A critic commented on one of our webcasts on logic. He apparently believes that Jesus is not God. That’s a problem because declaring Jesus as Lord (as Yahweh) is a requirement for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; Joel 2:32). Let’s examine Jake’s (not necessarily his real name) comments in purple text with my response in black text.
In this final segment, we continue to critique William Lane Craig’s claim that Genesis 1-11 is mytho-history. The New Testament often quotes from the Old Testament as if the events recorded therein actually happened. Craig attempted to show that some such references may not be endorsing the historicity of such events, but merely using them as literary illustrations. However, none of the examples he provided suggested anything other than a reference to actual historical events. There is nothing wrong with using a fictional story to illustrate a point. But there is no evidence that any biblical author thought of Genesis as anything but straightforward history.
In analyzing William Lane Craig’s comments on Genesis in his recent article in First Things, we have seen that when New Testament authors quote or allude to Old Testament passages (including Genesis 1-11), they do so as if these events really occurred and often with consequences for our present world. This would seem to be further evidence that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, as the text itself indicates along with its context.
We here continue to examine William Lane Craig’s claim that Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be read as literal history.
We have been exploring inconsistencies in William Lane Craig’s comments on Genesis. Recall that Craig had attempted to reclassify Genesis 1-11 as myth by claiming it had similarities to Ancient Near Eastern origins stories. We found this claim to be false. Craig then equivocated on the meaning of the word ‘myth’ in order to convince his followers that Genesis is not literal history. This is a bait-and-switch fallacy. In fact, Craig did not present any evidence that Genesis should be taken as anything but literal history. His rejection of a literal Genesis does not stem from an exegetical reading of the text, or proper reasoning from Scripture, but rather from his acceptance of the secular stories of deep time, Darwinian evolution, and the big bang.