A Quest for the Historical Adam: A Conversation with William Lane Craig 

Timestamps for Navigation: 0:00 - Introduction by Dr. Sean McDowell Questions from Dr. McDowell to Dr. Craig: 1:00 - Why did you choose to focus this book on the Historical Adam? 1:44 - What sets your approach [in this book] apart from the other resources on this topic? 2:55 - Why did you write in your book that people from the left and the right would both likely be upset with you and your book? 5:14 - With all the current day debate on this topic, why has it never been addressed in ecumenical history thus far? 8:38 - Would you say that belief in the Historical Adam is in the same category as The Resurrection (e.g., Closed Hand Theological Doctrine)? 10:39 - How did you start the journey of writing this book (personally and logically)? 12:34 - If you believe in "Old Earth" and you have no problem with a sort of "common descent evolutionary biology": how is this not just starting with your biases and finding a biblical narrative that supports your predisposition to such beliefs? 14:34 - Why did you posit Genesis 1 - 11 as "Mytho-history?" 20:53 - If Mytho-history is the correct genre for Genesis 1 - 11, how should this shape the way we read it? 22:30 - Solely looking at the Old Testament, is it the genealogies in Genesis 12 that leads you to believe there is a truly historic component to Genesis 1 - 11? 23:22 - Would the ancients have read Genesis as Mytho-historic or would they have taken it as simply historic? 24:44 - Looking at the New Testament, make a distinction between the "Literary Adam" and "Historic Adam." 27:20 - Is it fair to say that when the authors of the New Testament reference non-Biblical literature, we can't say the literature referenced is or is not truly historical? 29:19 - Why do you say that 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 are examples where references to the "Literary Adam" are actually references to the "Historic Adam." 30:41 - Regardless of how Adam's sin was passed to us all, do you say that the "Historic Adam" did objectively do so? 31:49 - How do you approach science in general? 33:00 - Is it fair to say that, whether you embrace the conclusions of modern science or not, you're saying that given your Biblical commitments, you assume those conclusions and verify if there is plausibility between the two. 33:54 - What does it mean to be human? 40:00 - In a layperson's language, explain the full theory you present as plausible in your book. 42:56 - So after all your research, you can only say your theory is plausible? 44:25 - Why is it you say that the true story of Adam and Eve will never be truly known? Audience Questions: 46:10 - Kevin O'Connor - As an agnostic atheist, is there anything in your Historical Adam theory for those like me, or is it an in-group resource? 47:30 - Lou Benson - Is the genealogy from Adam to Christ supposed to be historically accurate? 48:56 - Nathanael King - How are Genesis 1 - 11 and Genesis 12 + so different that they warrant separate literary genres? 50:54 - anselman - What was the first sin? What was the Fall? What is sin? 51:45 - Kina Lynch - How can sin affect everyone through Adam if he was one human among many others, and thus, not everyone are his descendants? 53:05 - Darrel Anderson - Do you see the DNA evidence as the main reason to not have an Adam created separately? 54:32 - Troy J Hinkle - If God used evolution to create man and universe, why would He lie to us with the account of Adam and Eve? 57:02 - Susan Morales - Are we made in God's image or is that myth? 58-17 - Dr. Sean McDowell - Tell us Dr. Craig, why are you such a fan of the Biola University Apologetics program and why do you partner with us? Outro: 58:44 - Thanks from Dr. McDowell 59:30 - Upcoming Video Releases

Well, looking forward to a debate between William Craig and James White on this issue

Sounds like WLC has been watching MythVision 😁

The thoughtful way the questions were asked was appreciated.

Ken Ham talks about the attack on Genesis 1-11 as being one of the battles of our time - ultimately a battle over the authority of God's Word - in other words of God's Word over "man's word"; as well as a battle over the very *foundations* of our faith. See "Truth Matters Conference 2022 : Ken Ham - Genesis 1-11" if interested in hearing more about this. The section where the creation story is mocked from around 21:30 is hard to listen to 😔 ( WLC seems to have a hard time believing in the supernatural ?) I guess this all made me reflect on Colossians 2:8.

The amount of people who disagree with WLC on his genesis account... 👇🏼

Apply the WLC’s hermeneutical approach to Jesus being raised from the dead. “Fantastical”? “Mythical”? This approach breaks down in two seconds. Maybe his next book will be the new systematic theology that will have to redefine every doctrine that this affects. This is a unraveling of doctrine that has stood for centuries, and now somehow he has a “better” way.

Is anyone else tripped out by how their back rounds almost blend together making a weird optical illusion

If God can appear multiple times in Old Testament in various forms, including walking before Moses, the Lord wrestling with Jacob, and in the form of Jesus the Christ, God can have done the same in the Garden of Eden and walked with them. Remember, at that time, they were sinless and could stand before God without perishing. Once they sinned, they hid from God and then was cast from His presence out of the Garden. As for the trees that Mr Craig seems to scoff at, God could have easily made such. Why not? He is either able to do such or not. It wasn’t until they ate the fruit that they became like God in that aspect as the Bible states. Then why can’t there also be a tree of life in the garden. Maybe they had to eat from it regular to possess a long life or to live forever. We don’t know. After all, there was only ONE tree they couldn’t eat from. So it was there to eat from if they wanted to. But we do know that eternal life was taken from them by God after they disobeyed him when He cast them out of the Garden so they didn’t have access to it. Then angels where placed to seal off the garden so they and no one else could enter it at the time. Maybe it has been destroyed by God in some way or just hidden from all. It doesn’t matter. Angels are recognized throughout the Old and New Testaments. So that could have actually happened. Talking Animals: If Balam’s donkey could be made to talk, then why not a “serpent” type looking creature with legs? Maybe the serpent like creature was possessed by Satan just as the demons in the NT enter the pigs when cast out of someone. So, it could be literal that those things happened. Also, if Satan can appear as an angel of light, why not as a serpent? OLD EARTH VS YOUNG EARTH. I believe in an Old Earth but not because of the traditional reasoning of being created millions or even billions of years ago but because I believe God created it that way. For example: The creation account seems to show God created Adam and Eve and all the animals and plants fully grown so they could produce after their own kind. If that is the case, who is to say that God didn’t create the earth in a way where it was already hundreds of thousands, millions, or even billions of years old? Then when we test rocks and such they would naturally date as if things were that old. It is very plausible IF you believe in God and He is capable of such. The Bible never states how old the earth was created TO BE at the time. Just that it was created, not how old it was created to be! Just some thoughts.

Danger - he is comparing Gen 1-11 to Aesop’s fables and laughing at all who read those in literal sense. How does Sean not call him out and continue to ask questions?

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I have been reading William Lane Craig’s "Quest for the historical Adam." I applaud him for the courage it took to write such a controversial book! It has generated some negative feedback. My question is, why does Dr. Craig find some things in Genesis chapters 1:1-11 more fantastic than some of the essential doctrines of the church? For example, why is a universal flood fantastic but the virgin birth is not fantastic? Why is the Cherubim in the garden of Eden more fantastic than the resurrection of Jesus? Why is a talking donkey more fantastic than the Trinity? If your criteria for what is fantastic and not fantastic is derived from science, those dogmas fall outside of modern scientific explanations as well. And to be blunt, who are you to delineate what is fantastic and what is not fantastic in scripture? You were not there during the time that Genesis 1-11 gives an account of!

Firstly @Dr Sean McDowell, your audio levels this week were spot on. Firstly I appreciate that WLC started with the thought that jettisoning a historical Adam and Eve had problematic flow on effects theologically speaking. Unfortunately it seems that WLC is okay with the other theological problems of allowing evolution, deep time, and mythical flood, Babel etc. I wonder why WLC didn't question whether modern science is correct, and if scientists don't have their own materialistic philosophical biases. I get the feeling from WLCs statement that he doesn't want YEC to be true that he hasn't really engaged deeply with the best YEC thinking. These 'massive' contradictions don't seem so persuasive when you do. On a side note, I wonder if WLC thinks Numbers is 'mytho historical' because of Balaam's talking donkey?

Is it the contention of the chat critics that any disagreement with their specific interpretation of scripture immediately disqualifies that person from being a Christian? It definitely seemed that way from the comments.

6:52 William Lane Craig doesn’t believe the original sin of Adam as the head of Eve resulted in the decay of the body into dust Genesis 3:19 and the actions of the parent doesn’t genetically get passed on to the children? Incredible

I'm so upset with WLC and his contradictions on this subject however he is still one of best at defending historical Jesus. He needs to just stick with that part.

Interesting discussion. I’m not sure what I think about WLC’s theories as I haven’t read his book on Adam yet. Obviously, how he is explaining them here is really rather brief. The question raised about God lying isn’t as far-fetched as WLC makes them out. To me, when I read Genesis’s account and then jump to Revelation I see a broad difference. Revelation is, immediately, over-the-top in its language. Genesis, however, is much less so. Yes, even with the elements WLC (mockingly) talks about. I simply think it is a disservice to initiate “ Oh, it’s so obvious!” Will have to check out the book. I don’t think I’ve seen Sean sip so much from his mug in one episode. LOL

If there were no original pairs (Adam and Eve). Then there is no fall and original sin. If there is no original sin then there is no reason why Jesus was needed. Christianity then has no basis.

I must admit that I admire Sean's ability to tolerate the confusion and intrinsic contradiction emanating from WLC. I don't think I'd last longer than a minute or two before starting to impatiently tear into the irrationality. Exodus 20:8-11 completely makes a mockery of any old-age earth. WLC doesn't believe the bible - even to the point of calling Jesus as mistaken. If Jesus made a mistake then GOD the Father was also mistaken because Jesus said expressly that He only spoke what the Father told Him to say. Therefore, WLC is saying that men know more than God. WLC is calling GOD a liar, no mistake about that, no pulling of punches here. WLC appeals to all kinds of authorities that disagree with the bible as far as Genesis 1-11 is concerned. Swayed by the philosophies of men - just as Peter told us to watch out for. Myth is myth - WLC is just talking nonsense.

Definition of "Myth" as used by William Lane Craig in his categorization of Genesis as Mytho-History (aka: proto-history, imagistic-history, worldview-history); "Myth is a traditional sacred narrative, that attempts to ground realities contemporaneous with the author, including societal institutions, values, and natural phenomenon, in events of the deep primordial past." So before hastily responding to his use of this word given the current contexts in which it is used implying fake or unreal events, atleast make an objection with respect to his definition as opposed to a straw-version.

Does this mean that WLC not only rejects the historicity of not just the Jewish extra-biblical folklore traditions about Jannes and Jambres, but also the historicity of Moses' battle with the magicians (often considered to be Jannes & Jambres) in Exodus 7:10-12?

His cynicism is nutty. Jesus walking on water is also fantastic. And turning water to wine? Cue the laughter. Romans 1:22.

I'll also add that I'm not so sure that there's a universal acceptance of Gen 1-11 being a different genre amongst OT scholars. I think WLC misunderstood the questioner, who stated that he doesn't see such a big difference in literary style from before Gen 12 to after, to warrant it being allocated as a different genre.

People need to understand that science isn't against the Bible. The more discovery science make, the more in confirms the Bible. The only difference is the scientist are the one who's trying to change the interpretation.

Atheopath, Richard Dawkins, has no time for those who try to marry evolution with Christianity: "Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than ‘barking mad’!”

Wondering since Craig finds the fantastical portions of Gen 1-11 incredulous, why he doesn't apply that also to breeding goats by sticks to get stripes, or talking donkeys, or a god making a wager with Satan over a human life, walls falling at the blow of a trumpet. Are these not just as mythical? Does he consider these historical events? If so, how does he distinguish them?

What is Sean’s view of this? I’m not sure if I’ve heard him articulate his position on age of earth, the creation narrative, and Adam. I’m very curious where you’re at Sean.

Question: if Adam and Eve were in a right relationship with God before the “fall” and from the point of their “fall” forward God intended Jesus to be their redemption, then when we make A & E allegorical and fill in the blank with(?) who and where in human history were we ever in “right relationship “ with God and what happened to make humanity “fall” away? The point is that we cannot remove an historical A&E without ultimately undermining the gospel itself. I realize the WLC is not advocating for an allegorical A&E but the question remains. Thank you and God Bless!

Interesting discussion, but I still have a lot of questions. One is it seems to me that basing humanness (specifically image if God) on cognitive abilities rather than God's fiat (or 'breathing'). That would mean people without these abilities are not human. The second issue I have is about trying to explain Genesis (or any Bible passage) by trying to harmonize it with science instead at least first understanding it in it's historical and literary context. I'd be interested in seeing how, say, a PhD in middle Eastern and Biblical literature would say about this.

Dr Craig, I totally agree with your plausible conclusion about the historicity of Adam and Eve. I realize those who hold to the young earth are not going to like it but honestly, those people are fighting an uphill battle going against science and reason. Congratulations on your book and I hope it will unify us more than separate us, that is if we take the time to seriously consider this questions and learn to read the Bible with discernment.

In the latter days, people will deny the flood.

I don't think WLC has thought through this idea that if there was no historical Adam, that such a thing is not essential. Really? A historical Adam is just as important as a historical Jesus who died on the cross and rose again to correct the sin of Adam. Therefore, they are equally as essential because Jesus specifically came to earth to reverse the effects of the historical Adam and Eve's sin. If there was no historical Adam, then there would have been no need for a historical Jesus to die and rise again. These are inextricably tied together, and this is something Craig should know. As great of an intellect Dr. Craig is, I am deeply disappointed in his view shown here.

Very interesting. This is the first interview I've seen by Sean McDowell. He does an excellent job of questioning, giving Dr. Craig ample opportunity to answer, and a great job of summing up the answers. Excellent.

Follow up comment: wow after reading the comments I am very encouraged about all those seeing through clearly false teachings! Good job brothers and sisters 👍

Good interview. Love these guys. I think the disagreement I have with WLC is that he discards anything that seems mythological as purely metaphorical, whereas it is clear that the Bible has many fantastical, mythological event which turn out to be historical. Tolkien and Lewis understood that the Bible was the "Myth come true." And I have a suspicion that we modernists have a poor tendency to dispense with the mystical and magical as wives-tales, when the world and its history may indeed be more mythical than we were led to believe.

The more I listen to Dr Craig the more I get confused. Pine Creek says he could be on the way to becoming a progressive Christian or even an atheist. I hope & pray that doesn't happen.

If we use the logic that science opposes a literal interpretation of genesis (miracle) - therefore genesis can’t be interpreted literally - what’s stopping us from using the same logic on the gospels? The same logic can be used to say that science opposes a literal interpretation of the gospels, because there is a virgin birth, miracles left and right, and a man rising from the dead. If one accepts WLC’s logic on genesis, what’s stopping them from using that same logic on the gospels? Beyond that, I also see this as an authority issue. What’s our ultimate authority? Do we use the Bible to interpret science? Or do we use science to interpret the Bible? If we use science to interpret the Bible, we’re now placing science as a higher authority than God’s word. I see this as dangerous… but then again I guess I’m just “a fundamentalist”

It’s interesting to learn about other Christians views. I can appreciate his knowledge of science and his desire to consider things in depth, as controversial as they may be. I hope to learn more on this topic in the future. Thanks for answering my question.

Hey, Sean...could you interview another brilliant thinker on this topic but with the literal view of the genesis account? Great episode though and WLC is a great thinker and is still one of my favorites. Even though I whole heartedly disagree with his take on this.

This is a great conversation that needs to be had. It is of great importance and it has interested me ever since my mom would tell me to ignore the dates in dinosaur documentaries as a kid. As a Senior in high school, I've chosen the existence of the Historical Adam to be my Senior Thesis topic. This video was extremely timely for me and I am so grateful. If anyone in the comments has other research recommendations, I'd happily hear them. I'm wrestling right alongside Dr. Craig on this issue, and I hope putting in the work for my 20-page thesis over the course of this year will help me investigate the problem further. I'm entirely in the same camp of being afraid of the young-earth creationist view like Dr. Craig, but what matters is truth. Hopefully, we find a workable reading of Genesis. If we are in one of the "worst-case scenarios," then we need to find that out as soon as careful discussion allows so that we can solve the conflict.

Thank you so much Sean for your amazing ministry! It is a huge blessing! You are such a gracious and kind person. I think you are a very good example of what a Christian should look like and what it actually means to be a Christian. You are willing to have difficult conversations with all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs and you treat them with respect and love. Keep up the great work brother, and may God bless you abundantly!

Very sad to see comments of people allowing their ignorance of literary genre keep them from biblical comprehension.

We all have our reservations, but it is imperative that we understand more about the historical Adam. My whole life i have hold the view that Adam was indeed a historical figure, i just did not know how to pin point it in a way to show its historical person. With this work of Dr. William Lane Craig i will have an understanding and reasonable research to rely on to show the historical Adam.

I love how WLC says the word “genre.”

As an agnostic this comment section is quite interesting. Craig is mostly right about the science, seems like the critics are right about the Bible. This is where we get this narrative of science being in conflict with Christianity no matter how moder apologists try to avoid this tension.

Sean, I understand and appreciate the format of these interviews to be more to listen and learn but at the same time I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions on these types of topics. Trying to find sources or people who you can trust can be difficult on the internet. To be able to hear your thoughts as well as your guests on debated topics would be so helpful. If there are videos or other resources in which you do talk on things such as young vs old earth creation, evolution, how you believe genesis 1-11 to be intended, amongst other topics that are debated upon within Christian circles I would greatly appreciate being pointed in that direction. If it doesn’t exist, Sean, it’d be so helpful to hear where you stand on issues like these.

His position that the mytho-historical approach stops at the end of Genesis 11 is quite odd when you see that the narrative seems to naturally flow into 12 as a continuation of 11. He also agrees that the presence of genealogies is a reason to make that separation. However, there’s a genealogy in chapter 11 as well. Is this the historical part of the mytho-history? I have a hard time seeing this as a logical dividing point between the two types of text.

This is an important conversation for us to have as Christians. One of the dangers facing every family is that when we send their child off to college their faith is challenged by the reality that the earth has been around more than 6000 years. As Dr. Craig points out this is not a central tenet of our faith but it becomes a major stumbling block to our credibility. WLC provides one explanation of human origins that is both plausible in terms of Biblical hermeneutics as well as science.

I struggle to fathom how Craig can accept Genesis as “mythohistory” and liken it to the Illiad and simultaneously have a problem with Paul and Jesus speaking of Adam as a historical figure. Why not simply think that they were products of their time and spoke of these things with that understanding? It doesn’t mean they were wrong - just that they understood things in a mythologized way. Is he afraid that that opens the floodgates to possibly saying that all religion is essentially mythologized reality?

So appreciate this!!! Well done!

At 57m00s, the "in image of God" question. I think many layman and non-believers still go by the thinking that this means we 'look like' God but in fact, the academic, scholarly and apologetic understanding is that it means humanity was supposed to be godly, that we had same values as God and we were supposed to be his ambassadors on earth, projecting his will, mastering creation and living under his providence. Obviously, it didn't go all that well thanks to free will, etc. It hadn't gone well for some angels earlier, either. But I just wanted to put that out because again, WLC does not make that distinction in his response here, it seems. He assumes the person asking the question already knows this and launches straight into what this intention (of being image-bearers) would have meant and therefore, potentially, misses at least, a portion of the question. I find - certainly amongst my friends - that this literal sort of view of that sentence in Genesis tends to culturally grossly misunderstand the true meaning. To be honest, even as a nominal Christian myself, I held this view for a long time (well into my adult life) but then through further reading of biblical literature and apologetics I learned and accepted that this was not the case. Just wanted to point that out but thank you for doing this interview and having met WLC in person, I wish him all the best with this book and much continued success.

I'm an old earth creationist also, but Dr. Craig needs to read Hugh Ross. Science and the Bible do NOT contradict.

Classic apologists almost always have terrible theology. They LOVE to elevate logic, reason, science, and everything else above the Scriptures themselves.

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' Mark 10:6 ESV

Q: in genesis we read that Adam was created first and then Eva from his body, literally his rib. What figuratively spoken about this and what the truth behind this. Apostle Paul referred to this passage in his writings: 1 Corinthians 11

Thank you Dr. Craig.

The creationist vibe is strong here. Congrats on having yet another thing in common with the flat-earthers...

It's so nice to see WLC open the door to allegory, poetry, and metaphor. If the stories in the Bible are not 100% historically accurate, then the life, preaching, and resurrection of Jesus can be refuted as being a myth or legend just like Noah's flood or the Exodus or the Fall. Just give an apologist enough time, they'll figure it out.

Williams voice sounds grand yet logical and born in the 1900s 😅 I see one of the reasons why he’s such a good apologist though he’s smart and has a very strong personality

16:03 I don’t have time to read all the comments, so don’t know if another Asbury alumni already responded, and I also know it’s unlikely anyone will see this comment, but as someone who attended Asbury College (now Asbury University) and took the Old Testament class there, I have to add a note to what William Lane Craig is saying here. Yes, Professor Arnold put early Genesis in what he called the “Mytho-history” genre but it’s misleading not to add that his entire lecture series on the topic (at least around 2007/2008) was on the Genesis creation account as “Anti-Myth” and was a comparison of how the Creation account dramatically differed from other creation myths, one of the differences being how it was written like an historical account, including geographical markers such as the 4 rivers around Eden. So what WLC has built on using this genre terminology is the exact opposite of what was being taught in those Asbury classes. (Unfortunately all my saved notes and handouts from the class are buried, and I couldn’t even name my Old Testament professor for sure, it’s been so long, but I find it unlikely there are two Old Testament professors at Asbury University teaching lectures on early Genesis as Anti-Myth. I remember the lectures because they were fascinating and I felt it was important to comment about them here since WLC has borrowed the professor’s terminology but is using it to support a completely opposite view than the one I remember being taught. )

He is so brilliant that he confuses himself ..i dont think he is too sure how to reconcile the plaun reading of the text through out the whole bible that it only makes sense if the actual adam was literal and historical if u can figure God out then He wouldnt be God,,

While not being fully settled on many of these questions myself, I appreciate Dr. Craig’s brilliant contributions to theology, apologetics and philosophy. God uses him in great ways, and we should treat his work with respect and consideration, while never compromising on the truth and authority of God’s word :)

I appreciate Dr Craig's honesty and just trying to search the truth. I think we all agree the resurrection and Jesus are paramount, relevant. But when it comes to searching the passed it gets murky

Please invite Jonathan Pageau as a counterpoint to this scientistic view! Good interview!

I would love to know what Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana (Scientists who are believers) would say about this. They have much more expertise than WLC, and have integrated astronomy, physics, biology, anthropology and other sciences into their creation model, which agrees with the Bible that Adam and Eve were special creations, not descended from a hominid.

Thank you Dr Craig. You explained why I am an atheist far better than I ever have. I stopped believing when I realized the flood never happened. But you did a much better job than I have in explaining why that destroyed inerrancy, and why that destroys all credability of the gospel.

Why is it we can accept the idea of a Being that is supernatural in nature and ability but refuse to let Him operate in any other way but within the confines of the laws of nature? That’s what I’m hearing from WLC: It’s seems impossible therefore it is.”

My push back to a completely metaphoric Genesis 3 is, should it really be obsurd to believe that God used a garden and a tree (which were surely the context in which Adam lived) to test Adams obedience, and from which Eve took a forbidden fruit?

Is the new testament also Mytho History? Cause it sure sounds that way.

This is comical. God’s box gets smaller and smaller that he’s forced in to. “Adam was the floodgate,…”. LOL!!!

PLEASE ALSO WATCH... The Truth of God's Word. Ken Ham February 28, 2022 at The Master's University

One aspect of why people think that the universe is old is because of two presuppositions. The first is that what we see in the night sky is from long ago because the universe is large and the speed of light coming to us travels at 300,000 km/sec. The second is that the speed of light is the same in both directions. If the speed of light is different both ways (for example infinite traveling to us and 1/2 c going the opposite direction) this does not conflict with theory. Veritasium does a good coverage of this particular idea. So if the speed of light is infinite coming towards us would mean that what we see in the night sky would see in real time no matter how far the objects are from us. The upshot of things is that far too many people, Christians and non-Christians, consider that science deals with truth when all it does is give us a possible handle on what the universe is like and how it runs. George Box made popular a saying "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Our theories are but models in essence to try to be the best explanation at the time of that theory. These theories can change or even be discarded on the basis of new data or interpretations of that data. Unfortunately, WLC has made this mistake. Many YEC make mistakes with applicability of science as do OEC. I have come across too many people on both sides of the argument who are far too adamant about their beliefs being true without stopping to question their presuppositions that they base their views on. There is too much anomalous data to hold to an OEC view, the "science" theories that are believed to be true and support OEC fail in some very subtle ways to reflect actual laboratory experiment. The base position should be that of accepting that Jesus Christ does not lie and if He says something is factual, then we accept this as true. I think WLC has forgotten that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) can do as He pleases and that He is fully capable of doing anything that He requires.

Quote St Paul:"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part" As a theologian I have been much blessed by WLC, his logic and apologetic skills. But his stand on this question is on obvious shakey ground. So even Jesus should believe that Adam and Eve was 750 000 years old?? There is nothing in the NT text that indicates that. His challange is obviously taking the text for what it says. Gen 1-11 is NOT very different from the rest of Genesis. The words used for God (Elohim, Yahweh etc) the sentence structure of the text, the structure of the stories (the Toledot structure of all Genesis) , all speaks of a unified historical Genesis. And if the story of Noah is not historical, then why is the story of Sodom and Gomorra historical? In Luke 17 Jesus mentions both Noah and Sodom as actual history, not myth.

Where do I stop taking it figuratively and start taking it literally, perhaps Genesis 3:15 is just mythological (sarcasm intended)

The 2x4 to build a house may be newly processed and labeled a new 2x4 however we overlook that in reality, the wood in that 2x4 is actually 50 to 100 years old.

WLC just basically told you that original sin is bullshit while still holding onto a thread of how to accept Adam and Eve. The deconstruction of Christianity has not only hit WLC, but McDowell is having to face that argument as well. Love it!

As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said, this is an attack on Christ's Divinity, as apparently The Lord Jesus didn't know that He didn't create Adam first. This is what happens when you put mans fallible opinion over the infallibility of God's word.

I'd like to share the words of perhaps one of the greatest Christian apologist in modern times and revered among mainstream Christian scholars and apologists. This is relevant to this topic of myth vs. history. C.S. Lewis believed that many of pagan or ancient stories better known as myths, fables or legends are attempts by the pagans to communicate moral messages and moral meaning to the human experience and hence by logical extension caring about rightful and wrongful conduct measured by conscience which was given by a moral God. However these myths are inferior to Scripture as Scriptures are full truth while pagan stories with a moral message are merely glimpses of truth. Scriptures culminated to the Divine incarnation of Christ as a man and the composition of the New Testament. "First of all He left us "conscience", the sense of right and wrong: and through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all throughout the heathen religions about a god who dies and come to life again and by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was - that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process" (Mere Christianity, pp. 50-51). However these three gifts from God (conscience, myths and scriptures) in Lewis's mind may not be totally separate as they may overlap in some instances. "For example, Lewis felt the Genesis creation story may have been derived from earlier Semitic stories that were pagan and mythical, although he believed that the re-telling of the myths were guided by God. Their mythology was the chosen one, the vehicle of the earliest scared truth. Thus the Jewish nation was chosen not only as a people, but also chosen as a medium of revelation. This means that Lewis believed that the creation account is mythical; it does not mean he believed it to be untrue. IT IS TRUER THAN HISTORY. The Biblical 'myths" refer not to the 'non-historical but rather to the non-describable'. Because all facts are misleading as they differ from Eternal Fact (I prefer the word TRUTH than fact here), myth is truer than history. History concentrates on the events, but often leaves out the real essence of the event: myth conveys that essence". You see the Protestant Pope does believe the characters and events of the Genesis account of creation are real characters and real events but the details of what these characters did and what happened during these events are decorated with mythical language and figurative terms in order to communicate a moral message and more importantly a world view, belief system and theology. Adam and Eve were real persons but whether or not there was an actual talking snake or an actual tree with fruits that if eaten led to catastrophic damnation is questionable but over focusing on these tiny details is missing the forest for the trees. Hints of the mythologizing of real people and real events are peppered throughout the Bible such as the Garden of Eden being larger than the size of Iraq where four huge rivers crosses through leading to the inevitable conclusion it is not a normal literal garden. Then access to the tree of life with fruits if eaten allows for eternal life is also far fetched as a physical act of merely eating a fruit from a particular tree is a mere biological act not a spiritual act such as repenting and trusting in Christ justifying a spiritual truth of receiving eternal life and much more likely to be accepted as spiritual truth. A big big hint of the mythologization of real people and events is the discrepancy between the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke and tracing Jesus' ancestry to being the Root of David through Joseph whom the Bible clearly states is not Jesus' biological father. I do not believe Luke and Matthew were lying or idiots as they would most likely know each other and know what the other person had written but intentionally passed hints to the reader of what the actual integrity of the story. Time for humanity to grow up I'd say and accept sophisticated and nuanced truth far more powerful than any actual historical facts judged by the method of recording history by historians in the modern world and era.

I thought I had seen this before and commented but I'm not finding it. Perhaps it was another very similar video. I am deeply disturbed by a number of things. Not the least of which is Sean's seemingly approval and agreement with a number of things that WLC said. The first thing I'd like to comment on isn't necessarily to most significant nor the main point I want to make and that is I disagree with WLC and perhaps Sean that denying the historicity of an actual Adam AND that was the first created human is not only as heretical as denying the Resurrection but MORE so. Why? Because it goes to the very Person of Christ. Christ is called the 2nd Adam. One must understand who the 1st Adam was in order to understand who the 2nd was/is. Somewhat tied to this is WLC's rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin. That too points to the Person of Jesus AND who, what, and why He came and is. Third, I categorically reject the argument that one can revise their theology, soteriology, Christology, Bibliology, and doctrine of Inspiration to accept that Paul taught a falsehood, the Bible teaches a falsehood, and Christ held to a falsehood and yet still be Christian. WLC and others can call themselves and "Christian" whatever they want to. No one can change that. Evidenced by the Mormons and JWs. But they will all befall the same fate. At the 12:34min mark Sean puts forth a supposition that WLC responds to and what lies in his answer is the crux of the whole matter. WLC responds well with the truth "Obviously all of us have a viewpoint from which we begin." Ding ding ding ding ding. BINGO! The biggest problem I have with WLC is that he bases his understanding and interpretation of Genesis 1-11 on solely a hermeneutic of that segment being similar to other mytho-historical "families" of that period AND completely ignores the Hermeneutics 101 rule of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. This is taken from 2nd Tim. 3:16 and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in that Scripture alone is the Final Authority for Faith and Practice. 1) God is inerrant, infallible, and perfect 2) God's Word is inerrant, infallible, and perfect 3) Man is fallen, fallible, and sinful 4) Man's word is subject to fallibility and error 5) Therefore God & His Word is the Final Authority by which Scripture MUST be interpreted You can NOT get a proper interpretation with just Hermeneutics or just Exegesis. You MUST combine the two. And there is ample evidence of non-figurative Scriptures in the NT and elsewhere of a much later time that show the Creation Account to be literal. WLC constantly, consistently, and repeatedly interprets Scripture thru everything but Scripture. Thru Science as HE understands it. The ancient writings of men. Etc. RATHER than interpreting those thru Scripture, The ramifications of WLC's claims and argument are ginormous and I don't see how the dangers could be overstated. If ever there was a reason to emphasize the dire need for Christians to be taught HOW to read the Bible this is one. Moreover, WLC goes on to lay all his cards out on the table and show his heart well as he describes what his "greatest fear" is and states "I don't want that to happen." THAT right THERE says it all. He simply does NOT see the truth in the juxtaposition of Pro. 3:5-7 versus 14:12. He's absolutely spot on when he says "It puts the Bible into MASSIVE, I think irredeemable conflict with modern science, linguistics, and history." Again, that is telling AND is shows another fruit of his trying to find commonality between God's ways and Man's. In fact, the ONLY commonality between God and Man is Jesus. This again shows a fatal flaw in his theology and soteriology. The Bible teaches that God and Man are at odds. That the World is enmity with God. They simply are NOT compatible. Yet WLC wants desperately to find them to be so. And, what's worse, is that in order to do so he elevates Man and his ways OVER God and His!! I should add that I do not believe WLCs motives are intentionally evil. Some may ask why WLC would intentionally do such a thing. I submit at least one reason may be a love for others. He flatly, clearly, stated that his greatest fear is that the YEC interpretation of the Bible would be true. Why would that be a fear? Could it possibly be because thousands, perhaps millions, of people who choose to cling to the wisdom of men and their understanding of Scripture, would then reject the Bible and Christianity altogether? I think both are plausible. Which takes you all the way back to the start of one's soteriology and the question: Do you believe God and Romans 1:16 or not? At the 23:22min mark Sean asks another great question because it goes directly to another Hermeneutical 101 principle. To wit, what was the author trying to convey and what would the people at that time understood it to mean. WLC says he doesn't know and he doesn't think there is any way of knowing. Whaaaaat? Then how can he possibly make the claims about Gen. 1-11 being Mytho-history??!! I submit a plain reading of the OT shows you that the ancients clearly took what was said as literal. Why? Because they had NO problem believing in the supernatural. They saw something supernatural they just attributed it to God. They diidn't try to find a way to explain it away. Which is evidenced by the numerous times people like Hitchens and other Atheists will tell you that if a comet or meteor was to hit the Moon and, after the dust settled, leave a message that says "God created the Universe and all that's in them in 6 days" or simply "God exists and I caused this" they still would NOT believe! At the 33:54min mark Sean asks another key and integral question that reveals more of WLCs theology and NOTE at the 36min mark how WLC draws a distinction between Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens, and Denisovans. This is ANOTHER EVIDENCE that WLCs mind quickly gravitates toward "Science" over Scripture. There is absolutely NO Scripture that even alludes to any such "divergence". And it wasn't even until fairly recently that "Scientists" claimed that man evolved from Neanderthals but now claim they were "human". C'mon folks! Do you see how blind WLC is? Ever bit as blind as the atheists who refuse to accept God's existence. God just keeps right on showing the wise to be foolish. So, WLC, which is it? Do you go with the Scientists who still claim Humans evolved from the Neanderthals or are you going with the Scientists who claim that Neanderthals were Human? And now the newly made up fairy tale of Denisovans because God threw another monkey-wrench into their blind thinking. I'd love to know whether WLC thinks that Blacks, for example, are different "species" of Humans. At the 40:50min mark WLC lays out his theory and tries to explain why it's plausible. All I'm going to say is that it may well be "plausible" but if you think it's remotely Biblical you better think again. I don't care how you want to twist Scripture to find some compatibility between "Science" and Scripture if you can take: "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:26-27 ESV) And "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7 MKJV) And then somehow turn that into "through a biological and spiritual renovation, perhaps divinely induced, a miracle, that caused a genetic regulatory mutation in a pair of these hominines they were lifted to fully human status and capable of supporting a rational soul thru their brain and nervous system"; then I just don't know what to tell you. Except that is about as far from what God says as one could get. Case closed.

I can't believe I missed this. RU-vid notifications gotta get better

Thank you Craig for opening my eyes, I didn't know we could interpret Jesus' resurrection as a metaphor. It was so hard to stay christian and believe such silly things were meant literally.

"My greatest fear is that 6 day creationists would be right. " Because it doesn't explain itself with known science? Isn't God, God?

Outstanding! I so appreciate Dr. Lane's courageous intellectual probing into these matters. There has always been a sort of cognitive dissonance in my mind as I've wrestled with these very questions.

I first came across Dr Craig as a student back in the early eighties. It has been great to catch up with him again forty years later. I find I can fit things together if I split Genesis one and two. Genesis certainly could not have been eye witness account, so must have been received as a vision by a person. Seeing a series of visions in the way described in Genesis could easily be written down as days. Later biblical writers simply using this as a platform for the argument they are making, such as resting on the Sabbath. Genesis one then becomes a non scientific statement which makes it clear that all of creation was brought about by God. I would say by intelligent design. The fact that the genetic record which traces human history never looks all that perfect, suggests to me agents other than God at work. Much as we would say God is at work in our lives when a doctor fixes us. Although made in God's image, we have no real idea what this signifies as it relates to early humans. We see spirituality operating on a time scale way before Adam. For me Genesis Two is the first in a series of attempts by God to make Himself known. Starting with a perfect male and female who will learn the ways of God, develop a relationship and finally be ready to share with the rest of creation, the message of God. They obviously messed up. Same thing with Noah and his descendants. Ditto the Jews and finally the church which has also failed. Only Christ will be able to do this adequately, he made a start and will return to finish the job. Adam still remains the first true man because he represents the first true son of God. He is the first sinner in that he directly rebelled against God. There are plenty of arguments against my theory, but I think each one can be resolved. It remains faithful to scripture yet allows us to view scientific discoveries without fear. It glorifies God as creator of the bast universe, who sets things in motion and determines that His purposes will be fulfilled. It shows us a pattern of God reaching out to all of creation using His servants. It solves the thorny issues of who Cain was scared of and where he got a wife from. It explains why the comission to the first imagers was domination and subjugation but to Adam it was to tend and keep. I am surprised that Dr Craig has not read books by people like Heiser, who adequately explain the talking serpent and anthropomorphic God, based on the understanding of the cultures at that time.

So the genealogy’s are not real ?

If Adam is not, then there is no, and I mean no understanding of what Sin is. The fundamental understanding of the scriptures becomes worthless.

If these opening chapters of the bible are metaphors, what are the symbolic meanings? How is this to be taught to the people of God? If I am to exchange my literal understanding of the global flood for a metaphorical one, what then is the "metaphor" teaching?

Is it just me, or does WLC sway back and forth all through this talk? He talks about the drastic outcome of not believing in the historical Adam, and yet doesn’t hold to the classical view of original sin and the historical view of Adam. Wondering if my internet connection is having problems and I am not hearing him right.

Hey, Sean! Do you think it would be possible to get Kevin Max on the channel for an interview? With the news earlier this year that he converted to “exvangelicalism” I thought it would be interesting to have an interview with him on a channel that’s talked about deconversion and such before :)

I knew that Jewish oral tradition was remarkable, but for a culture to remember a story about a human couple from 750 000 years ago is extraordinary! Dr. Craig pays literally no attention, although he seems to argue for it in this interview, to the literal and historical context of the Bible. All he's interested in is rationalising the Genesis story. Most scholars believe that Genesis as a text was composed some time between 1000 BC and 500 BC. He seems totally blind to this fact, or just ignored it altogether. Very weak theory. And arguing that a literal "Adam and Eve" were members of the heidelbergensis species is also pure speculation, there is no way you can find any evidence for this, like he puts it. It's a theological rationalisation of Genesis, trying to force a modern understanding of science into it, severely lacking critical and hermeneutical inquiry.

Question for Dr Craig as a plausible concept for the young earth perspective as it pertains to archeological dating methods. Is this a thought that has been considered? - if someone were to take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally as applied to the timeline, what sort of effect on our dating system would there be if people lived 900 year lifespans in some other atmospheric conditions? It seems to be correlative to Revelation then in some aspect of telling not myth, but spiritual realities (unseen realm) intermingled with physical historicity. What this implies is a simultaneous physical and metaphysical history that are connected and true, but not necessarily fully mythified constructions within genesis itself.

Are you familiar with Dr. Walt Brown and his Hydroplate Theory? Would be amazing if you had Brian Nickel on your show to discuss!

In light of Romans 5 how do you square Adam not being as much a literal man and more folkloric than Moses or Jesus. You are then forced to blame God for divinely revealing Himself through Paul as someone that believed Adam was historic literal man as much as Moses and Jesus. Some serious twisting is needed to force fit another view onto Romans 5. I’m not saying it can’t be done but I would just say own up to how messy it is.

Dr.Craig's argument in my opinion is confusing and filled with holes.

Is Biola supporting this view?

I don’t agree, but I get what he’s saying

William Lane Craig's views really undermine the accuracy and therefore the authority of scripture. A separation between a "Literary Adam" and "Historical Adam" is not really a distinction that later New Testament authors make. Jesus certainly seems to believe Adam, Eve, Noah etc were actual real space time historical people involve in historical events, not some strange genre category of "Mythohistory." And as far as I can tell much of his reasoning to dismiss the historicity of Adam can be used with Jesus. The presence of "fantastic" language like a talking serpent causes Atheists like me to dismiss the account as myth and nothing more. The same can be said of Jesus ascending into heaven on a cloud, or coming back to life after being biologically dead for three days. I can grant that Jesus existed and draw a distinction between the literary Jesus and the historical Jesus. What's the difference? This is a major blow to Christianity as their educated scholars cannot reconcile their education and belief.

Dr. McDowell, I appreciate your listening to and interviewing all of the individuals that you do. I am a bit concerned about the lack of responding with any concerns from a theological/Biblical standpoint. I respect and applaud Dr. Craig as an apologist. He has brilliantly debated many from a scientific standpoint, but I am very concerned about some of the theological views he expresses here.

I think I understand what WLC is going for (literal Adam and Eve along with billion year earth) but I cannot understand the resulting thought process. And it seems he goes back-and-forth between things that could be allegorical and things that could be literal. I'm confused lol.

20:06 - I like how he sees the ridiculousness of the garden of eden story, but can't yet see it elsewhere in the bible. Sounds like he's moving in the right direction. Really, the things he sees as ridiculous in that segment are dotted all throughout the entire bible. Talking animals, magical nonsense, like seas parting, people surviving underwater inside fish for 3 days, people turning into salt, water turning into wine, people walking on water, people coming back from the dead and floating up into the sky, the 7 headed dragon apocalypse. When you take seriously the standard for believability he just expressed, it's gotta be only a matter of time before he's able to apply that to the entire bible, and ultimately the concept of 'the gods' altogether. Sounds like he's close to being able to see that it really should not be taken seriously in the way so many people do. It is truly just a book.