There are reasons far beyond mere familiarity to adhere to the recent/genealogical view of Adam over Dr. Craig's historical view: 1) Genesis strongly appears to place Adam and Eve/Eden in a Neolithic context. 2) Reading an ancient Adam into the text, requires far more "massaging" of the genealogies than a recent genealogical Adam, whether or not the ages are symbolic or there are gaps, etc. 3) Cain's wife. While it's almost a cliched joke, "where did Cain get his wife?" and even more importantly, the mark of Cain seem to strongly point to the existence of people outside the Garden (unless as with the Neolithic context, and the genealogies, you read them far more symbolically). 4) Scripture talks about the Image of God in very spiritual and functional terms. In fact, it's something that's in some sense lost or damaged in the Fall, though post-Fall humans are certainly capable art, logic, technology, advanced social structures, etc. Adam and Eve as a special couple to be God's representatives also strongly echoes Scripture's constant theme of God's chosen people. Why make the narrative of Genesis 1-11 so symbolic, while simultaneously making the Image of God concept so literal/material? 5) Dr. Craig by taking this very literal/material understanding of the Image of God and using it to determine a historical Adam is yoking his interpretation to a scientific consensus that is in many ways in its infancy and is likely to change substantially over the coming decades as we learn more all the time about archaic hominids. Points 4) and 5) seem to me to be the particular clinchers. Dr. Craig isn't just making Gen 1-11 more figurative, but is also making the understanding of the Image of God more literal in what I think is an unhelpful way. There's, not unfairly, been a lot of focus and criticism on the former aspect of his reading, but I think the latter is potentially as or more problematic. I think it's more straightforward to say, "Scripture leaves some details out that don't have any practical impact to the people reading it" than "read this section of Genesis as a unique type of figurative history while reading this theological concept through a very materialist lens". Finally, I think Dr. Craig's trade-off is unlikely to even get him the reasonable harmony between Scripture and science he's looking for, because he's tying Adam to what is sure to be a constantly moving target as the science of archaic hominids advances. A recent genealogical Adam gives us an Adam who's roughly the same person he's been understood to be by the majority of Biblical interpreters for the past millennia. Dr. Craig's historical Adam is likely to change wildly in dating, context, and even species as the science is continually updated.
In Craig’s book In Quest of the Historical Adam, his position on the historical Adam and Eve is “mytho historical “ where certain elements as extraordinary “Similarly, the primordial history of Genesis 1-11 includes elements which, if taken literally, would be so extraordinary as to be clearly false.” - Interview with Christianity Today magazine. Has his view changed since?
What do you do with the Genesis 6 and 11 genealogies as origins of the nations? Are those historical? Are they true genealogies with gaps to get long ages?
I think conceptualizing the image of God as a measure of capability also leads to a morally unconscionable conclusion-namely, that the image of God is not a fixed status shared by every human being but rather a continuum along which humans fall. i.e., the more intelligent/rational/self-aware of us are MORE in the image of God than, say, a child with down syndrome or an old person with dementia. That doesn't sit well with me. I think the functional view makes more sense, especially if combined with the observation that God's election was likely in part motivated by humanity's unique level of intelligence.
@@Mentat1231 “Function” may be too confusing a term. I think the image of God is a role and a calling given to all humanity. On Genesis, we are all the royal representatives of God, made to have dominion over the earth and the other creatures. Thus, no one human being has “more” of the image of God than another; it’s a role and a calling shared by all.
@@anthonynelson6249 Surely, we all do have such a role; but our capacity to carry it out in any recognizable way is going to depend on certain capacities, like rationality, self-awareness, freedom of the will, etc. So, the role presupposed the capacities, and less of it is expected from those with less capacity. So, it seems like the image of God is an ontological property, which then makes us viable to receive and carry out His royal role for us. After all, when Jesus is called the image of God, it is not with reference to a role, but with reference to qualities which reflect and reveal God's qualities. As to the matter of "having more or less" of the image; could we not suppose that obedient mankind might have been protected by God from diminished capacity? But, having sinned, we bear God's image in a blurred way and to varying degrees?
@@Mentat1231 With or without the Fall, it stands to reason that people would still be individuals with gifts and capacities unique to them, so if we equate the image of God with a particular aspect of, say, rationality-not only is this found nowhere in Scripture, but it raises the same moral issues of making some “more human” than others. The erudite/intelligentsia would have “more” of the image of God than an unlearned farmer. My grandfather and I are both citizens of the United States. Being younger, I have more of a capacity to fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen, but that makes me no more a citizen than my grandfather. I think the image of God is like this. There is no indication that the image of God is a continuum of any kind, and it is never directly associated or likened to rationality, physical prowess, or any other relative capacity. It’s a role, first and foremost. This parallels the election of Israel. Of all the creatures he creates, God elects humanity to be his royal representatives and have dominion over the world (to bring heaven to earth, you could say), but when humanity fell, of all the nations of his children, God chose one nation (Israel) to be, so to speak, his “firstborn” son (Exodus 4:22), who would lead by example and lead the rest of humanity to get back on the right track in fulfilling their roles as image bearers. I believe Jesus is called the image of God and the “firstborn” over all creation (Colossians 1:15) for a similar reason. Jesus is not “firstborn” in the sense of being the literal first thing God created; being the firstborn, like being the image of God, is a role.
@@anthonynelson6249 I respect your position, and it may well be correct. I do want to clarify that neither Craig nor I are claiming the image of God is a continuum. Merely that it refers to having properties in common with God. A being either has, for example, morally significant freedom of the will or it doesn't. In any case, Biblically speaking, the image and likeness of God is never explicitly referred to as a role; rather, we have the example of Genesis 5:1-3, where the exact same phrasing is used to say Seth is in the image and likeness of Adam (which can only have a substantial interpretation). As to Jesus, I might accept that "firstborn" is a role (though I have to mention that the Greek text does not say "over" all creation; it says he is the firstborn "of" all creation), but that wouldn't say anything about what "image" being a role. These are two descriptions, and they don't have to be of the same sort. Jesus said things like "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" and the writer of Hebrews said "[Jesus] is the exact representation of [God's] being". This fits with a substantial interpretation of "image" and says nothing about role. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just mentioning the factors that seem relevant to me, and also clarifying that a substantial interpretation does not entail the "continuum" problem you were concerned about.
The first view is extremely ad hoc and the last view warps and distorts the biblical narrative into something more disturbing and morally grotesque than the darkest horror movie ever produced. Seriously, the last view is the stuff of nightmares
Out of curiosity. I would like an answer to this inconsistency. I have read the three books that are reviewed in this video and have come to the conclusion that only a very strong (and possibly irreversible) cognitive dissonance can explain why intelligent, informed, educated people can assert that Adam and Eve were two historical real characters.
So what exactly is your view regarding the historical aspects of Adam and Eve? Are you implying that Adam and Eve are simply fictional characters? I'm just curious as to your specific belief ? Thanks.
@@zombiesingularity Well, an explanation being compatible with science is a very low bar… I could invent lots of magical explanations that have no supporting evidence whatsoever but are technically compatible with science. Of course that wouldn’t somehow make those explanations scientific. Swamidas takes a perfectly fine scientific explanation and then adds his unfalsifiable religious mythology to it with no other reason than that he wants it to be true for religious/emotional reasons… that’s as unscientific as it gets.
@@zombiesingularity Swamidas' view is just about the only one out of the three that's plausible and compatible with science. Craig's view is understandable but far from plausible, and I think he should have taken into consideration other views such as John H. Walton's priestly view, or Peter Enns', James F. McGrath's, or John E. Goldingay's… just to name a few. Loke's view is just obscene.
This seems like arguing over what the Bible calls foolish genealogies. That said, at least in all three views, it is not considered a soteriological matter.
Yet, the matter of whether there was an actual historical Adam or is important to the overall credibility of the Bible. If there wasn't an Adam, then what else does the Bible say that isn't true? 🤔
It is truly frightening to see apparently educated persons struggling to rationalize the fable of Adam and Eve, desperately trying to square it historically with their preconceived theology. If one needed more evidence that religious faith radically distorts a human's ability to perceive reality, this is it. I feel genuinely embarrassed for Wm Lane Craig that he has sunk to this level. I expected better from him.
Adam and Eve, if taken literal, would have to be around 10,000-8,000 BC. Cain offered his crops to God and Abel offered from his flock. After Cain kills Abel he departs and builds a city. Humans did not domesticate animals or plant crops until the Mesolithic period. The first cities were built in the Fertile Crescent around the same time. There was no way it was within human epistemology to do those things 500,000 years ago. As John Walton points out, Genesis 2 is not a retrospection of Genesis 1. The first humans were created a long time ago and God created or selected Adam and Eve for a specific (priestly) task later.
Have you read Craig's book? He addresses these concerns directly. I'm not saying I agree with him, but you make it sound as though he has somehow missed these points or ignored this option. He hasn't. And he gives multiple reasons for thinking Adam and Eve are the progenitors of every human who ever lived, which would rule out this view.
@@jedphillips9362 But have you _read_ Craig's book yet? I know I "had" the book for a while before finally reading it! These issues you raise are directly addressed.
@@Mentat1231 yep I sure have! I’ll have to look again but apparently it wasn’t convincing enough for me to recall it. I have the book, I’ll search for the objection. Do you know the chapter and page?
I can't wait until this whole discussion finally posts on UA-cam! I've been waiting for weeks!
I agree with John Walton more than WLC on this, but I am very thankful for the works of both of them in the growing trend against YEC.
x2
Can't wait the debate
wonderful channel
There are reasons far beyond mere familiarity to adhere to the recent/genealogical view of Adam over Dr. Craig's historical view:
1) Genesis strongly appears to place Adam and Eve/Eden in a Neolithic context.
2) Reading an ancient Adam into the text, requires far more "massaging" of the genealogies than a recent genealogical Adam, whether or not the ages are symbolic or there are gaps, etc.
3) Cain's wife. While it's almost a cliched joke, "where did Cain get his wife?" and even more importantly, the mark of Cain seem to strongly point to the existence of people outside the Garden (unless as with the Neolithic context, and the genealogies, you read them far more symbolically).
4) Scripture talks about the Image of God in very spiritual and functional terms. In fact, it's something that's in some sense lost or damaged in the Fall, though post-Fall humans are certainly capable art, logic, technology, advanced social structures, etc. Adam and Eve as a special couple to be God's representatives also strongly echoes Scripture's constant theme of God's chosen people. Why make the narrative of Genesis 1-11 so symbolic, while simultaneously making the Image of God concept so literal/material?
5) Dr. Craig by taking this very literal/material understanding of the Image of God and using it to determine a historical Adam is yoking his interpretation to a scientific consensus that is in many ways in its infancy and is likely to change substantially over the coming decades as we learn more all the time about archaic hominids.
Points 4) and 5) seem to me to be the particular clinchers. Dr. Craig isn't just making Gen 1-11 more figurative, but is also making the understanding of the Image of God more literal in what I think is an unhelpful way. There's, not unfairly, been a lot of focus and criticism on the former aspect of his reading, but I think the latter is potentially as or more problematic. I think it's more straightforward to say, "Scripture leaves some details out that don't have any practical impact to the people reading it" than "read this section of Genesis as a unique type of figurative history while reading this theological concept through a very materialist lens".
Finally, I think Dr. Craig's trade-off is unlikely to even get him the reasonable harmony between Scripture and science he's looking for, because he's tying Adam to what is sure to be a constantly moving target as the science of archaic hominids advances. A recent genealogical Adam gives us an Adam who's roughly the same person he's been understood to be by the majority of Biblical interpreters for the past millennia. Dr. Craig's historical Adam is likely to change wildly in dating, context, and even species as the science is continually updated.
Please, a book three views on the historical Adam would be wonderful.
Adam four views by Counterpoints from zondervan .
Any news on when the full ETS discussion among Craig, Loke, and Swamidass will finally post??
crazy light on Kevin's left shoulder!
In Craig’s book In Quest of the Historical Adam, his position on the historical Adam and Eve is “mytho historical “ where certain elements as extraordinary “Similarly, the primordial history of Genesis 1-11 includes elements which, if taken literally, would be so extraordinary as to be clearly false.” - Interview with Christianity Today magazine. Has his view changed since?
What do you do with the Genesis 6 and 11 genealogies as origins of the nations? Are those historical? Are they true genealogies with gaps to get long ages?
I think conceptualizing the image of God as a measure of capability also leads to a morally unconscionable conclusion-namely, that the image of God is not a fixed status shared by every human being but rather a continuum along which humans fall. i.e., the more intelligent/rational/self-aware of us are MORE in the image of God than, say, a child with down syndrome or an old person with dementia. That doesn't sit well with me. I think the functional view makes more sense, especially if combined with the observation that God's election was likely in part motivated by humanity's unique level of intelligence.
What would the "function" be which every human carries out equally?
@@Mentat1231 “Function” may be too confusing a term. I think the image of God is a role and a calling given to all humanity. On Genesis, we are all the royal representatives of God, made to have dominion over the earth and the other creatures. Thus, no one human being has “more” of the image of God than another; it’s a role and a calling shared by all.
@@anthonynelson6249
Surely, we all do have such a role; but our capacity to carry it out in any recognizable way is going to depend on certain capacities, like rationality, self-awareness, freedom of the will, etc. So, the role presupposed the capacities, and less of it is expected from those with less capacity. So, it seems like the image of God is an ontological property, which then makes us viable to receive and carry out His royal role for us. After all, when Jesus is called the image of God, it is not with reference to a role, but with reference to qualities which reflect and reveal God's qualities.
As to the matter of "having more or less" of the image; could we not suppose that obedient mankind might have been protected by God from diminished capacity? But, having sinned, we bear God's image in a blurred way and to varying degrees?
@@Mentat1231 With or without the Fall, it stands to reason that people would still be individuals with gifts and capacities unique to them, so if we equate the image of God with a particular aspect of, say, rationality-not only is this found nowhere in Scripture, but it raises the same moral issues of making some “more human” than others. The erudite/intelligentsia would have “more” of the image of God than an unlearned farmer.
My grandfather and I are both citizens of the United States. Being younger, I have more of a capacity to fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen, but that makes me no more a citizen than my grandfather. I think the image of God is like this. There is no indication that the image of God is a continuum of any kind, and it is never directly associated or likened to rationality, physical prowess, or any other relative capacity. It’s a role, first and foremost. This parallels the election of Israel. Of all the creatures he creates, God elects humanity to be his royal representatives and have dominion over the world (to bring heaven to earth, you could say), but when humanity fell, of all the nations of his children, God chose one nation (Israel) to be, so to speak, his “firstborn” son (Exodus 4:22), who would lead by example and lead the rest of humanity to get back on the right track in fulfilling their roles as image bearers.
I believe Jesus is called the image of God and the “firstborn” over all creation (Colossians 1:15) for a similar reason. Jesus is not “firstborn” in the sense of being the literal first thing God created; being the firstborn, like being the image of God, is a role.
@@anthonynelson6249
I respect your position, and it may well be correct. I do want to clarify that neither Craig nor I are claiming the image of God is a continuum. Merely that it refers to having properties in common with God. A being either has, for example, morally significant freedom of the will or it doesn't. In any case, Biblically speaking, the image and likeness of God is never explicitly referred to as a role; rather, we have the example of Genesis 5:1-3, where the exact same phrasing is used to say Seth is in the image and likeness of Adam (which can only have a substantial interpretation).
As to Jesus, I might accept that "firstborn" is a role (though I have to mention that the Greek text does not say "over" all creation; it says he is the firstborn "of" all creation), but that wouldn't say anything about what "image" being a role. These are two descriptions, and they don't have to be of the same sort. Jesus said things like "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" and the writer of Hebrews said "[Jesus] is the exact representation of [God's] being". This fits with a substantial interpretation of "image" and says nothing about role.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just mentioning the factors that seem relevant to me, and also clarifying that a substantial interpretation does not entail the "continuum" problem you were concerned about.
The first view is extremely ad hoc and the last view warps and distorts the biblical narrative into something more disturbing and morally grotesque than the darkest horror movie ever produced. Seriously, the last view is the stuff of nightmares
Out of curiosity.
I would like an answer to this inconsistency.
I have read the three books that are reviewed in this video and have come to the conclusion that only a very strong (and possibly irreversible) cognitive dissonance can explain why intelligent, informed, educated people can assert that Adam and Eve were two historical real characters.
What is the inconsistency? All you've said is your conclusion.
So what exactly is your view regarding the historical aspects of Adam and Eve? Are you implying that Adam and Eve are simply fictional characters?
I'm just curious as to your specific belief ? Thanks.
@@johnbrzykcy3076
I'm not sure what to think overall, since there are a few live options; but I definitely believe Adam and Eve were real people.
@@Mentat1231 The idea that there were two first humans from which all humans descend is inconsistent with the genetic evidence.
@@Jay_in_Japan
Not if you go back beyond 500kya.
how does God justify all the suffering in the world, especially that of little babies and kids
Justify to who?
@@delbert372wow great question!
The idea of a literal, historical Adam and Eve is plainly unscientific.
it's all nonsense
Not necessarily, if you look into what Swamidas is saying in his book, it's compatible with science.
Like naturalism getting itself started?
@@zombiesingularity
Well, an explanation being compatible with science is a very low bar… I could invent lots of magical explanations that have no supporting evidence whatsoever but are technically compatible with science.
Of course that wouldn’t somehow make those explanations scientific.
Swamidas takes a perfectly fine scientific explanation and then adds his unfalsifiable religious mythology to it with no other reason than that he wants it to be true for religious/emotional reasons… that’s as unscientific as it gets.
@@zombiesingularity Swamidas' view is just about the only one out of the three that's plausible and compatible with science. Craig's view is understandable but far from plausible, and I think he should have taken into consideration other views such as John H. Walton's priestly view, or Peter Enns', James F. McGrath's, or John E. Goldingay's… just to name a few. Loke's view is just obscene.
This seems like arguing over what the Bible calls foolish genealogies. That said, at least in all three views, it is not considered a soteriological matter.
Yet, the matter of whether there was an actual historical Adam or is important to the overall credibility of the Bible. If there wasn't an Adam, then what else does the Bible say that isn't true? 🤔
@@Jay_in_Japan One can believe there is a historical Adam without quarrelling about genealogies.
@@brando3342Truth
Good point
It is truly frightening to see apparently educated persons struggling to rationalize the fable of Adam and Eve, desperately trying to square it historically with their preconceived theology. If one needed more evidence that religious faith radically distorts a human's ability to perceive reality, this is it. I feel genuinely embarrassed for Wm Lane Craig that he has sunk to this level. I expected better from him.
I think that skull is watching me. 😮
Adam and Eve, if taken literal, would have to be around 10,000-8,000 BC. Cain offered his crops to God and Abel offered from his flock. After Cain kills Abel he departs and builds a city. Humans did not domesticate animals or plant crops until the Mesolithic period. The first cities were built in the Fertile Crescent around the same time. There was no way it was within human epistemology to do those things 500,000 years ago. As John Walton points out, Genesis 2 is not a retrospection of Genesis 1. The first humans were created a long time ago and God created or selected Adam and Eve for a specific (priestly) task later.
I agree that an Adam based on a human 20,000 years ago or longer makes zero sense. WLC is very good, but he blew it on this subject.
Have you read Craig's book? He addresses these concerns directly. I'm not saying I agree with him, but you make it sound as though he has somehow missed these points or ignored this option. He hasn't. And he gives multiple reasons for thinking Adam and Eve are the progenitors of every human who ever lived, which would rule out this view.
@@Mentat1231 yep, I have both Craig’s and Swamidass’s books 👍. I’m not accusing WLC of anything, I’m just stating facts that we know of the ANE.
@@jedphillips9362
But have you _read_ Craig's book yet? I know I "had" the book for a while before finally reading it! These issues you raise are directly addressed.
@@Mentat1231 yep I sure have! I’ll have to look again but apparently it wasn’t convincing enough for me to recall it. I have the book, I’ll search for the objection. Do you know the chapter and page?
Craig is a Theistic Evolutionist. A heretic
Sounds like cope