrepresents Dr. Craig “in some ways.” First, that it misrepresents Dr. Crain in some ways means that it does not misrepresent him in all ways. It would have been helpful if you had pointed out in which areas the review represented Craig correctly, and the ways in which you think it was erroneous.
Since all of the comments in the review assert that WLC does not take a literal view of the opening chapters of Genesis, if even some of those are correct, that raises serious questions.
Secondly, I don’t think you should assume that all of my understanding was based on the review, merely because I quoted it first by way of introduction. Perhaps I should have clarified that. I have been interested in Christian apologetics for some time, had heard of Dr. Craig long before this, and have read and seen some of his writings and videos, so was not merely swayed by a review.
Thirdly, you did not respond to any of the quotes I presented (with links) from Dr. Craig’s own videos on his main website. There Dr. Craig states, in no uncertain terms, that
• Genesis chapters 1-11 is a literary genre of a type that does not need to be taken literally.
• Adam and Eve belonged to the species Homo heidelbergensis, meaning that God took a pre-existing hominid form and elevated them with spiritual and intellectual gifts.
• Jesus maybe was referring to a literary Adam rather than to a historical one.
• It is difficult to correlate scientific evidence with the creation account in the Bible.
That information is posted here, along with quotes from and a link to the review. https://substack.com/@joekeysor1/note/c-106506668
I do not see where those quotes leave any room for doubt. Instead, they more than confirm the description of Dr. Craig’s views given in the review.
Instead of dealing with those vital points directly, you state that I am not well acquainted with Dr. Craig’s “sophisticated yet biblically consistent understanding of Genesis 1-11.”
I confess that my understanding of the creation account in Genesis is not “sophisticated” in the modern understanding of the word. I believe that the narrative we have there is a literal account of what happened. Whether or not it agrees with science is irrelevant to me.
Christ walking on the water, healing a man blind from birth, being born of a virgin, raising a man from the dead that had been in a tomb four days – naturalistic science says that all of those things are impossible. My response to that is that science is wrong, that there is a divine power operative in the world that infinitely transcends any feeble and irrelevant scientific objections. That applies to the creation account in Genesis. God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” and science as science has nothing to say about it.
You say that because I was swayed by the review I didn’t listen with an open mind or make an honest attempt before drawing conclusions. But I liked the review because I thought it was accurate based on previous understanding – and, I did make an honest attempt to find some information in Dr. Craig’s own words, which I quoted. Those quotes completely validate the review. Yet you responded to none of the quotes from Dr. Craig that I presented. So, I think my approach does not remotely represent a straw-man argument, and that I have presented Dr. Craig’s denial of the historicity of genesis fairly and accurately.
Is failure to deal with my evidence the result of bias on your end?
You do say you do not agree with every point of Craig's. Can you tell me, are there any aspects of Craig’s theories about Genesis you do not accept? If so, what might they be?
Now, I believe I have thoroughly responded to the first point of your response, as you did not respond to mine.
Moving on, you want to clarify Dr. Craig’s views by giving me many links. I looked at the first one, “Scripture & Science: The Appropriate Methodology.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2yNKjTyoIZA&pp=ygU4d2lsbGlhbSBsYW5lIGNyYWlnIG9uIGRvZXMgc2NpZW5jZSBjb21lIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgYmlibGU%3D
It was – thankfully – a short video. Below is some text I copied from it (a significant portion). I am really glad you brought this link up, because it presents many significant issues that are relevant for contemporary discussions on Genesis.
"The teaching of Scripture takes priority . . . I deal first not with science but with scripture . . ."
That sounds very good – but there is more. Craig also says:
"I want to read the scripture responsibly, according to the literary genre to which it belongs, apart from the input of modern science . . . is the existence of such a person incompatible with what the modern scientific evidence says?"
So what does this mean?
“The teaching of Scripture takes priority . . .I deal first not with science but with scripture” - I believe that is true of Dr. Craig’s approach to the New Testament. When he reads or explains Jesus walking on water, or rising from the dead, or being born of a virgin, Scripture does take priority over science.
When, however, it comes to the creation account in Genesis, Craig reads this portion of the Bible as truth, but as truth expressed in mythological terms. Thus, he says above that he reads Scripture “according to the literary genre to which it belongs.” In other words, it is not to be read literally. This is seen in the following quote taken directly from Craig’s website:
"Genesis chapter 1 to 11, which include the stories of Adam and Eve, belong to a literary genre or type that need not be interpreted literalistically . . . my contention that I argue in considerable detail is that Genesis 1 to 11 also belongs to a type of literature that is concerned with historical events but which should not be read in a literalistic way. It, too, is written in the colorful and figurative language that shouldn't be taken at just face value." https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/two-major-takeaways-from-historical-adam-research
So, once he decides that THE OPENING CHAPTERS OF GENESIS ARE IN A MYTHICAL GENRE, then he seeks an explanation that is compatible with contemporary science, while taking a more orthodox historical literal approach to other parts of the Bible.
So, Craig is not using science to prove the existence of a historical Adam. I never said he was. He is using science to explain what the actual, literal truth might be behind the truth which Genesis allegedly states in mythological terms – the truth that God created Adam and Eve.
I admit, when I said that WLC takes science as the primary authority to which Scripture must be made to conform, I was speaking too generally. I should have limited that to the opening chapters of Genesis, and other mythological places in the Old Testament that Craig has problems with, such as Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel:
"In his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam, distinguished Christian apologist William Lane Craig labels the Genesis accounts of Noah’s Flood, the Table of Nations, and the Tower of Babel as “fantastic elements.”[1] By this designation, Craig means that these Genesis accounts cannot be interpreted as literal history." [1] William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 104–129.
So, the video you sent shows that Craig does not subordinate the Bible to scripture, UNLESS Scripture happens to be written in a mythological genre, in which case the real answer concealed behind mythological truth must be answered in a manner consistent with the findings of modern science. The Bible is, therefore, subordinated to science in these areas.
At one point you asked: “Do you understand what Dr. Craig means by Mytho-History as the literary genre of Genesis 1-11?” Yes, I do. Craig explained it himself in a quote which I gave earlier, to which you did not respond:
"Genesis chapter 1 to 11, which include the stories of Adam and Eve, belong to a literary genre or type that need not be interpreted literalistically . . . my contention that I argue in considerable detail is that Genesis 1 to 11 also belongs to a type of literature that is concerned with historical events but which should not be read in a literalistic way. It, too, is written in the colorful and figurative language that shouldn't be taken at just face value."
Mytho-History means historical fact (that God created Adam and Eve) that is presented in a mythical way. In other words, the Bible’s assertion that God created the first man and woman is true, but the manner in which it is presented is only mythology.
I believe that approach is completely false, and destructive to the Christian faith – as we can see by WLC’s denial of the flood, and the Tower of Babel. This clearly subordinating the Word of God to human reason and leads to disastrous results.
As I’ve already stated, I would be happy to discuss this further by email or some other form of media like Discord. My email address is crazybibleninja@gmail.com.
I look forward to having further discussions with you with hopes of showing you how your understanding of Dr. Craig’s view is not accurate. This is a deep discussion and may even warrant a Zoom call. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses and willingness to try and understand Dr. Craig. It’s taken me some time as well (like 3 years) to finally get a grip on what he is putting forth in regards to Gen. 1-11. Nonetheless, with the time that I’ve spent engaging with his material and others, I can be confident to some degree that you’re making many of the same mistakes that most critics of Craig make.
The review by Scott was great in the sense that it was a thoughtful review of his book. Nevertheless, this doesn’t make everything he says true or accurate. The points that I chose to respond to you with are the same issues I would take with the review by Scott but not strictly limited to those points alone. I personally don’t have the time to give a full written response given the busyness of life at the moment with preparations for my upcoming deployment for the military. I would encourage you to reach out to me directly by email so we can try to establish a Zoom meeting possibly. You can also write Dr. Craig directly with your concerns at his website www.reasonablefaith.org
I have started looking at Craig's book and do not think I am mistaken in my understanding of his views.
However, as per our phone conversation I am going to put down some of my views on the nature of Scripture, and then respond to some of the comments in Craig's book. Since this is a long, complex and important concept, I think I will not only send that to you, but also post them as Substack essays once I complete the one I am currently working on.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBcb24HMR5Y
When it comes to these seven links below, I have two other links from you for which transcripts were available, and have saved those in a file. I also have Craig's book In Quest of the Historical Adam. I may be able to look at these 7 links and incorporate them into my writing.
I am not sending you any links on this subject because I don't use the internet much, and have not looked at and evaluated any videos on this subject. If I find one that looks worthwhile I will send it, but I doubt think anyone will handle this the way I plan to.
I do believe though that Genesis 1-11 is not "mytho-historical" but historical. And I think the "woodenistically" literal reading as I have seen it presented is definitely a strawman. Here is why I say that.
Take the following literal historical statement:
"In 1781, George Washington defeated General Cornwallis at the battle of Yorktown with the help of the French General de Grasse."
That is a simple straightforward statement of history with no mythological element whatever. However, reading it as literal historical fact does not prevent me from thinking about it and analyzing it more deeply, and seeking more knowledge of it elsewhere.
The fact that I read it literally does not prevent me from wondering "How did the French get involved?" and then wanting to research the diplomacy of the period.
A literal reading does not prevent me from wondering "How did Washington win the battle?" or "What sort of a man was Cornwallis? What mistakes did he make? What was his background?" In fact, the knowledge that I am reading about something that really happened stimulates thought in various directions.
But reading that "Washington won the battle of Yorktown with the help of ancient Indian spirits who were pleased with him because he respected Indian graves on his property" does not stimulate serious thought.
A literal "woodenistic" reading does not prevent me from thinking about the contents and getting more information elsewhere.
To look at it another way:
If you read the material in the gospels woodenistically to understand that Christ really did die on the cross and rise from the dead, that it is not mythology or mytho-history, but a simple statement of what actually occurred, the literal reading of this fact does not prevent you from trying to understand it more deeply. A literal reading does not prevent you from looking at Romans and Hebrews and Galatians for a deeper understanding of those events, or from using other verses to deepen your understanding. It does not mean you can only take the words directly on the page without personal engagement, feeling and reaction.
In fact, interpreting those events mythologically, as all myth with no historical substance, or as mytho-history, meaning you need to find additional explanations agreeable to the modern mind, hinders understanding (in my view).
Similarly, if I read Genesis 3:1-5 literally, and believe that there actually was a talking snake, this does not mean I am forbidden to try and understand it further. To say that reading any biblical passage literally means that you cannot think about it, and compare it to other scriptures in a search for deeper understanding, reduces literal reading to something that no serious Bible reader does.
I can take Genesis 3:1-5 literally and still seek to understand it and compare it to other scriptures, and to say that literal reading means I cannot do this is a completely false understanding of literal reading.
When I look at Genesis 3:15 and see that prophecy involving the snake which is consistently applied to Satan, I am allowed to use that to inform and illuminate my literal reading of the passage and say Satan was involved with the snake.
Now we are in a spiritual dimension about which modern science qua science is completely blind and has nothing to say.
Whereas to dismiss the whole story as fantastic and mythological, only because it does not measure up to our false modern standards is a very bad mistake.
When someone says, That story is fantastic and clearly mythological, I think that person is wrong. It is not fantastic to the spiritual mind, nor is it mythological.
When I am told that a literal reading forbids me to think about the passage and forbids me to use scripture to explain scripture, that I cannot think beyond the words on the page, I think that is a reductively simplistic description of what it means to read the Bible literally.
But I am getting ahead of myself.
https://reasonablefaith_app.subspla.sh/ydkz4cp
https://reasonablefaith_app.subspla.sh/qm7ttwj
https://reasonablefaith_app.subspla.sh/x2mh2qw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u9ELpG9T0h0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=08_MRW1SKV4
2 of 2
[2] REFERENCES FROM CRAIG'S WEBSITE
[a] "Two Major Takeaways from Historical Adam Research" https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/two-major-takeaways-from-historical-adam-research
In this video, Craig states "Genesis chapter 1 to 11, which include the stories of Adam and Eve, belong to a literary genre or type that need not be interpreted literalistically . . . my contention that I argue in considerable detail is that Genesis 1 to 11 also belongs to a type of literature that is concerned with historical events but which should not be read in a literalistic way. It, too, is written in the colorful and figurative language that shouldn't be taken at just face value."
"As a result of my study, I am absolutely convinced that Neanderthals were fully human, and that therefore if there was an Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve had to be prior to the divergence of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. And that would place them at the time of a human species called Homo heidelbergensis, or Heidelberg man, who was a human being that had a brain capacity comparable to modern Homo sapiens, a modern appearance, and yet who lived around 750,000 years ago. My proposal is that we identify Adam and Eve with two members of this species Homo heidelbergensis who were then the progenitors of subsequent human species so that every human being is descended from this primordial foundational pair. I would note that that is fully consistent with the evidence of population genetics and paleoanthropology. That's the position I defend in the book."
[b] Did Jesus Think Adam Was a Historical Figure?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/did-jesus-think-adam-was-a-historical-figure
"The question here would be whether Jesus might simply be referring to the literary Adam, that figure that features in the stories of Genesis 2 and 3, rather than speaking of a historical individual. I think that's certainly very possible. We can refer to literary figures without committing ourselves to their historicity . . . So at one level I don't think that the teachings of Jesus entail that Adam was a historical figure, but if Jesus did believe that Adam actually lived and wrought then I think that does commit someone who believes in the deity of Christ to the historicity of Adam."
[My comment - so, it is possible Jesus was not speaking of a historical Adam. After all, we do not know if the Good Samaritan was a real historical figure or not, and that does not affect the point Jesus was teaching. If Jesus was speaking of a literal Adam then we should believe that, because Jesus was infallible. But if Jesus was not speaking literally, then we do not have to believe it literally either - and Craig makes it clear elsewhere he does not believe Christ was speaking of a literal, historical Adam].
[c]How Can One Coordinate Both the Scientific & Biblical Data on a Historical Adam?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/how-can-one-coordinate-both-the-scientific-biblical-data-on-a-historical-adam
Craig says in this video that it is difficult to correlate scientific evidence with the Bible - but it is not difficult at all, if we believe that God spoke the creation into being out of nothing by his word alone.
Craig goes on to say that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of Homo sapiens and of Neanderthal man, and elaborates: "Who was the ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal? Well, it was a hominid called Heidelberg man . . . Adam and Eve did belong to the species Heidelberg man, and he was not some kind of an ape man or something like that. He was an intelligent, gifted and cognitively modern human being which is ancestral to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens."
Craig specifically refers his viewers to refer to Heidelberg man on Wikipedia, which approaches the whole matter from an entirely secular viewpoint.
Craig thus shares the viewpoint of C.S. Lewis, that there was a primitive hominid species that emerged by natural means, and then God endowed two of them with the special powers of reason that made them human.
Because of the importance of this subject I have reposted it as a separate note https://substack.com/profile/141344006-joe-keysor/note/c-106506668
I think you misrepresent WLC or don't understand him. The Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis has multiple valid definitions. It can mean a 24 hour period OR a long epoch of time. WLC takes it to mean the later as used in Genesis I and II. A long epoch makes sense because there wouldn't have been a 24 hour Earth day on Day 1 in the Genesis account. I suggest reading Hugh Ross on this subject.
Personally I think the 24 hour day is best, as morning and evening are specified, but it could be 6 distinct eons of creation, as long as the distinct stages are preserved and in the proper order. The word "day" can be used in different ways as you say. I don't think anyone has ever understood "the day of the Lord" to refer only to a 24 hour period. So, I don't dispute that, but the question of human origins is a very different matter.
I don't think I misinterpreted Craig at all. The following coincides with what I have heard and read from Craig in videos or books:
Reasonable Faith or Faithful Reason? Reflections on William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam [review of Craig's book IN QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL ADAM.
https://g3min.org/reasonable-faith-or-faithful-reason-reflections-on-william-lane-craig-and-the-historical-adam/?srsltid=AfmBOooSIvQvFq4vkfGwAIi4VVKAuAk-DLZSjR96lfYTO9nW4Qye4rjh
"Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. This past week at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I had the opportunity to hear Craig further explain and defend his views concerning what some claim to be a denying of the historical Adam.
"To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book—sort of. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.
"Yet therein lies Craig’s problem. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence.”1
"The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”
"Craig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”—he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:
"First, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science; but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. I heard Craig claim in his ETS presentation, “The Pentateuchal author did not intend for his narrative to be taken literally.” As James White correctly noted when I quoted Craig on Twitter:
"In other words, if Scripture were Craig’s ultimate authority, he would begin with the assumption (based on Scripture itself) that Moses is the author of Genesis and that his narrative in the first eleven chapters actually happened as written. He would then interpret the scientific evidence through that lens. But since “scientific evidence” is Craig’s authority, he must try to make sense of the biblical narrative within evolutionary presuppositions.
"Second, Craig argues that a historical Adam and Eve could have existed, but at the earliest 500,000+ years ago (based on “scientific evidence”) and having evolved from “pre-human” hominins. In other words, evolution happened as science “proves,” and at some point, God appointed Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race. Here is a brief summary of his argument:
"We may imagine an initial population of hominins—animals that were like human beings in many respects but lacked the capacity for rational thought. Out of this population, God selected two and furnished them with intellects by renovating their brains and endowing them with rational souls. One can envision a regulatory genetic mutation, which effected a change in the functioning of the brain, resulting in significantly greater cognitive capacity. Such a transformation could equip the individuals with the neurological structure to support a rational soul. Thus the radical transition effected in the founding pair that lifted them to the human level plausibly involved both biological and spiritual renovation. 2
"We may 'imagine' indeed."
What need is there of any quest for the historical Adam when he is readily explained by the book of Genesis.
This is a good article, though I think another challenge for apologetics in the future is the emergence of "analytic Atheism" or "philosophical Atheism." In the same way, there has been a growth with academic apologetics, there has also been a growth with academic Atheism, and many of these insights are being translated into the contemporary foray and being used to devastating effect against traditional apologetics. I'd love to see apologetics focusing on more sophisticated forms of Atheism.
Check our Impact 360! They work with talbot/biola and sean mcdowell as well as JP moreland are visiting professors. I think Huf’s ministry, Apologetics Canada is also doing great stuff
Great overview of the history of apologetics and its future. I became a Christian from atheism in 1971 through the ministry of apologists, so have had several decades to see what you described. The Apostle Paul wrote multiple times that Christians are in spiritual 'warfare,' and we know that apologetics is one of the primary weapons in the 'armor' God has given us to wage war with the enemy. I especially liked what you wrote at the beginning and ending of your article - "The future of apologetics—and of everything—is in God’s good and sovereign hands." Agreed, sir.
This is very good, but omits an important and I hope, growing apologetics influence and direction, that of the “classical” approach. I would direct our attention to the work of my friend, Dr Richard Howe, (richardghowe.com) at Southern Evangelical Seminary (ses.edu).
Richard, an evangelical Thomist, can not only make cogent arguments based upon Natural Law, but adopting the second of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, using ‘esse,’ the essence/existence distinction, can make a logical demonstration that God must exist. From there it is a matter of using evidence to show that this God is the God of the Bible.
A 42-minute introduction to Richard’s thinking, ‘How Theology Needs Philosophy’
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2z4PO7R-CIY&pp=ygULaG93ZSBzYWx0MTQ%3D