I heard Craig mock the Genesis story in an interview, actually laugh at the idea of believing it as it stands. This did not convince me of his objectivity. (Edit) I've now read both the WLC article and Owen Strachan's critique, and tried to see where Strachan failed to understand Craig's argument, as you suggested. Having both listened to Craig on this topic and read his article, I think Strachan hit the nail on the head. Craig has produced one of the clearest attempts I have seen to make Scripture fit the narrative currently embraced by academia, both philosophical and scientific. He begins with the presumption that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is impossible, and supports his assertion with assumptions: excluding the miraculous work of God as a possibility; somehow intuiting that the person writing (evidently not Moses) could not have taken the story literally; and equating the biblical account to other ANE "mythologies." He defends his use of the word "myth" as a technical term that does not imply falsity, but supplies an extensive definition that does not seem to allow for truth. In an interesting twist, he does allow that God must have made miraculous genetic upgrades to a chosen couple, if they existed. Craig has not convinced me that he is a reliable interpreter of Scripture. And, frankly, I'm beginning to wonder about you, Gavin. Do you believe in the truth of the Bible as God has brought it down to us, or are you looking for "truths it may contain" that are palatable to secular thinking, as Craig seems to be? I'll be interested to see how your discussion develops.
@@brothertaylor5238 Given the fact that the 6 day creation is a heterodox take which didn’t become mainstream until the 7th day adventists, I call cap.
@@whatsinaname691 I've watched IP's video, and plan to watch it again, along with another one which he claims will provide proof from the NT that writers did not accept a YE view. In the meanwhile, a sincere question: if WLC is right that Adam and Eve were upgraded hominids from about the time of Neanderthals (forgive me if I'm a little off on the detail here---it's been a few days), how do you deal with the origin of sin and death? Craig's Adam seems an unlikely fit for ICor 15:21-22. Thank you.
In a similar way, C.S. Lewis called Christianity "True Myth". It is true, but the story has some Mythic qualities. Lewis is also criticized by some for that comment.
As a former Protestant migrating to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, your emphasis on trying to understand the position(s) of people you don't understand or agree with really hits home and is an extreme rarity among people, at least in my experience.
I read the article of Owen and saw your video, but in this I alling more with Owen that with Craig. It looks more a concern of not sounding "fundamentalism" for you that other thing. The point of Owen is that the particular hermeneutical foundation that Craig is taking is going to swallow the historical Adan, and I agree with Owen in this. I sympathize with Craig because he helped me a lot in my crisis of faith in the past, but I never end up taking many of the things he says regarding hermeneutics and theology. And if you have a concern with Owen talk to him, I'm sure he is really open to discuss with you.
I read your book on Augustine and creation and it was great! I grew up thinking the literal six-day, 24 hour view was the only orthodox interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'm still working through all the related issues, but your book was helpful in thinking through Genesis in a new way. Thanks so much!
Jesus believed in Genesis and Adam. Jesus never referred to Genesis as “mytho history”. So why would we have radio carbon dating and it’s inaccuracies be the source of truth instead of the mouth of Jesus?
What I don't understand is when WLC states that portions of the creation account and Genesis 1-11 are too fantastic to believe, comparing them to Aesop's fables (or at least he loosely compared them in the same breath), but yet he seems to be okay with the fact that significant portions of the Bible could also be considered "fantastic"? What are we to do with Balaam's donkey if we can't believe in a talking snake in the garden? How can you say Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a great fish if you reject the account of a literal flood? Why am I supposed to be confident that God wrestled with Jacob if it's too fantastic to believe he walked in the garden of Eden? I think thats where the difficulty is. And to criticize Owen's tone in his response is well and good, but I'd also say that Craig's tone could be seen as rather dismissive towards those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. At times I wonder if we just criticize "tone" when we don't like strong statements, or we don't like when people actually have strong convictions that happen not to be our own.
This is the standard reply to people who don’t want to take a firm stand on a topic: “You don’t really understand the other position”. This is the same exact response I’ve heard to NT Wrights view on justification. No, I understand it. It’s errant. I understand Craig. I’ve heard him talk about this many times. I specifically heard him say we came from Neanderthals. That isn’t a position that is orthodox. I love Craig. I think he’s brilliant. But I think he’s in dangerous territory. It’s very similar to liberal Protestantism. And to be honest I don’t care at all about the state of scholarship. That itself is a dangerous position.
My problem with Dr. Craig is, he has stated he refuses to wrestle with modern evolutionary theory and honest criticism of it because he is not an expert. So all of his theological wrangling is built upon a foundation of accepting modern science so called, without serious criticism of it. There are honest, and very good reasons (I’m convinced) to reject evolutionary theory. Why have an old earth at that point, if no evolution?
Dr. Ortlund -- Thank you for standing to "defend reasonable voices," such as Dr. Craig. Paul told the Philippians (and us) to "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone..." (Phil 4:5 ESV), and your video is a much needed reminder to all Followers of Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life that we are to earn a reputation for reasonableness. Now, I'm sure that some reading this comment may object saying, "But, my translation doesn't say "reasonableness," but "gentleness," or "fairness," or "graciousness." And they are right... because (as I understand it) the Greek word (ἐπιεικὲς) thus variously translated is much richer than any single English word. Therefore, we should understand Paul as commanding us to develop reputations where all four English words characterize our every thought, word, and action. These four words, singly and together, require that we first seek to understand... before commenting.
William Lane Craig's own words.... "What was that first sin, I don't think we have any idea, I certainly don't think it was eating a piece of fruit.... sometime prior to 750,00 years ago a group of hominids, maybe a few thousand, and through a biological and spiritual renovation, perhaps divinely induced, a miracle that caused a genetic regulatory mutation in a pair of these hominids, they were lifted to fully human status and capable of supporting a rational soul through their brain and nervous system. And they would then begin to have children, and given their full humanity, they would naturally tend to isolate themselves from their non-human contemporaries, in time naturally they and their descendants would supersede all of the non-human descendants and would eventually give rise to different species of human beings like Neanderthals, Homo-sapiens..." This is flat out heresy! This statement by Dr. Craig flies in the face of so many Bible passages....
Question for WLC. Why have I never seen him debate young earth creationist. Like Dr Sarfati, Dr Russlle Humphreys or Dr. Kirt Wise and many many other scientists and Drs who are very accomplished. Instead he dismisses their positions out of hand. He won’t engage with them or their positions. That I’m aware of ina vigorous debate. Why not? You know Colossians 2:8 comes to mind. Is Christianity and philosophy compatible? What godly Bible character was ever considered a philosopher? Perhaps some used philosophy but I don’t know of any prophets or apostles that were considered philosophers.
You are doing a great job, Gavin. But I think it'll be great if you could make a video on the New Testament understanding of the Old in these matters. Questions like, "How does Paul understand Adam?" I think Owen is too hard in his criticsm, but I think a mild pushback is necessary. Before listening to Packer, Craig, Augustine, we've go to understand how the NT authors understood Genesis 1-3. Thank you for your ministry!
I definitely agree with your impulse to "defend reasonable voices" and "be charitable." I don't agree with the mytho-historical view of Gen 1-11 that WLC holds too - there seems to be far too much specific historical detail. But I certainly appreciate your call for reasonable and charitable debate!
What sealed the mytho-historical view for me in at least the first 3 chapters was the relation between the snake and the dragon from Revelations. I don't know anybody who thinks the dragon in Revelations is a real dragon. Yet Revelations say that the dragon is "the snake of old - also called the devil and satan". So at least in some sense the snake is not real. Please tell me if you have a different interpretation of this. Blessings.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I have a different interpretation. The dragon is leviathan. Read the Septuagint. It’s how they translate it and the NT writers usually go with that since they write in Greek. Leviathan is translated as Dragon in the Greek. Leviathan symbolizes chaos and is a symbol for Satan (many OT scholars don’t do biblical theology and only present historical context so they miss what John and other writers realized who interpreted the OT for us so the Bible has no unity) in the Old Testament. For example God crushing leviathans head in the psalms (pointing to the prophecy in genesis about the seed crushing the serpents head) etc. Therefore the Dragon, the ancient serpent, is Satan and the snake is Satan. Just a different name. Just like the Jesus of the NT is named David in OT prophecy and also the anointed (Christ) etc. Different descriptions, names but same guy. I don’t see any reasons why that makes it mytho history. Yeah it’s supernatural but so is a lot of historical narrative in the Bible. Steve Boyd has done an analysis with a statistician and Genesis 1-2 at least are according to statistical analysts historical narrative: czcams.com/video/a1pvhjJI8mA/video.html
@@arminius504 I enjoyed your explanation but when you said "yes it is supernatural" you made the mytho-historians point for him. Mixing supernatural references with literal history is the very definition of the mytho-historical position.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I think you misunderstood the previous point. I believe they were saying that there are supernatural events in the text, but those events should be understood historically and literally, not as a mythical way of describing real events.
@@DBdrumz18 and I think you don't understand the traditional meaning of the word myth and seem to be confusing the word mythological with allegorical. Nobody is saying Genesis is allegory. However by acknowledging that events are supernatural the previous commentator confirmed that we should not look for any physical evidence of what happened. Mytho-historical views are not all 100 percent uniform but the point is always that whatever happened in Genesis happened somewhere between physical and spiritual in a way that we don't understand but that we should not understand as a physical 7 days physically 7000 years ago with a physical garden and a physical snake. Genesis 1 to 3 is way more nuanced than that. Even though the snake is cursed to crawl on its belly it still somehow evolves into a dragon? The claim is that Genesis represent the same kind of undercurrent that is going on in Revelation: more than allegory but different from the "real life" that we experience. Sometimes the word allegory is used for lack of a better term but this is often not what the interlocutor means. When the trees of the field clap there hands they are really clapping their hands on a Mythological / Spritual level. We don't expect to see them clapping but very view people think this is mere metaphor.
1000x yes to everything you are saying here, Gavin. I ran out of amens watching this. You’re is a much needed space in this area. I understand the desire of some to circle the wagons but even the way one does so can be done so poorly it’s not much better than defending doctrine at all. Part of my heartache is all that is missed in reading Genesis with flat literalism. But that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
@@TruthUnites I came back to it about an hour ago and it was working. The problem must have been on my end but I'm not sure how because I tried headphones and my car speakers. Anyway, all good now.
Great response with a lot of valuable information. I could be wrong but it seems to me that regardless of what one believes about the history and science surrounding Genesis 1-3, there are truths being taught that must be believed-there is a God; he created all things and all things were declared good; he created male and female in his image; he created humans to be in relationship with him; humans rebelled and broke that relationship, resulting in every human having a sinful nature, incurring the wrath of God and necessitating a saviour outside of humanity. There are other things that could be added but I would consider those things a minimum. While the historicity, literary, and creation/evolution discussions are interesting and necessary, ultimately much of it we simply cannot know with certainty, and so our approach must be first one of humility.
In your opinion, why is it that we have a strong tendency to collapse "is there truth here" with "how does the Bible communicate truth here"? It seems fairly straightforward to me, but some really seem to struggle with the difference. Is it a result of post modernity? Laziness? Thanks for your awesome content, as always.
What do you think of a literalist interpretation of Genesis? Is it preferable for a Christian to adopt that position? I tend to lean to it, but I must be strict in saying that I do find William Lane Craig absolutely heretical at times. e.g. his belief that Genesis is mythohistorical, his denial of the eternal begetting of the Son. Nevertheless, I do find him a powerful voice when arguing for the Resurrection. Thank you for your charity, kindness and fairmindedness. Love from an Orthodox Christian.
If by literalist you mean “news report accurate”, then that is a heterodox and untenable reading which doesn’t handle any scrutiny. It’s better to hold a view more in line with the early church fathers or of a more expansive view which takes into account our modern understanding of ancient near-eastern legend, history, and cosmology
The debate here is about much deeper foundational issues. Dr. Craig's worldview foundations, and his doctrine of Scripture and Christ are radically different than those who argue for a historical Adam/Eve, and Fall. Frankly, they are almost different worldviews, significantly different explanations about human origins and human nature.
God bless you, Gavin! Although I also disagree with WLC, I think one of the unspoken issues that people have, including myself, is that academia overall has bogarted the term “science”. Anyone who disagrees with the conclusions made by the “university educated” are clearly not smart enough to figure out God without help from someone like you or WLC. Although alternative views are out there, “science” continues to encroach and downplay the conservative understanding. It’s to the point of frustration for many. We’re tired of being told we’re wrong because of “science” and “education”. It’s quite exhausting. Despite our differences, thank you for all you do and continue the good fight!
My 15 year old actually made the comment (sarcastically), it’s a good thing we have science. What did people do before we had science to understand these things?
One area of historical theology that is not covered enough is the theological developments within Protestantism from 1830 to 1930, inclusive of events such as the development of Higher Criticism in the Tubingen School by Ferdinand Baur in Germany that sparked a century of controversies that culminated in J.G. Machen and the remaining conservatives leaving Princeton in 1929. That century has given rise to many of the subsequent controversies from Vatican II to the rise of the Moral Majority and the culture wars throughout what was once called Christendom. I think Strachan is really hitting on something important in using the term "liberalism", and you really hit on something in your use of the term "fundamentalist". I think it would be fascinating for you to do a survey of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and how modern developments in church history inform the current dispute between Dr. Strachan and Dr. Craig.
Hi. I'm curious about something you said. I take Genesis 3:8 to be talking about the Trinity. If it is that would mean it was the unincarnated Christ walking in the garden with God the Father and God the Spirit. I take this to mean the fall was a monumental occasion and just as all three God heads were at Jesus baptism, I see this the same as the fall. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
@Truth Unites. You might want to ask Dr. Craig if he thinks Augustine misread Romans 5 regarding the nature of original sin, and if his research on Historical Adam has impacted his thinking on the doctrine of original sin.
Thank you for this helpful way to think about this discussion. One thing I might like to see explained more is how you follow the cues to realize that one part of Scripture is a different type of history than another. I can get my head around it a little by some of the individuals you quoted but would love to go more in depth.
Stephen in this area unfortunately preconceptions can play a large part in how they categorise scripture. In the WLC / McDowell interview I just watched, WLC claims that he tried hard to come at this afresh, but it quickly became obvious that he didn't try very hard at all.
Also Gavin, you are using a view of truth that is not orthodox. The correspondence view of truth is the common sense view and the traditional view used by the Church fathers.
I so appreciate you, Dr. Ortland. Unfortunately, others, such as Owen Strachan, do not possess either your grace, scholarship, insight or intelligence, and not just on this issue.
Thank you for this. I plan on picking the book up. I'm curious: where do you disagree with Dr. Craig? You mentioned that you did, and I'm curious to know where and why. Thank you for your content on this channel!
Thanks! I'm not inclined to date Adam that far back. That said, I recognize challenges in the alternatives timetables as well. Hope you enjoy the book!
Just watched Sean McDowell's interview of WLC on this. While he doesn't mythologise Adam and Eve away completely, what he comes up with bears little similarity to Genesis, IMO. Respectful dialogue should always be the M.O., though I can see WLC getting a lot of criticism from his approach to this.
This is helpful thank you Gavin. The word "literal" seems to matter quite a lot. Strachan highlights Lane Craig saying "these chapters need not be read literally" and translates that to mean "he says Gen 1-11 is not literal truth" which seems to be something rather different. I wonder if it's possible to defuse this idea that "more literal must be more faithful", perhaps by questioning the idea that there is only one "literal" reading of a passage and literal readers have happily landed on it. As you say, "how literal" is a pertinent point. You can imagine plenty of other more literal readings that would turn out to be silly. So even what someone claims is a "literal" reading still involves plenty of interpretation. Presumably God didn't intend the fish to literally fill the sea, nor were Adam and Eve's eyes literally shut until they ate the fruit etc etc. (noting that Augustine called it an apple lol)
I love this! This was very helpful. I’ll have to read the book. This is definitely a tricky issue. One question I’ve had for a while was it seems kind of convenient for the first few chapters to be figurative (or not literal) but for the rest of the book (Genesis) to be taken as history. Why would the author choose to do only a section of it so non-literal, but choose the rest to be literal? Are there any other books in the Bible where the author would switch literary genres this arbitrarily (I’m not sure if that’s the right word but I hope you see what I mean)?
For what it's worth, I think one answer is because Genesis 12 moves from ancient history (Genesis 1-11) to more recent history. There's a pretty clear break in the timeline between 11 and 12.
hey brother, I appreciate your call for a more measured tone. I would like to ask what the impetus is for questioning the literalistic reading. You mentioned a few things like the angel with a flaming sword, God walking, and Augustine's thoughts on the tree. What is it about those things that lead you to question their literal reality? I think Owen is saying that folks who question the literalistic reading do so because these things seem fantastic or 'supernatural'. Which might fairly be summarized as an anti-supernatural reading. Of course, if we reject Gen 1-3 as literal history BASED on its inclusion of fantastic elements, then that hermeneutic, consistently applied, should be used (and has been used by literal liberals :) to doubt Jonah, the sun standing still, the walking on water, and eventually the ress of Christ. So, what hints in the text cause you to doubt the literal plain meaning without causing you to doubt the literal plain meaning of the resurrection? Thank you for your time.
Hey, thank you for clarification on Craig's argument. On your comment, "there is an uptick of fundamentalism," could you clarify what you meant by this? How would you describe what "fundamentalism" is? Thank you, and God bless
Thank you so much for responding to this issue with good sense and charity. I feel you when it comes to being hesitant to engage polemical topics, but I for one am grateful for your reply. I'll definitely be adding your book on St. Augustine to my (already far too large) to-read list!
Thank you for defending WLC's reasonable voice. While I disagree with him on this issue, he's certainly a godly, thoughtful Christian who is a champion for Christ's church.
I'm not a scholar. I've been an atheist much of my life, read science texts and new the naturalistic view of how things got here. Then, by the power of God, I came to know Christ and witnessed the miraculous in my life and among others. I don't understand everything about the beginning things. But I know that what was provided by God in the opening pages of Genesis is for our benefit. They have important meaning. Since I know a God who is capable of the miraculous, I'll leave it all in His hands. Trying to mix the miraculous with science, which by its method ignores the possibility of the miraculous, seems a fraught endeavor. But who knows? God can use even this in the hands of His servants to accomplish a saving work.
Hey Gavin, I always appreciate your insight, and, more importantly in this case, the balance you bring to difficult questions. I tend to more agree with a literal Adam, but I really appreciated you highlighting the different sources and respected opinions who interpret Gen 1-11 differently than I do. Lots of food for thought. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your thoughts here, Dr. Ortlund. Loving your content more and more. Also, on a different note, I would love to hear your eschatology at some point. I notice a common sort of fundamentalist hermeneutic that leaves people with both a Young Earth position and dispensational premillennialism. I have seen just as much stubborn unwillingness to converse around eschatology as I have around creation.
Thanks Colin! Yes, I have noticed the same thing. I did a video on the millennium a while back; I think I will try to do something else in that space again down the line...
I come from a family of mostly young earth creationists, taking the Bible quite literally. A simple belief that what seems to be what the Bible says is what it means and that the "science" can be mistaken as it often has been. My concern here is not to argue for that. Dr Craig called YEC an "embarrassment" in an interview, and in this article he calls their views naive and he ridicules and puts them down. I have many times been proud of WLC, in this case I think he should apologize. It´s one thing to argue for an opinion, another to publicly ridicule people. The reason I mention my family is that I myself am on the fence, might even agree with Craig, but the hurt dr Craig caused my family is completely unacceptable to me.
Charitable and rationale, similar to my thoughts on the book (based on the title and brief discussions from Dr Craig). Looking forward to your discussion with Dr Craig on this very topic!! 👍
On the subject of whether or not the Tree of Life actually existed or was merely an allegory, or something else, I have a question! Was the angel who blocked their access to the Tree of Life real or not? It would be strange to require a real angel to guard something that did not truly exist! To say the angel was not real also seems strange because you now have a string of events, by God, that are allegorical in response to an allegorical occurrence. As soon as one lands on the allegorical side of Genesis 1-3 they begin a downhill hermeneutical slide that does not end well.
As for the "where are the guiderails?" question, I haven't read the book yet, but I have heard Dr. Craig talk about it, and he actually uses a list of (nine?) criteria for what makes a myth in the literary sense.
Thank you for your graciousness on this, Gavin. I don't think overreacting on social media is helpful. There's way more heat than light. I thought WLC's discussion on literary genre and historicity in the First Things article was interesting. However, as soon as he went beyond that and started making assertions outside his area of expertise that requires additional, unquestioned assumptions about the validity of scientific research, processes and theories, he lost me.
Gavin, thank you for your labor and charity. It’s a breath of fresh air! I love Owen and agree with him on this but the way he went about this was not the most charitable. With that said, thank you for taking the time to discuss this.
My problem is that Dr. Craig said that his book is *based* on the Bible. I don't mind being a little more humble and waiting to fully hear both sides, but for now, I have no earthly idea how one comes up with Hidelberg Man being "based" on the Bible. I think I may have seen your interview with him before, but I'll check it out again.
Agrarian, animal husbandry, metallurgy, city building: seems a given. Do we need to Consider these indicators? “Man of the dirt” a different creature from homo sapien?
Was just watching the MacDowell and WLC video. I can tell you have a pastor's humility and grace. Charitable response Gavin, look forward to your interview with WLC.
Hey Gavin, could you have Owen on one of your videos to have a conversation about this? I am sure he can respond to the charges raised against him. Also, what do you mean by an "uptick of fundamentalism"? Is it evil? Damaging to the church? Would love to see you an Owen talk about this in a moderated debate or simply in a conversation on your channel.
Great analysis. I've been looking forward to this book for years. I'm looking forward to reading it and sharing it, also, with family. Thank you for this video.
I am so glad you put out a response to Owen. I follow him on Instagram and made the unfortunate error of defending WLCs view on a social platform (cue the pitchforks). You put this together very eloquently and w/ great scholars to back up the fact that we can have both sides literary and historical in the same passage. Thank you for this!
This is a real issue in online discussions. Literalists get all the press and are the loudest voices in the room, so they are just about all the skeptics hear from; thus, with both camps demanding a literal reading of the text, the rest of us catch it from both sides. Thanks for your work, my friend!
In times when theology is downright avoided, biblical literacy generally is not even on the map and postmodernism is relentlessly swallowing churches alive. Defending reasonable voices is a must. Dr Craig needs to be guarded and preserved. Thanks for your video and integrity.
People get too caught up in polemics and forget that straw man, ad-hominem, and red herring errors (among others) can easily be mere slander\Libel. There is a moral component to arguments and representations.
The use of the technique called myth-history as a literary genre is very old. For those who try to defend that there is a certain historicity in Genesis, they define *myth-history* as the narration of historical events, of real characters, resorting to the artifices of mythological narratives, of legends, (literary figures such as metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, fantasies, etc ...). That is, the events and characters are real, they existed in the past, but their sayings and actions are narrated in a very ornate and fantastic way. It really is the other way around. It is intended to turn myths and legends into history, that is, to narrate myths without any relation to reality with the literary techniques and resources of historiography as an academic discipline. A modern example of this informal fallacy is the so-called *non-fiction novel* popularized, among others, by Truman Capote. The term "myth-history" is an oxymoron, a *contradictio in terminis*. In the end, it is either history or it is myth. Especially when there are no objective criteria that allow separating in the texts what is considered history and what is considered myth. Dr. Lane Craig has gone so far as to say that, although he regards the sayings and deeds of many biblical characters as legends or myths, he believes such a character actually existed. This posture does not hold. Historical characters are what we know with documented certainty about them. It can happen, and it is frequent in the histriography of antiquity, that we have some (or enough) certainty that the character (or the fact) existed, because we have sufficiently reliable indications to assert its historical reality. And that, in addition to that solid knowledge of his existence and his personality, we also have many myths and legends around that character (or historical fact). But if we do not have more information than those that the Bible gives us, if we consider his sayings and facts, myths and legends, there is no possibility of affirming if and how that character (or that fact) existed. And assuming the existence of him without knowing with certainty his personality and his actions (or nature), is useless. The proposal to consider that these characters and events must be understood and interpreted as myth-history is actually a fallacy. Each of the readers of these texts will be able to subjectively choose what they believe to be myth and what is history. It is very legal to use certain elements of real history as stuf to write a novel, a fictional story. What is not very honest is trying to turn into unquestionable history what is only a myth, a legend. The case of Adam and Eve is impossible to treat from a myth-history approach. For the simple reason that there are only figurative, mythical and legendary accounts in the Bible and incontrovertible and increasingly solid facts that come from evolutionary biology, genetics, paleo-genetics, and modern population genetics that prove there never was any such a couple that gave birth to all humanity (or parents of all of us; a question that is further complicated by the recent genetic and anthropological discoveries about the Neanderthals and Homo florensiensis, something that has no place in the Gensesis account). With the possibility of massive genomic sequencing offered by the NGS, it is undoubted that the mythological and legendary character of Adam and Eve and their sin that supposedly caused the Fall of Man will be completed, clarified and consolidated.
@Truth Unites Great video, and very much needed. Unfortunately, this type of reaction from folks like Dr. Strachan is not unexpected. It is very sad though, as Dr. Strachan can be very careful in other areas, and garners much respect, in my view, on other important theological topics. It is just disappointing to see him fail to accurately elucidate Dr. Craig's view, and resort to straw man tactics to try to discredit him. One might as well dismiss Stott and Packer as "liberals" too, if you go that route. Thank you for your work. I am intrigued about Augustine now. Have you done a fuller length video treatment on Augustine yet?
You deny Adam and Eve existed literally because you do not believe the bible. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Paul wrote in Rom 5 :12 that Adam fell from innocence and brought death into creation. WLC's God is humanism and science - have no fellowship with him.
Let's just say - I am really grateful for having such a brother in Christ to look up to and learn from.
Not sure others, but the audio seems a bit quiet. Any way you could boost it on the source video at all? Thank you for your content!
@@TruthUnites I agree, it's pretty quiet. Good video though!
"Defend reasonable voices" is a great mantra. Thank you for your thinking but more importantly your tone and charity on this issue!
Thanks Ryan, glad it was useful to you!
Amen!
Having read Owen's article, but not Bill's book, I'm glad you made this video.
I heard Craig mock the Genesis story in an interview, actually laugh at the idea of believing it as it stands. This did not convince me of his objectivity.
(Edit) I've now read both the WLC article and Owen Strachan's critique, and tried to see where Strachan failed to understand Craig's argument, as you suggested.
Having both listened to Craig on this topic and read his article, I think Strachan hit the nail on the head. Craig has produced one of the clearest attempts I have seen to make Scripture fit the narrative currently embraced by academia, both philosophical and scientific.
He begins with the presumption that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is impossible, and supports his assertion with assumptions: excluding the miraculous work of God as a possibility; somehow intuiting that the person writing (evidently not Moses) could not have taken the story literally; and equating the biblical account to other ANE "mythologies."
He defends his use of the word "myth" as a technical term that does not imply falsity, but supplies an extensive definition that does not seem to allow for truth.
In an interesting twist, he does allow that God must have made miraculous genetic upgrades to a chosen couple, if they existed.
Craig has not convinced me that he is a reliable interpreter of Scripture. And, frankly, I'm beginning to wonder about you, Gavin. Do you believe in the truth of the Bible as God has brought it down to us, or are you looking for "truths it may contain" that are palatable to secular thinking, as Craig seems to be?
I'll be interested to see how your discussion develops.
I agree, we can’t budge on God’s creation. The devil was a “reasonable” voice in the garden. I’m not buying it.
@@brothertaylor5238 Given the fact that the 6 day creation is a heterodox take which didn’t become mainstream until the 7th day adventists, I call cap.
Watch Inspiring Philosophy’s newest video to learn how the 6 day view has never been historical
I will. Thanks for the suggestion.
@@whatsinaname691 I've watched IP's video, and plan to watch it again, along with another one which he claims will provide proof from the NT that writers did not accept a YE view.
In the meanwhile, a sincere question: if WLC is right that Adam and Eve were upgraded hominids from about the time of Neanderthals (forgive me if I'm a little off on the detail here---it's been a few days),
how do you deal with the origin of sin and death? Craig's Adam seems an unlikely fit for ICor 15:21-22.
Thank you.
I’m not a huge fan of Craig’s, but I am a huge fan of your charitable and thoughtful approach.
Thanks! So glad it came across that way.
In a similar way, C.S. Lewis called Christianity "True Myth". It is true, but the story has some Mythic qualities. Lewis is also criticized by some for that comment.
As a former Protestant migrating to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, your emphasis on trying to understand the position(s) of people you don't understand or agree with really hits home and is an extreme rarity among people, at least in my experience.
Thanks! So glad it comes across that way. It seems more and more important in our cultural moment.
Thank you for addressing this issue with kindness, wisdom, and scholarship.
I read the article of Owen and saw your video, but in this I alling more with Owen that with Craig. It looks more a concern of not sounding "fundamentalism" for you that other thing. The point of Owen is that the particular hermeneutical foundation that Craig is taking is going to swallow the historical Adan, and I agree with Owen in this. I sympathize with Craig because he helped me a lot in my crisis of faith in the past, but I never end up taking many of the things he says regarding hermeneutics and theology. And if you have a concern with Owen talk to him, I'm sure he is really open to discuss with you.
I read your book on Augustine and creation and it was great! I grew up thinking the literal six-day, 24 hour view was the only orthodox interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'm still working through all the related issues, but your book was helpful in thinking through Genesis in a new way. Thanks so much!
Jesus believed in Genesis and Adam. Jesus never referred to Genesis as “mytho history”. So why would we have radio carbon dating and it’s inaccuracies be the source of truth instead of the mouth of Jesus?
What I don't understand is when WLC states that portions of the creation account and Genesis 1-11 are too fantastic to believe, comparing them to Aesop's fables (or at least he loosely compared them in the same breath), but yet he seems to be okay with the fact that significant portions of the Bible could also be considered "fantastic"? What are we to do with Balaam's donkey if we can't believe in a talking snake in the garden? How can you say Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a great fish if you reject the account of a literal flood? Why am I supposed to be confident that God wrestled with Jacob if it's too fantastic to believe he walked in the garden of Eden? I think thats where the difficulty is.
And to criticize Owen's tone in his response is well and good, but I'd also say that Craig's tone could be seen as rather dismissive towards those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. At times I wonder if we just criticize "tone" when we don't like strong statements, or we don't like when people actually have strong convictions that happen not to be our own.
Exactly. 100%! 👍
This is the standard reply to people who don’t want to take a firm stand on a topic: “You don’t really understand the other position”. This is the same exact response I’ve heard to NT Wrights view on justification. No, I understand it. It’s errant. I understand Craig. I’ve heard him talk about this many times. I specifically heard him say we came from Neanderthals. That isn’t a position that is orthodox. I love Craig. I think he’s brilliant. But I think he’s in dangerous territory. It’s very similar to liberal Protestantism. And to be honest I don’t care at all about the state of scholarship. That itself is a dangerous position.
…..why?
My problem with Dr. Craig is, he has stated he refuses to wrestle with modern evolutionary theory and honest criticism of it because he is not an expert. So all of his theological wrangling is built upon a foundation of accepting modern science so called, without serious criticism of it. There are honest, and very good reasons (I’m convinced) to reject evolutionary theory. Why have an old earth at that point, if no evolution?
Dr. Ortlund -- Thank you for standing to "defend reasonable voices," such as Dr. Craig. Paul told the Philippians (and us) to "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone..." (Phil 4:5 ESV), and your video is a much needed reminder to all Followers of Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life that we are to earn a reputation for reasonableness. Now, I'm sure that some reading this comment may object saying, "But, my translation doesn't say "reasonableness," but "gentleness," or "fairness," or "graciousness." And they are right... because (as I understand it) the Greek word (ἐπιεικὲς) thus variously translated is much richer than any single English word. Therefore, we should understand Paul as commanding us to develop reputations where all four English words characterize our every thought, word, and action. These four words, singly and together, require that we first seek to understand... before commenting.
Thanks Milton for the encouragement! That is a great verse to bear in mind these days....
I don’t think evolution what he was thinking when he said “reasonableness” 😑
William Lane Craig's own words.... "What was that first sin, I don't think we have any idea, I certainly don't think it was eating a piece of fruit.... sometime prior to 750,00 years ago a group of hominids, maybe a few thousand, and through a biological and spiritual renovation, perhaps divinely induced, a miracle that caused a genetic regulatory mutation in a pair of these hominids, they were lifted to fully human status and capable of supporting a rational soul through their brain and nervous system. And they would then begin to have children, and given their full humanity, they would naturally tend to isolate themselves from their non-human contemporaries, in time naturally they and their descendants would supersede all of the non-human descendants and would eventually give rise to different species of human beings like Neanderthals, Homo-sapiens..." This is flat out heresy! This statement by Dr. Craig flies in the face of so many Bible passages....
Question for WLC. Why have I never seen him debate young earth creationist. Like Dr Sarfati, Dr Russlle Humphreys or Dr. Kirt Wise and many many other scientists and Drs who are very accomplished. Instead he dismisses their positions out of hand. He won’t engage with them or their positions. That I’m aware of ina vigorous debate. Why not?
You know Colossians 2:8 comes to mind. Is Christianity and philosophy compatible? What godly Bible character was ever considered a philosopher? Perhaps some used philosophy but I don’t know of any prophets or apostles that were considered philosophers.
You are doing a great job, Gavin. But I think it'll be great if you could make a video on the New Testament understanding of the Old in these matters. Questions like, "How does Paul understand Adam?"
I think Owen is too hard in his criticsm, but I think a mild pushback is necessary. Before listening to Packer, Craig, Augustine, we've go to understand how the NT authors understood Genesis 1-3.
Thank you for your ministry!
Thanks so much for this video Gavin, you exhibit the spirit of Christian charity wonderfully.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
I definitely agree with your impulse to "defend reasonable voices" and "be charitable." I don't agree with the mytho-historical view of Gen 1-11 that WLC holds too - there seems to be far too much specific historical detail. But I certainly appreciate your call for reasonable and charitable debate!
What sealed the mytho-historical view for me in at least the first 3 chapters was the relation between the snake and the dragon from Revelations. I don't know anybody who thinks the dragon in Revelations is a real dragon. Yet Revelations say that the dragon is "the snake of old - also called the devil and satan". So at least in some sense the snake is not real. Please tell me if you have a different interpretation of this. Blessings.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I have a different interpretation. The dragon is leviathan. Read the Septuagint. It’s how they translate it and the NT writers usually go with that since they write in Greek. Leviathan is translated as Dragon in the Greek. Leviathan symbolizes chaos and is a symbol for Satan (many OT scholars don’t do biblical theology and only present historical context so they miss what John and other writers realized who interpreted the OT for us so the Bible has no unity) in the Old Testament. For example God crushing leviathans head in the psalms (pointing to the prophecy in genesis about the seed crushing the serpents head) etc. Therefore the Dragon, the ancient serpent, is Satan and the snake is Satan. Just a different name. Just like the Jesus of the NT is named David in OT prophecy and also the anointed (Christ) etc. Different descriptions, names but same guy. I don’t see any reasons why that makes it mytho history. Yeah it’s supernatural but so is a lot of historical narrative in the Bible. Steve Boyd has done an analysis with a statistician and Genesis 1-2 at least are according to statistical analysts historical narrative:
czcams.com/video/a1pvhjJI8mA/video.html
@@arminius504 I enjoyed your explanation but when you said "yes it is supernatural" you made the mytho-historians point for him. Mixing supernatural references with literal history is the very definition of the mytho-historical position.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 I think you misunderstood the previous point. I believe they were saying that there are supernatural events in the text, but those events should be understood historically and literally, not as a mythical way of describing real events.
@@DBdrumz18 and I think you don't understand the traditional meaning of the word myth and seem to be confusing the word mythological with allegorical. Nobody is saying Genesis is allegory. However by acknowledging that events are supernatural the previous commentator confirmed that we should not look for any physical evidence of what happened. Mytho-historical views are not all 100 percent uniform but the point is always that whatever happened in Genesis happened somewhere between physical and spiritual in a way that we don't understand but that we should not understand as a physical 7 days physically 7000 years ago with a physical garden and a physical snake. Genesis 1 to 3 is way more nuanced than that. Even though the snake is cursed to crawl on its belly it still somehow evolves into a dragon? The claim is that Genesis represent the same kind of undercurrent that is going on in Revelation: more than allegory but different from the "real life" that we experience. Sometimes the word allegory is used for lack of a better term but this is often not what the interlocutor means. When the trees of the field clap there hands they are really clapping their hands on a Mythological / Spritual level. We don't expect to see them clapping but very view people think this is mere metaphor.
Thanks for bringing this book to our attention. The way we view the historicity of Adam is so important in shaping our theological worldview.
1000x yes to everything you are saying here, Gavin. I ran out of amens watching this. You’re is a much needed space in this area. I understand the desire of some to circle the wagons but even the way one does so can be done so poorly it’s not much better than defending doctrine at all.
Part of my heartache is all that is missed in reading Genesis with flat literalism. But that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
I've got no volume on this video. Anybody else having this problem. The rest of your videos are working fine
dang sorry. not sure why...
@@TruthUnites I came back to it about an hour ago and it was working. The problem must have been on my end but I'm not sure how because I tried headphones and my car speakers. Anyway, all good now.
@@joshuas1834 glad to hear!
You should make a CZcams “Short” from 10:46 to about 11:34-44
Great response with a lot of valuable information. I could be wrong but it seems to me that regardless of what one believes about the history and science surrounding Genesis 1-3, there are truths being taught that must be believed-there is a God; he created all things and all things were declared good; he created male and female in his image; he created humans to be in relationship with him; humans rebelled and broke that relationship, resulting in every human having a sinful nature, incurring the wrath of God and necessitating a saviour outside of humanity. There are other things that could be added but I would consider those things a minimum. While the historicity, literary, and creation/evolution discussions are interesting and necessary, ultimately much of it we simply cannot know with certainty, and so our approach must be first one of humility.
Our sinful nature necessitates a savior both outside and INSIDE humanity. Thus, the Theanthropos!
In your opinion, why is it that we have a strong tendency to collapse "is there truth here" with "how does the Bible communicate truth here"? It seems fairly straightforward to me, but some really seem to struggle with the difference. Is it a result of post modernity? Laziness? Thanks for your awesome content, as always.
Dude you are regurgitating arguments used by atheists. Oh dear
Thank you, Dr Ortlund
Thanks Gavin for keeping the conversation going. I sure appreciate listening to what you have to say on these issues!
What do you think of a literalist interpretation of Genesis? Is it preferable for a Christian to adopt that position? I tend to lean to it, but I must be strict in saying that I do find William Lane Craig absolutely heretical at times. e.g. his belief that Genesis is mythohistorical, his denial of the eternal begetting of the Son. Nevertheless, I do find him a powerful voice when arguing for the Resurrection. Thank you for your charity, kindness and fairmindedness. Love from an Orthodox Christian.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
If by literalist you mean “news report accurate”, then that is a heterodox and untenable reading which doesn’t handle any scrutiny. It’s better to hold a view more in line with the early church fathers or of a more expansive view which takes into account our modern understanding of ancient near-eastern legend, history, and cosmology
The debate here is about much deeper foundational issues. Dr. Craig's worldview foundations, and his doctrine of Scripture and Christ are radically different than those who argue for a historical Adam/Eve, and Fall. Frankly, they are almost different worldviews, significantly different explanations about human origins and human nature.
God bless you, Gavin!
Although I also disagree with WLC, I think one of the unspoken issues that people have, including myself, is that academia overall has bogarted the term “science”. Anyone who disagrees with the conclusions made by the “university educated” are clearly not smart enough to figure out God without help from someone like you or WLC.
Although alternative views are out there, “science” continues to encroach and downplay the conservative understanding. It’s to the point of frustration for many. We’re tired of being told we’re wrong because of “science” and “education”. It’s quite exhausting.
Despite our differences, thank you for all you do and continue the good fight!
God bless you as well!
My 15 year old actually made the comment (sarcastically), it’s a good thing we have science. What did people do before we had science to understand these things?
Brother Ortlund, God bless you! Your charity and scholarship continues to edify and bless me (as an aside, I just got married yesterday!).
Thanks a lot, and congratulations!
Thank you
One area of historical theology that is not covered enough is the theological developments within Protestantism from 1830 to 1930, inclusive of events such as the development of Higher Criticism in the Tubingen School by Ferdinand Baur in Germany that sparked a century of controversies that culminated in J.G. Machen and the remaining conservatives leaving Princeton in 1929. That century has given rise to many of the subsequent controversies from Vatican II to the rise of the Moral Majority and the culture wars throughout what was once called Christendom.
I think Strachan is really hitting on something important in using the term "liberalism", and you really hit on something in your use of the term "fundamentalist". I think it would be fascinating for you to do a survey of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and how modern developments in church history inform the current dispute between Dr. Strachan and Dr. Craig.
Great stuff brother! Thanks for sharing.
Hi. I'm curious about something you said. I take Genesis 3:8 to be talking about the Trinity. If it is that would mean it was the unincarnated Christ walking in the garden with God the Father and God the Spirit. I take this to mean the fall was a monumental occasion and just as all three God heads were at Jesus baptism, I see this the same as the fall. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
@Truth Unites. You might want to ask Dr. Craig if he thinks Augustine misread Romans 5 regarding the nature of original sin, and if his research on Historical Adam has impacted his thinking on the doctrine of original sin.
I appreciate the observation.
Thank you Gavin.
Thank you for this helpful way to think about this discussion. One thing I might like to see explained more is how you follow the cues to realize that one part of Scripture is a different type of history than another. I can get my head around it a little by some of the individuals you quoted but would love to go more in depth.
Stephen in this area unfortunately preconceptions can play a large part in how they categorise scripture. In the WLC / McDowell interview I just watched, WLC claims that he tried hard to come at this afresh, but it quickly became obvious that he didn't try very hard at all.
Also Gavin, you are using a view of truth that is not orthodox. The correspondence view of truth is the common sense view and the traditional view used by the Church fathers.
I so appreciate you, Dr. Ortland. Unfortunately, others, such as Owen Strachan, do not possess either your grace, scholarship, insight or intelligence, and not just on this issue.
Thank you for this. I plan on picking the book up. I'm curious: where do you disagree with Dr. Craig? You mentioned that you did, and I'm curious to know where and why.
Thank you for your content on this channel!
Thanks! I'm not inclined to date Adam that far back. That said, I recognize challenges in the alternatives timetables as well. Hope you enjoy the book!
Just watched Sean McDowell's interview of WLC on this. While he doesn't mythologise Adam and Eve away completely, what he comes up with bears little similarity to Genesis, IMO. Respectful dialogue should always be the M.O., though I can see WLC getting a lot of criticism from his approach to this.
This is helpful thank you Gavin. The word "literal" seems to matter quite a lot. Strachan highlights Lane Craig saying "these chapters need not be read literally" and translates that to mean "he says Gen 1-11 is not literal truth" which seems to be something rather different. I wonder if it's possible to defuse this idea that "more literal must be more faithful", perhaps by questioning the idea that there is only one "literal" reading of a passage and literal readers have happily landed on it. As you say, "how literal" is a pertinent point. You can imagine plenty of other more literal readings that would turn out to be silly. So even what someone claims is a "literal" reading still involves plenty of interpretation. Presumably God didn't intend the fish to literally fill the sea, nor were Adam and Eve's eyes literally shut until they ate the fruit etc etc. (noting that Augustine called it an apple lol)
Dr Craig’s terms can be very confusing if you don’t see how he’s defining them.
I love this! This was very helpful. I’ll have to read the book.
This is definitely a tricky issue. One question I’ve had for a while was it seems kind of convenient for the first few chapters to be figurative (or not literal) but for the rest of the book (Genesis) to be taken as history. Why would the author choose to do only a section of it so non-literal, but choose the rest to be literal?
Are there any other books in the Bible where the author would switch literary genres this arbitrarily (I’m not sure if that’s the right word but I hope you see what I mean)?
For what it's worth, I think one answer is because Genesis 12 moves from ancient history (Genesis 1-11) to more recent history. There's a pretty clear break in the timeline between 11 and 12.
I’ve heard that Hebrew literature would start with a poem or saying of sorts.
So appreciate your tone, humility, and your thoughtfulness. Grateful for your voice in this discussion.
hey brother, I appreciate your call for a more measured tone.
I would like to ask what the impetus is for questioning the literalistic reading.
You mentioned a few things like the angel with a flaming sword, God walking, and Augustine's thoughts on the tree. What is it about those things that lead you to question their literal reality? I think Owen is saying that folks who question the literalistic reading do so because these things seem fantastic or 'supernatural'. Which might fairly be summarized as an anti-supernatural reading. Of course, if we reject Gen 1-3 as literal history BASED on its inclusion of fantastic elements, then that hermeneutic, consistently applied, should be used (and has been used by literal liberals :) to doubt Jonah, the sun standing still, the walking on water, and eventually the ress of Christ.
So, what hints in the text cause you to doubt the literal plain meaning without causing you to doubt the literal plain meaning of the resurrection?
Thank you for your time.
One impetus would be the fact that our Earth and Universe are far older than a few thousand years.
Subscribed for that interview with WLC
Hope you will enjoy it!
Hey, thank you for clarification on Craig's argument. On your comment, "there is an uptick of fundamentalism," could you clarify what you meant by this? How would you describe what "fundamentalism" is?
Thank you, and God bless
hi Pastor Ortlund, could the sound on this be improved? thanks
Thank you so much for responding to this issue with good sense and charity. I feel you when it comes to being hesitant to engage polemical topics, but I for one am grateful for your reply. I'll definitely be adding your book on St. Augustine to my (already far too large) to-read list!
Thanks! Hope you enjoy!
Great video! Loved what you said about Scripture is infallible but we are not!
Thank you for defending WLC's reasonable voice. While I disagree with him on this issue, he's certainly a godly, thoughtful Christian who is a champion for Christ's church.
I'm not a scholar. I've been an atheist much of my life, read science texts and new the naturalistic view of how things got here. Then, by the power of God, I came to know Christ and witnessed the miraculous in my life and among others.
I don't understand everything about the beginning things. But I know that what was provided by God in the opening pages of Genesis is for our benefit. They have important meaning.
Since I know a God who is capable of the miraculous, I'll leave it all in His hands. Trying to mix the miraculous with science, which by its method ignores the possibility of the miraculous, seems a fraught endeavor.
But who knows? God can use even this in the hands of His servants to accomplish a saving work.
Could you create a scheduled/premier video on your channel that we could follow to set a reminder for (for the interview with Dr Craig)
This is very well done, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts brother.
Thanks Ian!
Heart of the issue...learning how to read what the author means.
Hey Gavin, I always appreciate your insight, and, more importantly in this case, the balance you bring to difficult questions. I tend to more agree with a literal Adam, but I really appreciated you highlighting the different sources and respected opinions who interpret Gen 1-11 differently than I do. Lots of food for thought.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks Thomas!
Thanks for your thoughts here, Dr. Ortlund. Loving your content more and more. Also, on a different note, I would love to hear your eschatology at some point. I notice a common sort of fundamentalist hermeneutic that leaves people with both a Young Earth position and dispensational premillennialism. I have seen just as much stubborn unwillingness to converse around eschatology as I have around creation.
Thanks Colin! Yes, I have noticed the same thing. I did a video on the millennium a while back; I think I will try to do something else in that space again down the line...
I come from a family of mostly young earth creationists, taking the Bible quite literally. A simple belief that what seems to be what the Bible says is what it means and that the "science" can be mistaken as it often has been. My concern here is not to argue for that.
Dr Craig called YEC an "embarrassment" in an interview, and in this article he calls their views naive and he ridicules and puts them down.
I have many times been proud of WLC, in this case I think he should apologize. It´s one thing to argue for an opinion, another to publicly ridicule people.
The reason I mention my family is that I myself am on the fence, might even agree with Craig, but the hurt dr Craig caused my family is completely unacceptable to me.
Charitable and rationale, similar to my thoughts on the book (based on the title and brief discussions from Dr Craig).
Looking forward to your discussion with Dr Craig on this very topic!! 👍
Thanks! Hope you enjoy!
On the subject of whether or not the Tree of Life actually existed or was merely an allegory, or something else, I have a question! Was the angel who blocked their access to the Tree of Life real or not? It would be strange to require a real angel to guard something that did not truly exist! To say the angel was not real also seems strange because you now have a string of events, by God, that are allegorical in response to an allegorical occurrence. As soon as one lands on the allegorical side of Genesis 1-3 they begin a downhill hermeneutical slide that does not end well.
Not surprised to see Owen in a similar situation again.
Truly appreciated this video brother 🙏
So glad it was useful for you!
As for the "where are the guiderails?" question, I haven't read the book yet, but I have heard Dr. Craig talk about it, and he actually uses a list of (nine?) criteria for what makes a myth in the literary sense.
Thank you for your graciousness on this, Gavin. I don't think overreacting on social media is helpful. There's way more heat than light. I thought WLC's discussion on literary genre and historicity in the First Things article was interesting. However, as soon as he went beyond that and started making assertions outside his area of expertise that requires additional, unquestioned assumptions about the validity of scientific research, processes and theories, he lost me.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. I so appreciate your example of humility and charity.
Gavin, thank you for your labor and charity. It’s a breath of fresh air! I love Owen and agree with him on this but the way he went about this was not the most charitable. With that said, thank you for taking the time to discuss this.
My problem is that Dr. Craig said that his book is *based* on the Bible. I don't mind being a little more humble and waiting to fully hear both sides, but for now, I have no earthly idea how one comes up with Hidelberg Man being "based" on the Bible.
I think I may have seen your interview with him before, but I'll check it out again.
This is an excellent response, and not only for it's content, but it's calm and reasoned tone. Thanks!
Thank you for this. Really appreciate your videos. I've been enjoying them for a number of months now.
Glad to be connected! Hope they are useful!
So helpful, gracious and good! Thanks Gavin!
Thankful for you, Gavin.
Agrarian, animal husbandry, metallurgy, city building: seems a given. Do we need to Consider these indicators? “Man of the dirt” a different creature from homo sapien?
Craig is a good philosopher and debater, but he isn't reliable for Biblical exegesis. His attitude on Genesis has been clear for years.
Was just watching the MacDowell and WLC video. I can tell you have a pastor's humility and grace. Charitable response Gavin, look forward to your interview with WLC.
An uptick in fundamentalism is not concerning.
Thanks for posting this video, I'm very curious about WLC book, huge fan of his and a new subscriber of yours.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. Well said. Keep up the good work.
What would Tyndale's ploughboy have made of the notion that Genesis is to be read in a 'particular' way?
Hey Gavin, could you have Owen on one of your videos to have a conversation about this? I am sure he can respond to the charges raised against him. Also, what do you mean by an "uptick of fundamentalism"? Is it evil? Damaging to the church? Would love to see you an Owen talk about this in a moderated debate or simply in a conversation on your channel.
Great analysis. I've been looking forward to this book for years. I'm looking forward to reading it and sharing it, also, with family. Thank you for this video.
I am so glad you put out a response to Owen. I follow him on Instagram and made the unfortunate error of defending WLCs view on a social platform (cue the pitchforks). You put this together very eloquently and w/ great scholars to back up the fact that we can have both sides literary and historical in the same passage. Thank you for this!
Thanks for doing this video. Great insights on this conversation!
It's all true or it's all not
This is a real issue in online discussions. Literalists get all the press and are the loudest voices in the room, so they are just about all the skeptics hear from; thus, with both camps demanding a literal reading of the text, the rest of us catch it from both sides. Thanks for your work, my friend!
I think being uncharitable is Owen Strachan's MO.
In times when theology is downright avoided, biblical literacy generally is not even on the map and postmodernism is relentlessly swallowing churches alive. Defending reasonable voices is a must. Dr Craig needs to be guarded and preserved. Thanks for your video and integrity.
People get too caught up in polemics and forget that straw man, ad-hominem, and red herring errors (among others) can easily be mere slander\Libel. There is a moral component to arguments and representations.
You mentioned that Christians rejected Copernicus. For a very long time, Science also rejected Copernicus.
The use of the technique called myth-history as a literary genre is very old.
For those who try to defend that there is a certain historicity in Genesis, they define *myth-history* as the narration of historical events, of real characters, resorting to the artifices of mythological narratives, of legends, (literary figures such as metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, fantasies, etc ...). That is, the events and characters are real, they existed in the past, but their sayings and actions are narrated in a very ornate and fantastic way.
It really is the other way around. It is intended to turn myths and legends into history, that is, to narrate myths without any relation to reality with the literary techniques and resources of historiography as an academic discipline.
A modern example of this informal fallacy is the so-called *non-fiction novel* popularized, among others, by Truman Capote.
The term "myth-history" is an oxymoron, a *contradictio in terminis*. In the end, it is either history or it is myth. Especially when there are no objective criteria that allow separating in the texts what is considered history and what is considered myth.
Dr. Lane Craig has gone so far as to say that, although he regards the sayings and deeds of many biblical characters as legends or myths, he believes such a character actually existed.
This posture does not hold. Historical characters are what we know with documented certainty about them. It can happen, and it is frequent in the histriography of antiquity, that we have some (or enough) certainty that the character (or the fact) existed, because we have sufficiently reliable indications to assert its historical reality. And that, in addition to that solid knowledge of his existence and his personality, we also have many myths and legends around that character (or historical fact).
But if we do not have more information than those that the Bible gives us, if we consider his sayings and facts, myths and legends, there is no possibility of affirming if and how that character (or that fact) existed. And assuming the existence of him without knowing with certainty his personality and his actions (or nature), is useless.
The proposal to consider that these characters and events must be understood and interpreted as myth-history is actually a fallacy. Each of the readers of these texts will be able to subjectively choose what they believe to be myth and what is history.
It is very legal to use certain elements of real history as stuf to write a novel, a fictional story.
What is not very honest is trying to turn into unquestionable history what is only a myth, a legend.
The case of Adam and Eve is impossible to treat from a myth-history approach.
For the simple reason that there are only figurative, mythical and legendary accounts in the Bible and incontrovertible and increasingly solid facts that come from evolutionary biology, genetics, paleo-genetics, and modern population genetics that prove there never was any such a couple that gave birth to all humanity (or parents of all of us; a question that is further complicated by the recent genetic and anthropological discoveries about the Neanderthals and Homo florensiensis, something that has no place in the Gensesis account).
With the possibility of massive genomic sequencing offered by the NGS, it is undoubted that the mythological and legendary character of Adam and Eve and their sin that supposedly caused the Fall of Man will be completed, clarified and consolidated.
@Truth Unites Great video, and very much needed. Unfortunately, this type of reaction from folks like Dr. Strachan is not unexpected. It is very sad though, as Dr. Strachan can be very careful in other areas, and garners much respect, in my view, on other important theological topics. It is just disappointing to see him fail to accurately elucidate Dr. Craig's view, and resort to straw man tactics to try to discredit him. One might as well dismiss Stott and Packer as "liberals" too, if you go that route. Thank you for your work. I am intrigued about Augustine now. Have you done a fuller length video treatment on Augustine yet?
I'll consider doing a video on Augustine down the road! Thanks.
You deny Adam and Eve existed literally because you do not believe the bible.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Paul wrote in Rom 5 :12 that Adam fell from innocence and brought death into creation.
WLC's God is humanism and science - have no fellowship with him.
Thank you for speaking about this!!! I was very confused by initial reactions by believers to W.L . Craig on this. Your elaboratiins clarified a lot 🙂
The idea of "mytho-historic" or symbolic history is such a profound and wise concept. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for your insight 🙂