Comments on William Lane Craig on Historical Adam

Yes of course, and that would be one of my points. That because the motivation for doing re-interpretations in the first place come from outside of the texts, from outside of the historical and literary context, that makes the arguments employed to defend the alternative interpretations seem weak and implausible.

This wasn’t really about WLC at all. The contradiction implied by his words just provided another easy target for criticism, because it doesn’t make sense to say that you cannot do something only then to immediately turn around and say the opposite in the very next sentence.

I wouldn’t say that. I’d say that weak and implausible interpretations suggest that the motivations don’t come from the text. Or, to put it another way, if there are strong motivations supplying the interpretation, there will be a temptation to accept weak arguments.

Agreed. I should correct my statement to say that the main thing that make the alternative interpretations seem weak and implausible are the literal words themselves. And that having an understanding of the surrounding culture and science of the people doing the reinterpretations(and the historical changes there have been in these), better supports the inference that these reinterpretations really aren’t based on plausible historical or literary analysis in the end.

I think it’s interesting we’re talking about weak and implausible interpretations when some of us have barely read the best of these alternate interpretations.

1 Like

Some very concordist interpretations would fit in this category. Not all.

1 Like

The real problem here is twofold.

  1. Let’s say that, as God, you want to provide a written revelatory framework which communicates important truths about humanity, the cosmos, and the earth’s interbalanced ecosystems, such that, though nature in the raw is powerful and even intimidating, you neverthless wish to convey truths which will help your readers transcend these challenges to their own sense of purpose, and even provide lasting existential comfort.
    How are you going to craft a message which fits those criteria spanning centuries of social change, changes in scientific knowledge, changes in paradigms, etc. to be written down once for all time by an ancient person?
  2. Are you allowed to use literary methods which, while transparent to one culture or epoch, are not as easily apprehended by another?
  3. As scientific knowledge increases, it often serves to displace our confidence in less “literal” explanations, but that need not be so.
    RTB, as one example, shows real promise, as Joshua has elucidated, in being able to bridge the gap between the mindset of the ancients and the insights of the modern by using the “two books” paradigm explanation to guide their model-making and apologetics.
    That is, the time-honored distinction of “general revelation” and “special revelation” in Judaeo-Christian theology is supposed to inform us during these tensions, to discern the mind and intentions of our eternal Creator.
    For a mind set on discrediting such as even a possibility, no answer will ever be good enough.
    For minds set on trying to discover the continuity of both “books,” there is real hope for a satisfactory set of answers.
    Christian theology often speaks of both the “now” and the “not yet” nature of the life lived by faith.
    It’s perfectly fine to “allow our scientific progress to drive us back to the text,” to search for answers which, up until now, are those which had “not yet” been apprehended.
    Science itself goes through these changes, as “paradigm shifts,” so it is not a “weakness” particular to Judaeo-Christian theology. It is, instead, a strength.
    While it is too often a faulty and lagging process, nevertheless, all Judaeo-Christians share more in common over what really matters, than the differences in their interpretations of these matters.
    For those who have investigated the questions of the certainty of Jesus’ resurrection, and have found in that a basis for gaining hopeful knowledge in continuity with that truth in other areas, it is a matter of satisfying, lifelong exploration.
    Just as it is for those scientists who have weathered the centuries of reaching discussions, discovered new evidence, undergone divisive paradigm changes, all in search of coherent knowledge.
    You don’t have to deny the one to have the other.
    That’s where WLC may be in danger of overstating his case.

You’re God, you can keep updating the book indefinitely with your unlimited divine omnipotence and insight. You can magically make the book make perfect culturally contextual sense to anyone who opens it to look inside.

1 Like

Nope.
Not even God will force “Himself” upon those who refuse to acknowledge “Him.”
God models the values “He” hopes to inculcate in us.
One of the things God does is to present “revelation” --timeless truths which do not get “updated.”
I’m talking about the God Who is, not some inferior version.

To say that writing clearly and for ease of comprehension is “forcing yourself upon” someone is a serious contender for one of the most absurd statements I have ever read.

If you don’t want to read a particular book, you can simply elect not to. And if you don’t like what it says, you can proceed to ignore it after having read it. A book intended to carry an important message being immediately comprehensible to everyone, can’t be reasonably argued to be a flaw or inferior.

The point is to update them for comprehension so that people who didn’t grow up wielding iron-age weapons and tools, or herding goats under the Roman empire, would still understand the messages it contains. An omnipotent God could do that.

A book that contains stories or allegories or metaphors or other kinds of “truthes” that require a substantial immersion in, and understanding of the time-period in which it was written, is a less clear and comprehensible book than one that can be easily understood in any historically contingent context.

Ahh yes, the “superior” God that’s more easily misunderstood. Look at what a completely ridiculous position your theology is forcing you to argue.

1 Like

Like I said.

Indeed, but I think I heard much the same thing here very recently, when somebody suggested that for there to be an adequate amount of evidence to demonstrate the existence of a god would involve that god in “epistemic coercion,” which evidently is something a god wouldn’t get up to. Every time I see a convincing scientific conclusion backed by substantial evidence, I now reject it, because, you know, who wants to be epistemically coerced?

1 Like

I’m not. I wouldn’t limit it to one person, or one time. I wouldn’t have it written down; better to carve it into something like an obelisk - or dozens of them. I wouldn’t use words, I’d use pictures. I’d also make sure it was available to everyone, not just people who happened to be born in the right culture(s), and was clear enough that it wouldn’t be easily misinterpreted.

Bigotry, incomprehensibility, and fondness for mass slaughter?

1 Like

Like I said. The mind won’t investigate what it’s unwilling to allow for.
No, God chose a method of revelation which would cause is to investigate His purposes throughout history on order to understand “Him” in the present, rather than changing the mesaage constantly, because that would only increase the level of controversy and make “Him” chimeric.
God also communicates to and through “His” people through the Holy Spirit, Who leads us to truth.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

What proportion of people alive historically and currently have actually had the means and opportunity to investigate via this supposedly-chosen method of revelation?

Consider yourself being led.

So let’s get this straight: You’re say that if God ensures through his divine and omnipotent will, that everyone who opens his book to read it, will correctly understand it as it is intended to be understood, rather than having them try to make sense of it through translations and long-gone historical contexts, then this would actually for some literally incomprehensible reason have the opposite effect, and increase the level of controversy surrounding His words?

I don’t believe I need to provide a rebuttal to that.

True, but it’s the leading to water-part we are discussing here, not the drinking. Having a correct understanding of God’s intended meaning won’t by itself force anyone to follow it, but it will reduce ambiguity and controversy in what exactly He intends to convey.

1 Like

“And those who know Your name will put their trust in You, For You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You.” - Psalm 9:10 NASB (A psalm of David)

The Guinness Book of World Records estimates that more than 5 billion copies of the Bible have been printed.
Over 100 million Bibles are printed every year.
Readers in the United States will purchase 25% of those newly printed Bibles every year.
In the world today, there are more than 80,000 different versions of the Bible that generate at least 1 sale annually.
Given the central role that even a single copy of a Torah or Bible has always played, even in small early or medieval villages, it’s clear that, proportionally, more people have had access to this book than to ANY other piece of literature in human history.
This long standing emphasis, by the way, is what led to high levels of literacy in cultures with this value, and finally to modern public education.

I think you know that you haven’t actually answered the question.

What proportion of people alive historically and currently have actually had the means and opportunity to investigate via this supposedly-chosen method of revelation?

1 Like

I think you know I have answered it sufficiently.
Far more than have had access to a modern scientific education, would be another way to answer.
Do you know of some statistical number to answer this question, which would invalidate the "chosen method?
I find it rather odd that the “alternative method” herein proposed relies on “magic,” by employing means of a forced overruling of any skeptical orientation.
God preserves for us our right to make our own moral choices --including our choice to reject “Him,” while holding us accountable for those choices. He will not circumvent our choices.
Like any truly gracious Person does.
Perhaps what you are truly asking is some version of this question? Fate of the unlearned - Wikipedia