William Lane Craig Defends His View on the Historical Adam 

Haha same here

Yeah, you're definitely a simple man.

So glad to hear that was of value to you! May the Lord continue to watch over you and direct you.

Thomistic philosophy and Catholic theology deal with it perfectly in my opinion. Not selling out to modern science or to modern Fundamentalists. I have two videos on my channel that go over it if you're interested.

I recommend Dr. John Walton’s books! Starting with the Lost world of Genesis! You’ll find good exegesis by a respected scholar :)

@@Lucas1Apple12 thx

Yeah, with all due respect to WLC, this is what I keep coming back to as well.

But WLC does not seem to be proclaiming to be wise is he? I mean it's his theory but he is not condemning people for not holding his view. He does not sound prideful but I guess I really do not know 100%.

Your interpretation standard is if I think it's a literal narrative it is. Pretty embarrassing honestly.

I know this is an old comment but i sincerely hope you spent some time thinking about how nothing in the video suggests the accounts of Genesis 1 - 11 didn't actually occur. . . and even the new testament references to them doesn't imply that the literal interpretation imposed on the text is what the NT speakers had in mind

Not to mention the fact that there's even a genealogy from Adam to Noah. If it was all allegory it doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Adam and Eve weren't their original names, their original names were based on the original language at that time. Adam and Eve are just what they translate to in our modern tongue. But otherwise, they had to be real people.

@@jrconway3 It's totally preposterous for a author to come up with a handful of names right?

​@@ttff-bd2yfI think the question is about authorial intent. It does seem like an odd thing for someone to write in who didn't mean it literally, even if they weren't correct on the actual names and dates.

⁠@@MrAwombatnot quite, although it would be for a modern westerner, an ancient Middle Easterner would have no problem with that. I’d recommend you look at Inspiring Philosophy’s series on genesis and ancient Egypt and the Bible’s video on genealogies

@@endygonewild2899 I'll check it out.

awesome to hear that! God bless you in your work.

God be Praised for DOUBTING God`s Word????

@@followerofjesuschrist5297 no dear person. I meant God be praised for the timing of this message giving a very new Christian, myself, the answers to some questions that the inmates in prison, of whom I formerly was one, about the Genesis account of the First Family. This video came to my attention in the last hours of my preparation of a Bible teaching that I was about to give at the local prison. It helped me to vocalize my beliefs to the inmates and respond to their honest questions as unbelievers still.

​@@followerofjesuschrist5297No. It's not doubt to interpret it outside of a materialist literal framework.

Thanks for the thoughtful engagement!

This is so true. As much as we may acknowledge that scientific endeavors have improved the quality of life for so many people - at the same time it is still a true adage that "today's news paper is tomorrow's toilet paper". There is a scientific saying "we now know" which is so vain and at the same time - such nonsense. Tomorrow we will "now know" (edit insert: )in the place of what we yesterday "then knew". God bless.

I’d encourage you to read Joshua Swamidass’s “The Genealogical Adam & Eve.” I’m much more comfortable with his view.

I bet it is. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2nd Tim. 4:3)

@@RoyceVanBlaricome umm... yeah this verse isnt referring to something as inconsequential as how to interpret genesis LOL. Its obvious to me this is referring to specifically the Gospel itself. "you dont agree with me? you must have itchy ears." is a pretty childish use of the Bible.

@@wowitsfrostygames155 - THANKS for proving my point and showing that the verse does apply to you. NOTHING "inconsequential" about Genesis or any of God's Word. Not surprising that what's "obvious" to you is wrong. If it was about the Gospel it would of said "Gospel" and not "sound doctrine". And, for the record, my comment wasn't about you agreeing with me. My comment was about how "comforting" a false understanding and false belief about Scripture is. Hopefully your error is grounded in childishness and you just need to grow up. Hopefully it's not a matter of needing to be Born Again first.

@@RoyceVanBlaricome remember when the Jewish people read the scriptures and they were certain that the messiah would be a general who would lead them out of the oppression of Rome? And that he would bring peace on earth? And then when the reality of the messiah didn’t meet their expectations many of them rejected him? Sometimes reality doesent contradict the scripture, it only contradicts our own interpretation of it. If you’re not open to maybe being wrong, it could be you have a pride issue. I respect your reverence for scripture, but don’t rely on tradition or your own interpretation all the time.

@@wowitsfrostygames155 //remember when the Jewish people read the scriptures and they were certain that the messiah would be a general who would lead them out of the oppression of Rome? And that he would bring peace on earth?// Yes & Yes. I remember and am aware of both. //And then when the reality of the messiah didn’t meet their expectations many of them rejected him?// Yup. Aware of that too. //Sometimes reality doesent contradict the scripture, it only contradicts our own interpretation of it.// I agree. And sometimes one's "reality" does contradict Scripture and Truth. Think of the naked man in the mirror saying "Boy howdy! I am one good lookin' woman!! And whole crowd of folks behind him saying, "You sure are!" //If you’re not open to maybe being wrong, you may have deep seated issues and you don’t even know it. Marinate on that for a while.// I NEVER said I wasn't open to being wrong. On some thing I am. Others no. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach.

Science can't predict the future, and we only have knowledge that goes so far back in time. Science is useful to know about the world in the hear and now, but it cannot be used to know what happened in the past. That's history, not science, and our knowledge of history is limited.

@@jrconway3 This takes science to be present empirical experience and history to be records of past present experiences. Is there not a sort of middle ground-scientific historical abductive argument to the best explanation-which reaches beyond the present first person experience (contemporary or historical) and reaches into pre-history (history for which there was no observational experience). A religious historical argument of this kind would be that the evidence of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus result in the sound inference that Jesus’ body was revivified, though no one actually was in the tomb to see it when it happened. Arguments for evolution, whether sound or error are also of this type. Agree/disagree? Any needed qualifications?

If Adam amd Eve are not historical, then original sin goes unexplained.

My two favorite baptists

@@michaeljennings8221 I didn’t know that Dr. Craig was a baptist

Because of the little part where it says “myth” from “mytho-history” people automatically assume that Dr Craig is saying genesis 1-11 is fake.. when that’s exactly the opposite of what he is saying.. he’s claiming that both the Scripture and the scientific evidence ARE compatible and there is a part to know where to put Adam in the Bible and in the latest science

In his own words recorded in this video - he had not made up his mind before he started researching the book. His opinion "for decades" was that the text of Genesis says nothing about the age of the earth. The current point is about whether or not there really was an Adam an Eve. This is a more careful distinction and in my view, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Okay, materialist.

@@MissingTrailsIt’s not materialistic at all.

That's atheism, not evolution. Stop conflating them to be dishonest.

​@@purelightapologetics4930You're insisting on interpreting scripture like one.

@@MeanBeanComedy ?

Thanks for sharing that Dr. Bob. WLC goes into his views on Christ's view of Scripture more fully in the book. You might be interested to check out his treatment there. God bless you!

@Dr. Bob. It might be helpful to consider that Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, who lived in Alexandra, Egypt, was perhaps the most famous apologist for the Jewish faith, during the time period of Jesus. In his defense of Genesis, Philo did not regard "the days of Genesis" as suggesting some sequence of literal 24-hour days, nor did Philo believe that the rib taken from Adam's side to create Eve was to be understood literally either. Philo believed that a metaphorical interpretation of at least certain aspects of the creation story were consistent with a high view of Scripture. So, if we question Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures, then we would have to question Philo of Alexandria's view of the Scriptures as well, despite the fact that Philo lived 2,000 years ago, at least 1800 years before anyone ever heard of Charles Darwin. God's blessing be with you!!

@@clarkemorledge2398 not sure if I am misunderstanding, what's the concern with rejecting Philo who was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? We have the church father's and the 6 th ecumenical Council

@@TommyGunzzz I am not aware of any church father who rejected Philo's views on early Genesis. Do you have a source from the fathers, or a specific canon in the Sixth Ecumenical Council ,where Philo's views were addressed?

@@clarkemorledge2398 Hi there. Sorry if I was unclear, my comment was addressing how you "if we question Dr. Craig's view of the Scriptures, then we would have to question Philo of Alexandria's view of the Scriptures as well" and i was asking why is that a big deal? Christianity isnt based on Philo is what i was getting at. There are several Jewish groups with different opinions on several topics regarding the OT, prophecies, typology, allegory, history, etc. Also, in Constantinople II, they are condemnations there against Origen (who allegorized genesis) and also ironically Apollinaris as a heretic, which is what WLC believes. i believe the 11th canon. Its hard to nail down all of Origens anathemas cause there are soo many and they are spread throughout multiple councils, but thats a good place to start. Blessings, have a good one.

Thanks! I address it in the fifth chapter of my book, retrieving Augustine’s doctrine of creation

@@TruthUnites when do you anticipate your book will be out? I'm curious as well I'm wondering how one reconciles the genealogies tracing Jesus back to Adam with what Dr Craig proposes...

@@HappyFern07 Thanks for your interest! I really don’t know, but I would guess it would probably be sometime in early 2024. I think Dr. Craig would argue that the genealogies contain gaps, which genealogies often do. Hope that helps.

​@@TruthUnitesI'm not familiar with biblical genealogies containing gaps. Are there other examples you would point to?

​@@isaiahnordland"Begat" in this context doesn't mean literally sired. We say Jesus is a son of David, but he was born centuries later. I could say I am "Alex, son of Henry," and it be completely legitimate, even if Henry was born in 1600.

@JD Apologetics You are correct to say that "the Biblical worldview presumes a uniform and orderly creation"-but mark the last word, "creation". It does not presume a uniform and orderly natural system whose origins can be deduced by human beings through a godless system of empirical deduction and analysis. For example, how was the earth before the flood?-Can we study the state of the earth prior to the flood or is it an event that washed away its own history, so that the Bible as God's revelation is the only trustworthy account of what the world was like? When you say "there is no biblical evidence that uniformitarianism is false" I think you're missing my point. As a Christian, I believe that the world is ordered by God, just as you point to in Genesis 1 and I would also cite the Noahic covenant. Yet there is a world of difference in believing in a universe ordered by God, and believing that it is possible without the word of God to discern the origin of the world, the universe, and everything contained in them on the basis of sheer empirical study. This latter belief is entirely unsupportable and is actually an axiomatic starting point. See the Wikipedia articles on the cosmological principle and on uniformitarianism to get what I mean. Also, you may be surprised to discover that I am not sure what the age of the earth (or universe) is-I don't insist that it be less than ten thousand years. But what I do reject is the atheistic approach taken by most scientists in which they assume they are capable of discerning the origin of the heavens and the earth through empirical study-and the results from such an approach are inescapably foolish.

@@amisikiarie hey there, i know this reply section is over a year old however i would like to insert my own thoughts that, while not meant to change your mind, are meant to make you consider something. While the popular view is that modern science and religion - particularly Christianity - are at odds with one another, this isnt true. And i know that no where did you say that, however i think its important to make that statement up front. Its not JUST that they arent in opposition, but that in fact many of modern sciences discoveries, many of which Christians reject without careful consideration, actually prove the Bible is the word of God. My view is not just that science and religion dont contradict, therefore they can both be true and be happy. But rather that one actively proves the other. Heres my favorite example of modern science proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is Gods word. Ill start with the verses themselves specifically Job 38 31-32 "“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?" This verse is REMARKABLE, because it accurately describes what is happening in the constellations this very second. The plaeades is a constellation known as the seven sisters, and its a group of a star clusters that are moving in such a way that billions and billions and billions of years from now, they will look exactly the same. They are moving at the same speed and direction. In other words "their chains are bound". Orion's belt is also "loosening". Orion's belt is made of 3 stars. The right 2 stars over billions of years will eventually move to the right and look like 1 star, and the star to the left will drift left until eventually the belt no longer exists. The bear with its cubs is a references to the constellation Arcturus. It is a big and heavy star that does pretty much whatever it wants, and basically just follows its own laws. Whats the point of all of this? Modern science has been paramount in proving the authorship of the Bible, but its the same science that gives us these things that ALSO produces theories we dont like despite the fact they dont contradict anything we teach (in most cases). Yes, theres a clear bias in science to not want to give any credibility to Christianity, and some theories are presented purely to try and discredit our belief. But eventually science prevails and - wouldnt you know it - Christians are right. Not only can we imperially study the heavens and the earth, in doing so unbelievers have actually made a bunch of our case for us. Not that every scientific discovery was made by an unbeliever. For instance the Big Bang that Christians for whatever reason want to deny, actually helped our cause, cause prior to that the common belief was that the universe was eternal. The Big Bang helped prove it had a beginning, and the one who discovered it if im not mistaken, was literally a catholic priest. Then Einstein - not a believer - was able to imperially determine that time space and matter all came into existence at the same time. This is relevant because that means whatever caused the Big Bang, was timeless, spaceless, and matterless. And wouldnt you know it, the Christian God follows under this category. This discovery is only possible from a uniformitarian view, because if the laws of the universe havent been consistent since the beginning, Einstein would have never been able to make this discovery. ALL of these scientific discoveries were IMPERICALLY discovered, and in many cases by people who didnt use the Bible to guide them. Now does this automatically prove an old earth for example? Not necessarily, however the reason why i believe its important to be open to an old earth, and all of the implications that come with it (like Adam and Eve being 500k+ years ago), is that the science that proves the authors knew things, or were told things, that they couldnt have possibly have known if the divine creator himself hadnt told them, is the same science that leads modern scientists to believe the age of the earth is billions of years old. Same thing with the universe. We imperially calculated the idea that the universe is expanding (something the Bible told us about thousands of years before this discovery), but the discovery of this expansion depends a lot on science that if true would likely have to support an old earth. The fields of science arent mutually exclusive fields. Meaning if we cant tell the difference between an earth that is only 10's of thousands of years old, and an earth that is billions of years old, then we likely dont know any of the scientific discoveries i listed above. The branches of science barrow, and affirm each other, in many cases. By saying that we cant "imperially" discover these things, and that this position is unsupportable, is grossly a false statement, because in fact we HAVE done that, and it is only through a uniformitarian universe that the scientific proofs for the Bible have come about. Similar to how the Jews 2000 years ago read the scriptures, and were absolutely certain the messiah would be a general that would lead them into victory against the romans and bring peace on earth, only for the messiah to show up and reality not be what they expected Him to be, so too should we change our view of scripture when reality says its not what we thought it was. But this goes both ways. 50 years from now the idea that the earth is anything more than 10k years old might be foolish, but the evidence otherwise seems pretty ironclad, and it doesent contradict scripture, it merely contradicts our traditional understanding of it, so why bother debating about it? Especially when we miss out on really good witnessing material?

@@wowitsfrostygames155 Did you mean 'Empirically'?

@@michaelbabbitt3837 yeah i was probably trying to type on my phone.

With regards to the second point, neither Jesus nor Paul say “The earth is six thousand years old.” They do, like C. S. Lewis, refer to Adam - that doesn’t mean they believe in a historical Adam. Indeed! Paul says that even Abraham is an allegory.

​@@randomperson2078Paul says no such thing. Adam is historical, if not the problem of original sin goes unsolved. Abraham is a real person too.

Why don't you guys actually watch the video? They clarify that the Gospels are literal biographies and read as such. WLC also says Adam is a literal person.

Oversimplifying the Scriptures can lead to incorrect interpretations. It is true that both literal or figurative explanations agree on there being a Creator and humanity chosen to be out of direct relationship with the Creator, your definition for "lacking" is unclear. Sin is not just lack to meet GOD's standards. Sin is rejection of GOD's truth and imposing our own truth. The problem with a figurative interpretation of Genesis is that death as a payment for sin cannot be true as death has to have always existed since life emerged on the earth. If sin did not bring death, then Jesus' death did not deal with our sin debt and therefore Jesus' sacrifice was in vain. You cannot have a Gospel without the foundation and reason for a Gospel in the first place. The Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ is due to the fallen nature of man. But for man to be fallen, man must have fell. But you do not have that in evolution, but instead everything is getting better and progressing and instead of man being driven out of the Garden of Eden, evolution implies that man is headed into the "Garden of Eden" by evolution. In evolution, man is not fallen, but is at the greatest point in human evolution. The Scriptures teach that Adam's sin caused death to come into the world. You could make the claim that death by sin was only human death, but there is no Scripture to support that claim. As Adam was put in charge of the world, then all of Creation was affected by man's sin. There must have been a literal Adam, not 75 thousand years ago, but, as the Scriptures teach (counting the genealogies that must have a purpose rather than some mytho-historic record of random people) Adam must have existed around 6,000 years ago. Although there is scientific evidence to back this up, the greatest problem for the syncretism of the religion of naturalism, evolution, and Christianity is the theological implications. Scripture supports a young age for the earth and it is not a side issue, it is what the rest of the Scriptures are based on and if there is no literal Genesis chapter 1-11, there cannot be crucial doctrines supported. Jesus came to pay for our sin and by dying HE conquered both death and sin. If death had been extant for millions or billions of years before man even arrived into the picture, then where does that put Jesus? Death is not a good thing, yet GOD calls all that HE made good in Genesis chapter 1 verse 31. In the fossil record, we see death, disease, and suffering and GOD does not call these things good, so why should we believe HE did? We must be firmly grounded on GOD's Word, not man's fallible interpretations of the science. Science must and will back GOD's Word up, not the other way around. We follow GOD, not man, and GOD says that HE made it all in 6 days as stated not only in Genesis where it states "evening and morning" and "1st/2nd/3rd... day", but also in Exodus 20 where GOD commands Israel to keep the Sabbath because HE did so, but if HE did not, according to evolution, then why command Israel to do so because HE did so. That would mean that GOD is misleading at least, lying at worst, and GOD does not lie!

@@inthedefenseofGenesis 'Sin' in the Greek is hamartia. It means 'to miss the mark'. What is the mark? The image of God to which man had been created (Genesis 1:26). When humanity separated from relationship with God, their 'eyes were opened' and they immediately knew that something was missing: the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit who maintained direct communion with God. By God's grace, humanity was gifted with sufficient rational capacity to recognize there was a God and to have a moral conscience by which they could identify good and evil (Romans chapters one and two). But the fulness of relational help from God was removed, creating a lack in which the 'works of the flesh' were free to grow (Galatians 5:17-21). It is these works of the flesh to which we refer when we think of individual 'sins'. It is precisely to restore full relationship with God that Christ came and fulfilled all righteousness. Through faith in the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit takes up residence within the believer (John 14:17; 1 John 4: 12-15) and begins bearing godly fruit (Galatians 5: 22-26). By that power, we are being conformed to the divine image (Romans 8: 28-30). However, until the resurrection to glorified new bodies (1 Corinthians chapter 15) we still have these broken ones and must deal one day at a time with their weaknesses. By God's grace, we have a mediator in the beloved Son of God who helps us (1 John 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 2:5-6). So, for the believer the call is now to walk in the Spirit, to live up to the great gift that has been given through Christ our Lord (Galatians 5:25).

@@stephenbailey9969 Amen. That is why we cannot believe that Adam was some primitive human who existed 750,000 years ago because that means that sin does not cause death as death existed before man and the Fall and William Lane Craig cannot have a literal Fall, which is MAJOR problematic for the Gospel.

Yes! Just one of WLC's unwarranted assumptions.

I find it refreshing

No. It’s not just you. I agree: I think it’s a really sad, dark, lame view with a really lame God.

Your view of it probably contradicts science

I'm no expert, but I've heard biblical scholars clarify that often genealogies in the Bible (and other near eastern literature) purposely omit names that aren't considered important or relative. So the time between Adam and Noah for example doesn't have to be limited by how many people are listed in between them.

@@matthew7491 Thank you for your response! I've basically heard and read the same thing. It is a plausible explanation

I find a young earth to be plausible, regardless of gabs in genealogies. After all the question is, how long is the gap?

Genealogies aren't meant to be taken literally. They prove descent, focus on notable characters, and the years lived and numbers of generations have symbolic meaning in Hebrew.

From what the best minds on DNA can determine, we all descend from one male and one female. Of course that male could be Noah. The problem with DNA is reading the protein lengths and chains. Regardless, the "Science" confirms that we all... every person on the planet, have common roots. Even from a Darwinian view point, that is the logical conclusion, that there had to be a first man and a first woman. Before that they would have a significant deviation in genetic pairing that would have resulted in sterility. This is one of the major flaws in Darwinian thought.

Because that is not what the Scriptures teach. "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Eve was the mother of all the living (humans, not animals) and therefore there were no humans who were not descendants of Adam besides Adam himself and Eve. Making things up as being chosen from many humans is just an attempt to synchronize a falsified religious belief called evolution into Christianity. If evolution is true, then there were billions of years of death, disease, and suffering before the first man Adam sinned and therefore Jesus' death on the cross does not pay our sin debt and we are still in our sins! As 1 Corinthians 15:17 says, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (referring to if the dead do not rise, then Jesus did not either) This can be applied to if Jesus did not pay our sin debt, then we are still in our sins and our faith is futile. A figurative Genesis means Christianity breaks down. Put your trust in the Lord, not in man's fallible interpretation of science. GOD made it all, who best knows how HE did it and how long it took HIM but GOD?

I agree with your assessment. The problem with the line of thought discussed is that it compromises the Word of God for the very limited assessments of largely secular men so that we may seem reasonable to those same secular men. Further we have to know that secular knowledge changes every decade or so. So, if we were to have taken as truth what secular science assured us was fact 50 years ago, would have made us liars today. I prefer to trust in the word of the One who was there. "“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Romans 5 never by any mean teaches original sin... :)

@@metnasopar8861 - Your OPINION is duly noted and summarily dismissed because, well, it's just that and MORE IMPORTANTLY God says otherwise. It's not wise to call God a Liar. :)

@@RoyceVanBlaricome yups, God does not lie.. your interp is a misrepresentations of what God said in romans 5..:)

@@metnasopar8861 - Yups. God does not lie but YOU just did. And you just made yourself an abomination to God in doing so. (Pro. 6:16-19)

WLC is merely stating that the doctrine of original sin as taught by reformed theologians is not clearly taught in Scripture. He doesnt hold to the idea that babies are born guilty of Adam's sin, but that we inherited a sin nature. Really not difficult to understand and it blows my mind when people actually say that babies are vipers in daipers or something stupid like that. Scripture is clear that every person is responsible for their own sins and must therefore also personally repent before the Lord.

definitely possible, but any way you slice it it's not "literal"

​@@TruthUnites I'm genuinely trying to understand this view of yours better. What is your definition of literal? I could say that Adam and Eve literally walked in the garden with God if I clarify this and say literally walked with Adam and Eve in the form of a manifestation he chose. In a similar sense, I can say God literally guided the descendants of Abraham in the wilderness in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He was literally there but took the form of a cloud or fire. The same could be with God's manifestation in the temple, or on Mount Sinai. However, what I would not call literal is the illustration of Jesus in Revelation 3:20. Jesus is not literally at any door which I physically open, but he is using imagery to demonstrate that if the church turns from their sin in repentance and opens the door, they will have the right to enter into eternal life with him and feast in his great kingdom.

@@pieismylove5875 One year has passed and still no response to this excellent question that has been posed.

@@iberius9937 let us make man in our own image according to our likeness ...I don't think we can dismiss the idea that an 'unfallen' man and woman could see and walk with God

@@TruthUnites reread the texts perhaps...not the summations of the texts by others....my 2 cents

Fair enough. Creation stuff causes more division than pretty much any other doctrine I know of, so I appreciate you staying subscribed despite your concerns! (One thing: I worry about pitting lay reading and scholarship against one another, since translation itself is an act of scholarship. Laity wouldn't even have access to the text without scholarship.)

@@TruthUnites I would not liken the project of translating the Holy Scripture into the vernacular with modern-day scholarship, the former of which was done with the conviction that the Scripture is Perspicuous, while the latter is often done from the standpoint of skepticism of the veracity of the biblical text. If WLC had made many of these arguments during the "Battle for the Bible" days, he would have rightly been associated with those who, with the magisterial use of reason, undermined the Word of God because the presupposition brought to the text was not faith that confessed the Inspiration and Innerancy of the Bible, but rather an assessment of the Scripture that treats it like any other text. I'm not suggesting WLC has the same fundamental starting point as liberal scholars, but a lot of his conclusions are indistinguishable from theirs, and this troubles many, and I think rightly so.

@@marcuswilliams7448 Hmmm. Perhaps you are using the word "scholarship" to refer to non-evangelical, higher critical scholarship exclusively? The scholarship referenced in the video, though, was evangelical scholarship (JI Packer, Jack Collins, etc.).

@@marcuswilliams7448 Try Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on Genesis 1-11. Another O.T scholar that views Genesis in its Ancient Hebrew context . He ISN'T liberal but would agree with many of Dr. WLC Hypothesis. It the fundamentalists of the Last 200 years that have become the hyperliteralists of All Scripture.

@@TruthUnites Well, I would say that Scholarship done by an Evangelical Christian is not, therefore, Evangelical Scholarship. WLC would consider himself an Evangelical of some variety, I assume, and yet he is using the language of a Higher Critic (Pentateuchal Author, as an example). I suppose this necessitates defining just what the parameters of Evangelical Scholarship actually are so that we don't assume something is Evangelical Scholarship because it is done by an Evangelical. An analogy would be a challenge for me, a Confessional Lutheran pastor in the LCMS. When someone says "Lutherans celebrate homosexuality" because someone, or an entire collection of someones (ELCA), who call themselves Lutheran approve of homosexuality, the question must be asked whether such celebration actually follows from the Lutheran Confessional Principle. So, what are the Principles of a Higher Critic in relation to Genesis, and how do they differ from WLC's approach? If there is a different approach, how is that, in certain instances, they arrive at the same conclusions? Or, likewise, is it Evangelical Scholarship if a Young Earth and Literal Interpretation of Gensis is represented therein? How can WLC's conclusions and that of a Young Earth creationist be equally called Evangelical Scholarship?

I have covered them a bit here and there, mostly in my book on Augustine’s doctrine of creation. But I’d be happy to address a specific question or set of questions. Feel free to share what you think would be most useful.

@@TruthUnites I'm not entirely sure!! Haha. I think I'm having a hard time navigating and cataloging which expressions and narratives that we should be committed to more literally and others less literally. I appreciated his commitment to Adam as the universal progenitor of humanity. He quotes the narrative saying that "No man was found to work the ground," or "no helper was found." But the same narrative also talks about them both being formed from the ground and very specifically as Eve was formed from sleeping Adam's rib. I think Craig's ideas are interesting and I enjoy learning from how others are interpreting scripture and science. I like also learning from how people/pastors I respect (that's you!) respond to their thinking. :)

@@jaybeevh3778 thanks! It’s highly likely that I’ll address this issue more in the future at some point since it is of great interest to me.

That's the problem, is we, including WLC, want to adapt the Bible to secular academics. The Bible has continually proven itself correct while the world has revised its views. Ultimately we each have to come to that decision ourselves, but as time goes on evolution has proven itself to be an untenable theory. We now see "mainstream" science considering the idea of simulated reality due to the observable issues and inconsistencies with scientific theory, which is all we can do when it comes to the past. Nothing is provable. I hear what is said, but again we are trying to compromise the Word which is always reliable for secular teachings which change every decade or two.

Hebrew genealogies are not exhaustive. They are used to tell the story of a particular tribe or nation and to reveal deeper truths (I believe the Hebrew word for “genealogy” can also mean “story”, i.e. this is the genealogy of Jacob, or this is the story of Jacob)

Genealogies aren't meant to include everyone. Plain and simple. You just have to understand what type of literature you're reading instead of forcing your own understanding into the text like the first lady who replied to you.

how do you know his motives?

@@TruthUnites Personal experience and for the rest it is obvious that he measures the text of the Bible according to materialistic science. If it contradicts what he considers to be the majority view of “scientists” well than the Bible must give way. He is inconsequential: The resurrection of Jesus: Miracle, although his scientists would say it is impossible for a dead body to be resurrected. But 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood: Not compatible with modern “science” so these passages from the Bible must mean something different. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Craig wants to serve two masters and this desire is the path to heresy. I know that these are very hard words, but I can’t sugar coat his theories. How come he doesn’t enter into dialogue with young earth creationists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or Dr. Jason Lisle? God choosing to transform the so called Homo Heidelbergensis at a specific time into modern man is the most ridiculous science-fiction attempt to combine christian faith with today’s anthropology. Give me a break.

@@Mazinga Also the Apostle Paul wrote 'Let God be true and everyone a liar', I don't there is a need for Christians to interpret the scripture in alignment with modern science but vice versa!

@@SamTheSubSaharan Amen

Wikipedia gives good insight into no one Christian.

That's not how Hebrew genealogies work. Stop reading the Bible like a modernist, materialist American.

@@MeanBeanComedy I'm from UK. How does Hebrew genealogies work because it is pretty clear that there were 14 generations from Adam to Abraham and 14 from Abraham to David and 14 generations from David to Christ. So, how can you interpret that any other way than what it says? It literally tells you who they are and how many years each person lived and how old when they had their children pretty much. Please explain or is that just another attempt to bring confusion to make people doubt the bible?

⁠​⁠@@MeanBeanComedycan you please answer katherinegeorge4945’s question?

Do you understand what is mythical?

Your faith has not been misplaced. The Bible is, as you say, the unerring Word of God. Adam and Eve were real people, the first humans, created by God, not evolved from some lower humanoids. Jesus did walk on water, he did turn water into wine, he did die for our sins, and he rose from the dead. WLC is an evangelical, but he is playing with fire. Scripture and science do not conflict, but Scripture and bad science, most of which we see today coming from atheistic presuppositions, do conflict. Evolutionary theory is falling apart, not Scripture.

Yup! Gotta go High Church if you wanna survive! 😎👉🏻👉🏻

We don't use primarily carbon dating anymore, and haven't for decades.

He mentions not finding support for original sin in Scripture.😊

This is old but the word for son in the geologies just means decedent, and in the context scholars have noted that it is possible there are gaps, where the biblical authors simple skip over people

imago dei, ex nihilo, deathless, human uniqueness. In fact pre creation I could argue there wasn't chaos so it wasn't brought from disorder, wasn't death. Things to think about

@@YoshiOST Thanks for that. One thing I'll say is that being image bearers has nothing to do with physicality though. It's a verb so it's about our dominion/stewardship role. As for your point about chaos, I don't disagree but my point was about creation itself showing that God regularly uses cycles and this goes along with His promise to redeem us. Also where does "deathless" get mentioned. God cut off access to the Tree of Life so we couldn't gain immortality as sinners, which implies we weren't made immortal, right?

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 from my readin until God rested things were good. The kind of good only God would say. Which I read as "perfect" and that excludes death until sin is brought into all creation.

@@YoshiOST Interesting. I see your logic but I don't think it's the only way to interpret it and besides the problem of it seeming to make the tree of life redundant, it also raises another question. If creation is already perfect then why did God create Eden as an oasis of perfection within it, from which mankind were going to bring the rest of earth under submission?

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 perhaps you are extending theme of eden/garden to something not in the text, 'oasis', rest of the earth with some preconception not scripturally found. Creation is perfect in it's infancy and age, to grow and develop beyond the garden until human's brought all creation under the curse.

Yes ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BuMKAgrktWA.html

My god, the hubris dripping from you is stomach-churning. 🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮

He is.

Uhm. And how do you resolve the problem, "Sin entered the world death entered the world through Adam?"

@@luboshcamber1992 Good question; Id like to know how WLC would answer. 1 possibility could be that awareness of death entered man's consciousness in Adam. This theory I have not thought out yet, just throwing it out there.

@@wmarkfish Wouldn't it be better to set up the Word of God as standard and throw all the philosophy of man into the garbage?

@@luboshcamber1992 Well then we would have to find something for all those profligate professors in the university to do for a living. We can't have them roaming the streets or expressing their weird ideas in comment sections.

Could death mean spiritual in this context and not physical? When God breathed into Adam's nostils did He give him more than just a body and a soul, but maybe a spirit also? And this spirit was meant to live forever, yet with the fall spiritual death entered the world? I'm thinking of the reference in the bible to the second death. Adam and Eve also didnt physically die right after sinning, so it would seem reasonable to think physical death was probably not what was referred to but rather the idea of eternal seperation from God.

Love your comment ❤

According to the best DNA knowledge we have, all humans do trace their roots back to one male and one female. We still do not know enough about genetics to understand them to a great deal, but we do know that.

@@oldplace2844 Yes and no. Genetic Adam and Eve are the last living humans who all current humans are related to by chromosomal DNA (Father) and by mitochondrial DNA (mother) so the first issue that means they don't correspond to the Biblical Adam And Eve is that they didn't live at the same time, and the second issue is that as people die and we lose branches on our family tree, these individuals shift in time. That doesn't disprove Biblical Adam and Eve but it means the "genetic Adam and Eve" are not them.

One of the illogical conclusions of such a view as original sin is infant baptism...believing the water washes away adam's sin from the baby and if the baby would die before baptism he/she would go to hell. Ofcourse WLC rejects this foolish idea as all christians should. Yes, we inherited Adam's sin nature, but not his actually sins.

@@AnniEast just ask yourself this: do we have adam's sin nature? you already said we do. Does God hate our nature because it is corrupt? Yes he does. Why does he hate it? Because it's corrupt. It's not morally pure. And what is it about our nature that is corrupt? It's that we're naturally rebellious. Does God hate the rebelliousness of our nature? Yes. Was Adam's sin rebellion? Yes. So does God hate Adam's sin in us? Yes. That is the doctrine of original sin. Don't throw out the baby with the infant baptism water.

@@jonathanVA44 lots of gimnastics done there to come to the very simple conclusion that God hates sin. We are not born guilty of adams sins, as the reformed original sin doctrine suggests, but with a nature that will inevitably sin if left to 'mature'. No baby is a viper in a daiper as they so love to say. Maybe we can both learn more on the subject.

@@AnniEast sweatheart this is not "the reformed doctrine" - this is the doctrine of original sin that is upheld by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, the Anglican Church, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, and so many others. They've all concluded that God hates sin wherever it is found, not only in sinful actions, because it's not just actions that are sinful, but sinful hearts, sinful natures, sinful thoughts, sinful minds, sinful flesh, sinful bodies, sinful words, sinful affections, sinful inclinations. He loves people, but in the sense of their sin he hates them. He hates them for who they are, He loves them despite who they are. As for vipers in diapers - listen to the word of the Lord: "The wicked go astray from the womb; they err as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3) - this is why Augustine (over a thousand years before the reformation) had to confess his sins as a baby - you should read his Confessions. It's very interesting.

@@jonathanVA44 sweetheart? You think I'm a woman? And I will continue to side with WLC on this one, we inherit a sin nature, we dont inherit Adam's sin. And babies can't sin as their prefrontal cortex is not even developed yet. That is embellished writings intended to convey the idea that sin is inevitable, all will go astray, even babies at a point in their lives. Yes, we confess our own sins, even the ones we can't even remember, but we do not confess Adam's sin or any other person's sins. We are guilty of our own sins, we are not guilty of any other person sins. That fact that we inevitably share in the same sin(rebellion) as every other person who ever lived, doesn't mean their sins somehow transferred to us. There is a clear difference between having a sin nature from birth and being sinful from birth. Deut 24:16 Ezek 18:20