1 Like
Iâm starting to wonder if Craig has seen my critiques of his position. The only thing I was wrong about in my entire series was that Lewis never stated his position on the Genesis creation story. Craig argues that his position is the same as Lewisâ three separate times in this interview, despite having argued previously, and correctly, that Lewisâ definition of âmythâ and his differ dramatically and downplaying the comparison. Interesting. Am I living rent-free in William Lane Craigâs head?
22 posts were split to a new topic: Introducing Boris
So letâs recap Craigâs argument:
Iâm with C.S. Lewis (argument from authority)
Thereâs no way this story was real (personal incredulity)
Iâm with C.S. Lewis (again)
I want Christians to have access to a multiplicity of views (???)
Iâm with C.S. Lewis
???
Profit!
That is not his argument. You will be quite surprised with his book I am sure.
I doubt it, unless heâs come up with something new since his Defenders series on this 2 years ago, which was finished only a few months before he finished the book. In the future Iâd recommend making the basic argument from the book in appearances promoting the book.
If I were to summarize the outline of Craigâs argument, based only on the Unbelievable? podcast, it would rather be something like:
(1) Textual analysis of Genesis shows elements of myth.
(2) Textual analysis of Genesis also shows elements of history.
[Craig referred to the mixing of these two as mythohistory]
(3) It is unclear from the text exactly which parts are meant to be mythical and which are meant to be historical.
(4) There are broader theological reasons (Craig mentions the introduction of sin) for thinking that the existence of Adam and Eve are meant to be historical figures and the first hominids with rational souls, from which all of us descended.
(5) In agreement with Swamidass, Craig argues that this historical understanding of Adam and Eve is not ruled out by current understanding of human evolution.
Craig then presents one specific scenario that is consistent with the above, but does not advocate this scenario. Craig seems to remain agnostic about how exactly all of this works out. Since Craig believes (3) and (5), he doesnât think textual analysis or science will be able to uniquely identify who Adam and Eve really were or how specifically sin entered into the world.
As @swamidass said near the end (paraphrased), Adam and Eve become less clear and Jesus becomes more clear, the deeper you look into it.
4 Likes
Thatâs a great summary.
This point is central to WLCs case, but I donât see how he establishes it with confidence. Many people will dispute him, and many will agree with him here.
Missed by many is that the way he agrees isnât by defending AE as sole-genetic progenitors (no interbreeding), but as genealogical universal ancestors. He is proposing an ancient GAE, in contrast with a recent or young GAE.
Thatâs, in part, because he doesnât see any references in theology or scripture to DNA. Likewise he doesnât deny the existence of a larger population of reproductively compatible individuals.
3 Likes
Likewise there will be much debate on the particulars of what exactly mythical and what isnât.
Craig turns the dial so far towards myth that a lot of people are going to be surprised. I donât know if his argument here is well justified, but perhaps in can be.
Itâs notable to me that he seems more guided by theological commitments (Adam and Eve the progenitors of humanness) than a biblical theology. His use of Scripture to justify this (and object to the YAC in GAE) comes off a bit like proof texting to me: selective hyperliterism in the context of a nearly mythological reading.
Whatever the strengths and weakness of his reasoning, he is filling a key role in expanding the range of options considered by the church.
2 Likes
I see it that Craigâs exploring (but not advocating) an âendmemberâ case. Heâs finding out how far in one direction the story can be pushed, within the bounds of what the text and science allows, without running into what he thinks are serious theological problems.
In your book, you explore (but do not advocate for) the other clear endmember. Adam and Eve created ex nihilo roughly 6000 years ago. Everything about the garden could be literally true. But pushing your story further would create problems.
If the Earth or universe were taken to be created in seven literal days, and the fall were taken to be the literal origin of any kind of animal death, this version would come into conflict with science.
Both of you carve out useful endmembers, and neither of you seem to advocate for a specific position in the middle.
If you had to place a date when Adam and Eve lived, how long ago do you think it would be?
1 Like
Yes we are in a sense arguing for the legitimacy for different brackets of a range.
Our work with RTB is the third leg of the stool, showing the legitimacy of a intermediate date.
Itâs notable that EC seems to have slowly acknowledged all but the last leg of this. So there is more work to do.
âIf you had to place a date when Adam and Eve lived, how long ago do you think it would be?â
6184 years.
The Greek Great Year of 4000 Years
All the data dependent on the 480-430-215 year scheme, as well as the date of the Exodus in the year 2666 and Abrahamâs birth in 1946, are explained within this Hellenistic ontology of time.
Adam⌠1AM
Birth of AbrahamâŚ1946 AM
Call of AbrahamâŚ2021 AM
Entrance into EgyptâŚ2236 AM
Exodus from EgyptâŚ2666 AM
Solomonâs templeâŚ3146 AM
Exile to BayalonâŚ3576 AM
Edict of CyrusâŚ3626AM = 538 BCE
Rededication of the temple 4000 AM =164 BCE
This is how we know the universe is 6184 years old⌠give or take 14 or 15 billion years.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.