In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Book Review)

"As a theistic evolutionist, Craig accepts without critique the evolutionary consensus, believing that God used the process of evolution to bring about biological diversity. However, unlike many theistic evolutionists, he affirms the actual historical existence of an original human pair" - Eikon

798 reads

There are 10 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

This is a more in depth review than others we've linked to. Well worth the read, if you're interested in the topic.

Thus, while Craig is to be applauded for recognizing the importance of an historical Adam, it is unfortunate that he dismisses the most common Christian argument for the importance of Adam’s historicity as a “gospel issue.” The case for the importance of Adam is much stronger if this traditional argument from original sin is retained.

Genesis 1–11 as “Mytho-History”?

Another potentially problematic aspect of Craig’s account is his proposal concerning Genesis 1–11 as mytho-history. To be sure, Craig is not the first conservative Christian scholar to argue for this kind of non-literal reading of Genesis 1–11. Nevertheless, some words of critique are in order. Craig acknowledges that Genesis 1–11 has an “interest in history” and that the key figures are historical persons based on the tôlǝdôt formulae in the account. 

Craig's view is that the pre-human species evolved with God's guidance and He selected an actual pair of homo heidelbergensis to become the first humans. He argues from inerrancy etc. for a literal first pair of humans but at the same time downplays the traditional doctrine of original sin. He seems to be aligned with Pelagius on that topic.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

dgszweda's picture

This is really not anything new,  This is what much of Biologos believes.

Dave White's picture

WallyMorris wrote:

No matter how you serve it, it's still compromise and eventual surrender to the theory of evolution and all its consequences.

Indeed it is!

dgszweda's picture

I have yet to see a single person develop this type of framework solely on exegesis.  They are always trying to make the Bible fit with perceived science.

Mark_Smith's picture

If we did exegesis (which then leads to theology) completely independent of observation of nature you would all be geocentric universe believers.

We never do exegesis completely independent of observation of the subject, because exegesis is not an exact science.

Dave White's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

If we did exegesis (which then leads to theology) completely independent of observation of nature you would all be geocentric universe believers.

https://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html

The Scriptures do not teach geocentrism

Mark_Smith's picture

Dave White wrote:

 

Mark_Smith wrote:

 

If we did exegesis (which then leads to theology) completely independent of observation of nature you would all be geocentric universe believers.

 

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html

The Scriptures do not teach geocentrism

If you didn't have scientific observation to show you the correct answer, are you sure you would be a heliocentric believer? Your link provides ZERO scriptural support for heliocentrism... 

My point is observation of life and nature helps guide our interpretation.

Mark_Smith's picture

Do you believe in heliocentrism because of scientific observation or due to a clear exegesis of Scripture?

dgszweda's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

My point is observation of life and nature helps guide our interpretation.

It helps guide our interpretation.  Extra-biblical information has value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.  It does not disprove what Scripture teaches or holds authority over it.  Things like miracles is different from General Statement of Faith.  A floating axe head is different than the size of a mustard seed.  Or the parting of the Red Sea and the shepherd leading a sheep.  In one instances our observations help us clarifying the facts that the author is outlining.  The others are to be taken by faith.  The Bible is clear that we understand and accept creation on faith and not through a scientific analysis.  It is impossible to come to a correct interpretation of creation through science.  God has marked that as a barrier through His Word, it accomplishes what He has purposed.  What He has purposed is that

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."