William Lane Craig Ends His Search for Adam and Eve

Public Square
, ,
21

And yet the document you cite at the start is pushing for genetic sole-progenitor A&E, though it allows for other possibilities in addition to the favored one. That’s why it spends so much time attacking evidence against a bottleneck of 2.

Quoting:

I notice also that his scenario puts the divergence between neandartals and modern humans too recently, so he should probably push his date back a little. But he clearly is claiming not only a sole genetic A&E as his preference but an actual speciation event that produces H. heidelbergensis, not just some kind of theological annointing.

Perhaps he’s changed his views since that article, or perhaps he’s very bad at expressing his views in writing or, conceivably, in conversation. But whatever the explanation, the article doesn’t fit what you’re saying.

22

What’s a rational soul? Some animals are clearly rational. What’s an image bearing soul? The only difference in souls I see is some have richer mental lifes because of the brains they are attached to. So what’s different between the soul of a wolf and a soul of a human besides the brains they are attached to that give them their differences? This is why I don’t like the image of God having anything to do with cognitive abilities.

23

There is a very real communication gap here. He has a range of options that he is considering here. The details you are fixing on are not actually fixed in his position.

24

Agreed. They’re just what he features most prominently, suggesting that it’s his preferred position. It’s what he talks about most, and it’s what he takes the most pains to dispose of objections to. Of course he leaves other options open, but his preferred position is clearly not GAE.

25

His preferred position is not a recent GAE. He has publicly stated he takes an ancient GAE position.

26

I hate to harp on this, but if GAE is his preferred position, he’s a very bad writer.

27

Perhaps, but he has been working out his position and you come to the table with some strong preconceptions about his views. Both ingredients are the fodder of misunderstanding.

1 Like
28

I don’t. All I know is what I read in the writings you have presented here.

29

You both seem naive in the way you cling to Genesis 1-11 as if it is relevant to human origins. It is a regional myth of world and human creation, post-exilic, containing redacted echoes of earlier regional myths. But every culture from every region on earth has such myths. As for the names “Adam and Eve,” you both show yet more naivety. Gunkel, an Old Testament scholar, pointed out that early Israelite authors made up names for people or things in Genesis 1-11 that were sometimes based on words that simply sounded like words from nearby cultures rather than etymological knowledge of a word’s true origin, or they invented names simply to fit what went on in the tale being told. Adam is basically a name like mud man, man of the earth, to fit the myth that he was made of animated earth. The name Eve was invented for the mother of all living, and her story involves being born from Adam’s side which reflects an earlier Sumerian myth in which the pun is obvious. In that earlier tale she who gives life and lady of the rib are a pun in the Sumerian tongue. Gunkel writes about other such cases:.

“To the ancient Israelites names were not so unimportant as to us, for they were convinced that names were somehow closely related to the things. It was quite impossible in many cases for the ancient people to give the correct explanation, for names were, with Israel as with other nations, among the most ancient possessions of the people, coming down from extinct races or from far away stages of the national language… Early Israel as a matter of course explains such names without any scientific spirit and wholly on the basis of the language as it stood. It identifies the old name with a modern one which sounds more or less like it, and proceeds to tell a little story explaining why this particular word was uttered under these circumstances and was adopted as the name. We too have our popular etymologies. How many there are who believe that the noble river which runs down between New Hampshire and Vermont and across Massachusetts and Connecticut is so named because it ‘connects’ the first two and ‘cuts’ the latter two states! Manhattan Island, it is said, was named from the exclamation of a savage who was struck by the size of a Dutch hat worn by an early burgher, ‘Man hat on!’… Similar legends are numerous in Genesis and in later works. The city of Babel is named from the fact that God there confused human tongues (balal, Gen 11: 9); Jacob is interpreted as ‘heelholder’ because at birth he held his brother, whom he robbed of the birthright, by the heel (Gen 25:26); Zoar means ‘trifle,’ because Lot said appealingly, ‘It is only a trifle’ (Gen 19:20,22); Beersheba is ‘the well of seven,’ because Abraham there gave Abimelech seven lambs (21:28 ff.); Isaac (Jishak) is said to have his name from the fact that his mother laughed (sahak) when his birth was foretold to her (18:12), and so forth.

“In order to realize the utter naĩveté of most of these interpretations, consider that the Hebrew legend calmly explains the Babylonian name Babel from the Hebrew vocabulary, and that the writers are often satisfied with merely approximate similarities of sounds: for instance, “Cain” (Kajin) sounds like the Hebrew for “gotten” (kaniti, ‘I have acquired/gotten,’ hence the legend arose that when Cain was born to Eve she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1); Reuben from rah beonji, ‘he hath regarded my misery’ (Gen 29:32), etc. Every student of Hebrew knows that these are not satisfactory etymologies.”

30

William Lane Craig misunderstands what scholars are saying about Genesis 1 and the shape of the cosmos. Craig equates the firmament (Hebrew raqia) with the sky, saying, “Ben Smith has probably given the best characterization of the denotation of raqia. He says that it refers to… all that can be seen above the Earth from the surface. John Walton has put it nicely by saying, Yes, there was a raqia, and it is blue. It’s just the sky. That’s all it is. It’s the sky.”

But “Ben Smith” is not an authority concerning ancient cosmologies (he completed an M.A. in 2019 and it wasn’t in O.T. or ancient Near Eastern studies), and Walton admits in his most recent works that, “Everyone in the ancient world believed in a cosmic ocean suspended above a solid sky.” (The Lost World of the Flood, 2018) And, “We have no reason to suppose that the Israelites thought about the composition of the sky any differently than those around them… Historical evidence shows that virtually everyone in the ancient world believed in a solid firmament.” (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 2nd ed., 2018). John Walton on the structure of the heavens and the earth: John Walton on the structure of the... - Edward T. Babinski | Facebook. As for the raqia being solid see

Craig also mentions in irrelevant fashion the precision of Babylonian astronomers, but their keen interest in the movement of starry objects overhead only illustrates their belief that the home of their high creator god (Marduk) was literally above the earth, and hence movements of lights above were viewed as divine signs they sought to catalog and read. Scrivenings: The Holy Heavens of the Hebrews

The Babylonians believed that lights in the sky were placed there by the creator (Marduk in the case of the Babylonians) so that humans could observe times of regular religious worship & festivals. That is what the word “seasons” means in Genesis 1 and the Pentateuch (compare the similar understanding in the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish): Scrivenings: Israel and Babylon's High Gods: Yahweh and Marduk

Craig also quote-mined Othmar Keel by citing a paragraph where Keel rails against highly specific architectural blueprint-looking illustrations of how the ancients viewed the cosmos. But Keel was not debunking the general features of such a flat storied cosmos, but the detailed architectural-like specificity and lack of acknowledgement in such illustrations that divine power supports the flat earth and firmament. All that Keel said was that the ancients did not picture the cosmos in a fashion that was “entirely concrete” and displayed purely architectural knowledge. Nor did Keel say that the ancients pictured the cosmos in a “purely abstract” fashion, but generally it was viewed as firm, flat, with a barrier holding back celestial waters and the realm of the divine above, and it was all secured via miraculous divine fiat. See Keel’s own illustrations: Edward T. Babinski | Facebook

That wraps up Craig’s superficial understanding of biblical cosmology and naive attempts at quote-mining. But also keep in mind that Walton’s admission that such ancient cosmological views are culturally determined and therefore not necessary for Christians to believe, undermines a lot more than just biblical cosmology. Because the OT shared a lot more cultural views with its neighbors than just cosmological ones.

The Israelites shared with their neighbors the eastward orientation of their tabernacle and temple, the placement of important cultic objects within them, the designation of areas of increasing holiness, rules for access to the Holy Place and Holy of Holies, as well as practices like circumcision and sacrificial offerings. [Dr. Bealeʼs admissions, and heʼs a biblical inerrantist and Evangelical Christian]

They agreed with their ancient neighbors that it was important to appease a high divinity via building a temple, saying prayers, giving praises, having priests and sacrifices, all important to a nationʼs blessing and protection granted from its high god. For instance, after Babylon had been plundered by the king of Assyria, the next king of Babylon interpreted the invasion as a punishment sent by Babylonʼs high god who had been angered by his peopleʼs lack of righteous behavior and lack of worship of Marduk

The Hebrew language is in fact a “language of Canaan,” as says the prophet (Isaiah 19:18), a conclusion amply confirmed by ancient inscriptions. In scholarly terms, Hebrew is a “southern dialect of the Canaanite language.” From its earliest appearance until the Babylonian destruction, Hebrew was written in the Canaanite alphabet.

As with language and the alphabet, so with culture generally: Ancient Israelite culture was in many respects a subset of Canaanite culture. The most powerful and extensive demonstration of this last statement comes from the body of literature uncovered at the site of Ugarit.

The Canaanite King Kirta of the Ugaritic epic with the same name, was called out by his own son who is shown speaking like a Hebrew prophet calling out rulers for their lack of solicitude for widows, orphans, and the poor:

When raiders lead raids,

and creditors detain (debtors),

You let your hands fall slack:

you do not judge the widowʼs case,

you do not make a decision regarding the oppressed,

you do not cast out those who prey upon the poor.

Before you, you do not feed the orphan,

behind your back the widow” (vi 49-51).

— Context of Scripture 1.102 vi 25-53

Conservative Christians admit that the divinely inspired laws of the Babylonian King, Hammurabi, predate the alleged time when Moses received divinely inspired laws.

There were also stories about gods directing people how they wanted their temples built that preceded tales in the Bible about Yahweh directing a king of Israel how His temple was to be built. See Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. The author is a professor at a conservative Christian seminary who concludes that “Satan” was making ancient people do the things that Satan knew in advance that God was going to make his people do later. So the professorʼs hypothesis is that Satan was counterfeiting Godʼs moves in advance. Without employing such a hypothesis itʼs obvious that much of the OT simply fits its milieu, its time, place and culture. Niehausʼ book was quite a source of frustration for a Christian at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary who wrote a paper critiquing it, and concluded the following:

“Niehaus frames his book with bookend chapters that state clearly what he is setting out to show, in particular that demonic activity may be attributing to the similarities seen in the almost parallel appearing texts of other ANE cultures. However, for the reader who comes to the text in most cases from a faith background, Niehaus does not offer an easy path at all to reach the conclusion that God has indeed shown Himself unique and sovereign against the backdrop of the(not real) gods of the neighbors of His covenant people Israel. The majority of the book leaves the reader unengaged as they are not shown a true contrast to what they want to know to be biblical supremacy, showing the covenantal love of the Creator of the universe for His children. Instead, the feeling a reader may walk away with is one of frustration with the lack of differentiation.”

For examples of high moral praise afforded the Babylonian creator of the cosmos see Scrivenings: Israel and Babylon's High Gods: Yahweh and Marduk

1 Like