What Really Is "In Quest of the Historical Adam"?? | An Interview w/ Sean McDowell

Dr. Sean McDowell digs in with Dr. Craig on his recent book, "In Quest of the Historical Adam," as difficult challenges are answered and a thorough overview is provided.
Special thanks to Sean McDowell for this interview.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg

[@its9429]

Terrific! Clearly stated salient discussion of Dr. Craig's timely response to Dr. Swamidass' work.

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

An outstanding interview and conversation! This looks like an awesome book.

[@wisdomdesignedlife]

I'll need to study this more. Dr. Craig has a lot of critics on this topic, but I believe with his caliber and commitment in defending Christianity, he has deeply researched this and left no stone unturned.

[@JCATG]

Thank you so much for this insightful and sincere conversation on the quest for the historical Adam. I honestly think that this is a much needed dialogue regarding this rather divisive topic for the church to learn to understand better. I hope that there would be more of this in your future intellectual endeavors, Dr. Craig! God bless you, your family, and your ministry! Soli Deo gloria!

[@christopherlee7451]

I can tell it was tough for Dr. Craig to come to some of these conclusions. However, we’re at a point to where the science of evolution is difficult to ignore. I commend Dr. Craig for this work and I look forward to reading his book. A Big Shout out to Sean too for having the discussion.

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

Just keep in mind that Dr. Craig was not engaging the supposed "science of evolution" (biology is a science, evolution is a worldview philosophy) but stated, "I simply accept what the deliverances of contemporary science" (by which he means scientists--lest we fall into a reification fallacy--and, of course, only certain scientists ones).

[@christopherlee7451]

@@KenAmmi-Shalom Evolution is informed by Science (in all sorts of disciplines). However, I could see how folks who are highly religious would want to reduce Evolution to a Worldview... If this is the case, we may as well see Gravity as a Worldview too... With that said, of course Dr. Craig - on more than one occasion - said statements that serve to reduce Science down to Worldviews... He understands who his audience is and he's still struggling with some realizations pertaining to what he found during his Research about the Historical Adam & Eve for his Book... He and others who are highly Religious, have to fit the findings of Science into their Worldview in an effort to continue to maintain their Worldview ; )

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

@@christopherlee7451 Evolution is (supposed to be) informed by science and it's a worldview philosophy since it's a framework via which to (mis) interpret biology (which is a science). Likewise, gravity is an observed phenomena but there are theories/interpretations about it. Of course, if we're accidentally existing apes then there's no universal imperative to accept that we're accidentally existing apes.

[@christopherlee7451]

@@KenAmmi-Shalom Hi Ken... Your Last Sentence... There seems to be where the problem is for many folks... Yes sir... We are Highly Evolved Primates... It's tough for folks to get their minds wrapped around that; hence, they spend quite a bit of their time not only allowing themselves to believe in fantastical Myths, but also working on their Apologetic Verbal Gymnastics skills... I certainly understand the predicament they may find themselves in. I, for one, would like to be able to get myself to believe that this Entire Universe was designed and created to benefit the one Primate Species for which you and I happen to belong to. Thanks for Sharing your thoughts on this important topic.

[@christianityisunstoppable4155]

I just ordered your book. I’ve been very curious about this subject. Can’t wait.

[@nerdforlife6544]

Interesting. Can’t wait to read it

[@rolfyoutube586]

I recommend “Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity” by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross for an in-depth, rigorous, and highly detailed look into the scientific evidence concerning Adam and Eve.

[@kevinwells7080]

It seems to me that the ‘first sin’ would necessarily be 1.against a direct command, 2. Around a basic feature of primitive pre-agrarian life, and 3. Be accompanied by radical consequences. So the violation of a command around food given to a hunter/gatherer couple fits the bill nicely.

[@andersondesouza7520]

Congratulations Mr Craig for raising such a urgent theme. will there be a Portuguese version for Brasilian people? It will be a great pleasure to translate it into Portuguese and sharing with brasiliana and south Americans people. God Bless you!

[@kennylee6499]

@Macy sondheim wtf bro

[@andersondesouza7520]

@Macy sondheim Nice to meet you

[@jvdominici]

@Macy sondheim why are you being that rude? he is worrying about translation because he wants a portuguese version of it, so he can understand it better, he doesnt need to learn english if he has a version on his language

[@wilhelmjosephus4830]

Olá, conterrâneo da terra de Santa Cruz

[@andersondesouza7520]

@@wilhelmjosephus4830 Olá, conterrâneo. É mineiro também?

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

It's noted that "biblically there must be a historical Adam" due to "Genesis 1 through 11, taken on its own, merit" so that Dr. Craig has, "given examples of why you think there's clearly these fantastic mythical elements involved in it" and he replies, "Yes" when asked, "Is it the genealogies and the connection where it stops in [Genesis] 12 that convinces you there's a historical component behind this in Genesis 12?" It seems odd to pick and choose, so that Genesis 1-11 is, at once, said to contain "clearly...fantastic mythical elements" but that those chapters are also so very historically literal that they provide evidence of that "there must be a historical Adam."

[@patticarey9016]

I would like Dr. Craig to explain a little more about why he does not think that if Adam was not historical, it would not be a serious blow to Christianity and salvation.

[@bakacs1n]

There are things to mention here: - it is important to read a book in it's context it was written - God is perfectly capable to do the things in genesis exactly as they are - Science today is not that exact that we should venerate it as unfalsifiable, especially if we talk about the age of things - Even if the science would exact, it's not like God couldn't manipulate the world He created - If we study how Jesus teaches, many times he makes the scripture much more truer than it seemed to be and many times much more literal I don't think we enough data to take any side on this issue, and I don't know if we will ever have. The issue definitely doesn't worth the fight between each other. But as someone mentioned here, we need to analyze if we don't do more harm to everything by mythicizing things in the bible just to comply to an atheistic scientism narrative.

[@Gudnews4all]

WLC's tone of derision while discussing the Garden narrative is telling, I fear. I'm looking forward to reading the book.

[@kdog3311]

Just curious, how does a young earth worldview go aganist science?

[@mevangel9898]

A wider consideration in this debate are the genealogies in the Book of Genesis. Without the genealogies, the exact date of Adam's generation would be one of speculation. However, historically, the genealogies in the Book of Genesis have been taken in a strictly defining manner, placing Adam's generation under 10,000 years (and in my opinion, closer to 6000). Echoing what Craig has said, discounting, or even misconstruing, the genealogies would have "reverberating" consequences on one's doctrine of inspiration and salvation. Whatever the earth was like before God started to generate life on it, is an estimation at best, the details known only to God. Whatever may have existed beneath the waters of creation is known only to God. But do a few finds mean that we concede on the monogenistic view of humanity, and disregard the genealogies (which must be comprehensively dealt with)? I believe such a claim by modernists requires big evidence. Does this evidence really exist, or have systems been created to make it appear so

[@jonathonray6198]

If you read history - most history is mythical with various degrees of detail or conflicting or contradictory evidences or observations. Once it’s a narrative it’s mythical.

[@cardcounter21]

Looks like they both go to the same book shelf store!

[@Thejadedgamer]

So , I believe these apologetics fit my beliefs well but I am concerned that they hit a snag and that the question of Jesus genealogy wasn't explained well. Is the doctor saying that some of the people in the genealogy were fictitious historical characters or that the genealogy is meant to be symbolic based on those who are in it ? It always struck me as strange that they even bother to trace genealogy of his earthly father Joseph since he is not of his blood and also that it would need to go back to Adam since we all go back to Adam but I suppose it's just to keep the account complete .

[@dylanfinn2525]

You guys have to realize that WLC is also a philosopher, so a big part of what he does is exploring other ways to see the plausibility of this type of adam. Which I think is ok, because I don't think we will ever truly know until we are standing in front of the almighty and we can ask him. Point is take what WLC as a speculation. I also lean more towards the young earth

[@lorrainemoraine3061]

I have appreciated much of WLC’s teaching but this interview has me troubled. Dr. C., you believe in the historical and literal resurrection of Jesus, the creation of something out of nothing by God, and a host of other miracles, yet dismiss many of the things described in the beginning of Genesis as being too fantastical to be true, and dismiss with what sounds like contempt in your voice. Couldn’t a God who created language use it how He sees fit, be it for confusion at Babel or understanding at Pentecost? Couldn’t Satan enter a snake and talk as easily as a herd of pigs and stampede? If, as you say, we will never know with any certainty what did happen, how can we know with any certainty what didn’t happen? If God is all powerful, where do you draw the line and say, “but He wouldn’t have done it that way”? How do you know when you’ve crossed the line from miracle to myth? I think, since we can’t know, we should hold loosely to our speculations and treat with grace those who don’t share your opinions.

[@cardcounter21]

_'...Couldn’t Satan enter a snake and talk...'_ If the serpent was Satan in disguise then why did God punish a whole race of innocent snakes for what _Satan_ did in the garden?

[@lorrainemoraine3061]

@@cardcounter21 not really the point of my comment.

[@cardcounter21]

@@lorrainemoraine3061 True, but the idea sprung into my head when I read it!

[@kdog3311]

@@cardcounter21 Satan in the Bible is also referred to as a Dragon, in Genesis he is referred to as a serpent, which a Dragon is, going from a Dragon to a snake without legs to go on the belly still is a serpent. All of creation groans , or is effected by sin.

[@ThatSocratesguy]

Prof Craig says if Adam was not real but a literary figure, who symbolised the early humans, then the original sin cannot have passed from him to rest of humanity. However why couldnt a christian just say that, the original sin passed from that group of early humans (which adam supposedly symbolised) onto the rest of humanity? Seems like this solves the problem?

[@kevinwells7080]

I look forward to reading this book. However, I’m a little surprised that Dr. Craig holds that Jesus would have held no erroneous beliefs when the Bible clearly teaches that God the Son put his omniscience behind his back, as it were, during his pre-resurrection incarnation. I I wonder if it’s even doxastically and/or epistemically possible to hold an incomplete set of only true beliefs. It seems plausible that having incomplete knowledge probably entails holding some mistaken beliefs. This is bc, in order to filter out, as it were, false and mistaken implications derived from one’s set of true beliefs, so that one continually holds an incomplete set of only true beliefs, one would have to be effectively omniscient. Did the twelve-year-old Jesus believe the stories of Enoch as taught in the synagogue, say, or that various first-century folk remedies His mother must have administered really worked? Probably. Along those lines (and more facetiously) Do we imagine him correcting His mother, “oh no mother, a compound with such a chemical composition is merely mildly analgesic, and has no further therapeutic value. However, give me a minute and I’ll invent antibiotics and vaccination, which I think you will find much more effective than your adorable folk cures.” Pre-Resurrection Jesus was neither Zeus nor Q of Star Trek. He was a fully human being empowered by the Spirit of God as He lived a human life of complete submission to God. We must be careful to avoid any suggestion that God the Son “cheated” or “faked it” as He lived as one of us. The Gospels are replete with examples of His human ‘boundedness’ and limitations. Jesus uniquely lived a life of moral perfection, but all that is required for that is that one never choose against what one either knows or suspects is God’s will. Mere matters of historical and/or scientific fact will often be quite beside the point in such an endeavor. Btw, I am not arguing that Adam was either fictional or metaphorical/symbolic here.

[@Thejadedgamer]

my one problem is that at the end you say that one mustn't choose to do what they think or know is against God's will, does that mean that if someone commits sin but is ignorant of God that they are blameless or that if you believe that something that is taught in scripture is sinful but you are unaware that they are innocent . I think your wording on that could use some work, unless you do believe that if a person who is ignorant of God's will commits a sin is actually blameless.

[@kevinwells7080]

@@Thejadedgamer I believe, with Paul, that without knowledge of the law there is no transgression. However Paul also teaches that gentiles were subject to the dictates of conscience, and would be judged for violating them if they did not repent. iow one can live on a deserted island from birth, say, and still sin, by merely engaging in acts which ‘seem’ wrong, like cruelty, or failing to act when one feels one should. But Jesus had the Law, and understood it better than anyone else. He also was utterly submitted to His Father as led by the Spirit. None of that required his human nature to have comprehensive knowledge of what we would call today ‘scientific facts’. Jesus came to live a human life of perfect submission to the Father as led and empowered by the Holy Spirit, which would culminate in His being the perfect Lamb of God. I contend that an essential part of His humanness was His situatedness in His particular place and time, just like the rest of us.

[@kevinwells7080]

@@Thejadedgamer to be more clear, perhaps: I believe God takes in to account our ignorance and wounded corrupt consciences, and will judge justly. “If you were blind you would have no sin. As it is, because you say, ‘we see’, your sin remains.”

[@theologyscienceandpropheti6808]

1 Corinthians 10 New American Standard Bible 1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; 2 and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and they all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was [a]Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased; for their dead bodies were spread out in the wilderness. The well is spiritual ....

[@YanoPratt]

“eupheNism”? Is this a word?

[@MarkNOTW]

In order for Craig's hypothesis to be correct, one must believe Genesis 1 is mythohistory which is a fancy way of saying figurative, or perhaps quasi-figurative. One must also consider the genealogical records to be mythohistory. And one must believe that despite the detail given in both accounts such as "morning and evening, the first day" etc. I think a rational person is capable of determining when figurative language is being employed, such as when Jesus described himself as the door of the sheep. IMO, unless we have a clear reason to believe figurative language is being used, then the Bible should be taken literally. The only reason not to, as in this case, is to force the Bible to agree with modern day scientists, many of whom are atheists. No thank you.

[@Rakkoonn]

It has nothing to do with modern day science, this has been an issue for a long time. Saint Augustine, who lived around 400: "It must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." It's clear the goal of the Bible is not to teach us about science, but to show us our salvation in Christ.

[@MarkNOTW]

@@Rakkoonn I agree that the Bible is not necessarily a science book but notice I said scientists.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

Augustine is an example of somebody that goes deeply into the study of Genesis and finds that your interpretation is... not necessarily true.

[@MarkNOTW]

@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf Don’t see how that’s relevant. To reiterate, if the language is not clearly figurative in nature then not taking the text literal is unfounded. It’s a slippery slope. Perhaps we could claim that Jesus was a fictional character or his death and resurrection were figurative.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

@@MarkNOTW That's only functional if you assume people read these texts the same way during all periods of time. In the same way that much of the Old Testament is written to be deliberately different from other religions, why wouldn't this section in Genesis also be written comparatively? You're ignoring historical context and genre.

[@mitchellrose3620]

Laughable.