Science

In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration

In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration

  • Downloads：6968
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-10-18 08:51:51
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：William Lane Craig
  • ISBN：080287911X
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Was Adam a real historical person？ And if so， who was he and when did he live？ 

William Lane Craig sets out to answer these questions through a biblical and scientific investigation。 He begins with an inquiry into the genre of Genesis 1–11， determining that it can most plausibly be classified as mytho-history—a narrative with both literary and historical value。 He then moves into the New Testament， where he examines references to Adam in the words of Jesus and the writings of Paul， ultimately concluding that the entire Bible considers Adam the historical progenitor of the human race—a position that must therefore be accepted as a premise for Christians who take seriously the inspired truth of Scripture。 

Working from that foundation of biblical truth， Craig embarks upon an interdisciplinary survey of scientific evidence to determine where Adam could be most plausibly located in the evolutionary history of humankind， ultimately determining that Adam lived between 750，000 and 1，000，000 years ago as a member of the archaic human species Homo heidelbergensis。 He concludes by reflecting theologically on his findings and asking what all this might mean for us as human beings created in the image of God， literally descended from a common ancestor—albeit one who lived in the remote past。

Download

Reviews

Christian Barrett ，

Once again Craig has composed a helpful book for Christians that contend against arguments brought about by the atheist community。 In this work he defends the position that Adam （and Eve） were real people and are described accurately as the parents of those made in the image of God。 Craig ends with this conclusion after working through theological， philosophical， archaeological， and scientific data that contends for Adam to have been a real man that bore God’s image。 The humility of Craig is see Once again Craig has composed a helpful book for Christians that contend against arguments brought about by the atheist community。 In this work he defends the position that Adam （and Eve） were real people and are described accurately as the parents of those made in the image of God。 Craig ends with this conclusion after working through theological， philosophical， archaeological， and scientific data that contends for Adam to have been a real man that bore God’s image。 The humility of Craig is seen throughout this work as he seeks to be faithful to Scripture and the known world as best that he can。 I am unsure of certain aspects of his conclusions， as they do seem to argue to an extent of theistic evolution （if this is the case， then this major point I disagree with him on）， but I do know this is a masterpiece and a great work for the Christianity and apologetics as a whole as it unravels the mystery of who Adam and Eve were and what we can know about them from the book of Genesis （and other scriptural teachings）， archeology， and science。 。。。more

Steven H ，

William Lane Craig （b。 1949） is Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University， and a visiting scholar at Talbot School of Theology。 He is also a prominent philosophical apologist （see his debates with atheists， such as [[ASIN:0195166000 God？: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist]] and [[ASIN:0754631907 Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate]]）。By dealing frankly and realistically with both the biblical and scientific evidence， Craig may well ‘turn away’ some Young-Earth proponents William Lane Craig （b。 1949） is Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University， and a visiting scholar at Talbot School of Theology。 He is also a prominent philosophical apologist （see his debates with atheists， such as [[ASIN:0195166000 God？: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist]] and [[ASIN:0754631907 Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate]]）。By dealing frankly and realistically with both the biblical and scientific evidence， Craig may well ‘turn away’ some Young-Earth proponents （not that he had a lot of support from them anyway）， and his anthropological suggestions may repel some conservative theologians。 But one cannot fault him for honestly tackling the ‘hard questions’ in depth and detail。 Anyway， on to the book itself…He wrote in the Preface of this 2021 book， “People on both the left and the right can be expected to be upset with this book and… its author。 All I can do is plead that they give an honest and open-minded reading of the case I make for my conclusions… I have tried to avoid labels like ‘liberal，’ ‘progressive，’ and ‘conservative’ because these politically charged terms are prejudicial… I have adopted the labels ‘traditional’ and ‘revisionist’ as the least problematic。 There is， after all， a traditional view of Adam and Eve that has dominated church history， and there are various revisionist views… that modify the traditional view to different degrees。” （Pg。 xi-xii）In the first chapter， he notes， “Many traditional theologians would think the historicity of Adam crucial for… the doctrine of sin。 For if Adam was not a historical person， clearly there was no historical fall into sin in the traditional sense… [and] the doctrine of original sin must go by the board … The attempt to make the doctrine of original sin a necessary condition of the doctrine of the atonement is， however， an overreach。 Nowhere in the New Testament （NT） is Christ said to have died for original sin… Interpreting Adam as a purely symbolic figure… that expresses the universality of human sin and fallenness would not undercut the gospel of salvation through Christ’s atoning death。 Therefore， denial of the doctrine original sin does not undermine the doctrine of the atonement。 We may nonetheless agree that the historicity of Adam is entailed by and therefore a necessary condition of the doctrine of original sin。” （Pg。 4-5）He continues， “Thus， while the doctrine of original sin depends crucially on the fact of a historical Adam， Christianity need not embrace the traditional doctrine of original sin but may content itself with affirming the universal wrongdoing of human beings and their inability to save themselves… however， we must consider whether other considerations might not justify its importance to Christian faith… if， as seems plausible， Jesus himself believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve… then even if Jesus were not guilty of teaching doctrinal error， he still would have held false beliefs… which is incompatible with his omniscience。 Notice that the concern here is quite different from Jesus’s having limited knowledge。 Traditional Christology recognizes that Christ had a human mind … that developed throughout his lifetime。” （Pg。 6-7）He states， “the primaeval history of Gen 1-11 is compatible with the concept of time that finds expression in myth… The history of Gen 1-11 is thus set in primaeval time， a characteristic of myths， especially myths of origination。” （Pg。 64） He asks， “do the primaeval narratives exhibit ‘fantastic elements’ and do they remain untroubled by logical contradiction or incoherence？。。。 Consider， first， apparent inconsistencies… God is portrayed … in Gen 2 as a humanoid deity worthy of polytheistic myths， as he forms man from the dirt and breathes the breath of life into his nostrils… in Gen 3… God strolls in the cool of the day and searches for the man and woman hiding among the trees… in Gen 6-9 … [God] is pleased with the smell of Noah’s burnt offering… Such anthropomorphic descriptions of God， if interpreted literally， are incompatible with the transcendent God described at the beginning of creation… the pentateuchal author… doubtless assumed that his readers would have understood such anthropomorphic descriptions of God to be just part of the storyteller’s art， not serious theology。” （Pg。 102） He continues， “the author seems untroubled by the apparent inconsistencies that occur in his narratives。 It would have been easy for him to bring the account … in Gen 2 into accord with Gen 1， rather than leave the apparent inconsistencies concerning the order of creation of man， the vegetation， and the animals… Scholars would have dearly liked the author to clarify what he meant in saying， ‘At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD （Gen 4:26）， despite his later affirmation that the name ‘Yahweh’ had not been previously revealed （Ex 6:3）。。。 God’s instructions to Noah first to take aboard the ark two animals of every kind and then to bring aboard seven pairs of all clean animals （Gen 6:19， 7:3）… The point is not whether these apparent inconsistencies are somehow resolvable but that the author is just untroubled by them。” （Pg。 104）He states， “What is fantastic and therefore mythological in Gen 1 is the creation of the world over six consecutive days。 The pattern of evening and morning shows that ordinary solar days， not long ages， are intended… It may be that even the author himself found creation over six literal days fantastic， for he recounts as accomplished in one day events that he well knew could not have naturally have happened in twenty-four hours… such as the draining of the primordial ocean into seas on day 2… or the earth’s bringing forth seed-bearing vegetation and fruit-bearing trees on day 3。 If so， he may have taken the creation account as mythological， which would also explain his insouciance about the existence of day and night prior to the ostensible creation of the sun on day 4。” （Pg。 109-110）He goes on， “Another fantastic element of the primaeval narratives is primordial vegetarianism for man and beast alike… The removal of this restriction [in Gen 9:3] for humans implies that a similar restriction was in place for the animals… [The Pentateuchal author] gives no indication that animal predation is the result of man’s fall， and it would be anachronistic to ascribe to him the view that lions and other carnivores… evolved from animals that were herbivores… What makes the primaeval age different is … that it was ‘long， long ago’---that is to say， mythological in character。” （Pg。 111）He continues， “In the story of the Garden of Eden we have multiple fantastic elements… First and foremost… is the snake， who not only talks but is a conniving and malevolent agent。 Although a literal interpretation of this figure might be purchased by taking the snake to be an incarnation of Satan… such an interpretation not only reads such a personage into this passage but… seems implausible in light of the author’s characterization of the snake as ‘more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made’ （Gen 3:1）… ancient Israelites doubtless knew that snakes do not talk and so would… have found such a description fantastic and therefore understood it nonliterally and perhaps symbolically。” （Pg。 111-113）He acknowledges that the flood story is ‘one of the most fantastic episodes in the primaeval narratives… Young earth creationists [assert that] … the ark would have had ample room to include members of every identified genus of terrestrial animals。 But as Hugh Ross rejoins， ‘… Animals as advanced as horses and felines， simply … cannot， by any observed or postulated mechanism---evolve or diversify at such a rapid rate’ so as to produce the earth’s current 5。8 million land animal species after the flood… Modern geology and anthropology have rendered such a catastrophe all but impossible。 Geologically we have evidence of vast but nonetheless local catastrophic floods… no such evidence exists for a worldwide deluge。” （Pg。 120-121） Later， he adds， “The question is， what lies at the root of such figurative descriptions？ Is it that the ancients were simply prone to hyperbole？ Or is it， more plausibly， that we are dealing here with the language of myth？。。。 This classification better explains the description of a worldwide flood than mere hyperbole。” （Pg。 127-128）He states， “we should be remiss if we did not mention the most fantastic element of the entire primaeval history---namely， the ostensible claim that the entire world was less than two thousand years old at the time of Abraham’s birth… this puts a literal interpretation of Gen 1-11 into massive conflict with modern science， history， and linguistics。 In order to explain how we can even see the stars， some of which are billions of light-years away， creation scientists have been led to radically reinterpret modern cosmology… Since Noah disembarked only 292 years prior to Abraham， the entire history of dinosaur evolution and extinction must be compressed into the space of less than three hundred years （unless， that is， dinosaurs were still about at the time of Abraham）。 In order to explain how most of the marsupials… crawled all the way from modern-day Turkey to Australia， plate tectonics is held to have not yet separated the primordial supercontinent into the world’s continents; this tectonic activity is said… to have also taken place within about three hundred years following the end of the flood， while at the same time mountain-building crustal movements were forming the Himalayas and Mount Everest， with remains of marine life of the flood on its heights… Truly， young earth creationists are living in a different universe than the rest of us。” （Pg。 130-131）He notes， “We find several examples of the illustrative use of extrabiblical literary traditions in the books of Jude and 2 Peter… ‘First Enoch’ [is]… quoted explicitly by Jude… [Of 2 Pet 2:10-11] No such story is to be found in the OT Scriptures…。 the story is to be found in the apocryphal book ‘The Assumption of Moses’… The conclusion to be drawn … is not that the expansions of the canonical text are historical … but rather that we are not committed to their historicity simply in virtue of an NT author’s relating them。” （Pg。 210-215） He continues， “references by NT authors to mythological or pseudepigraphical figures caution us to avoid overly easy proofs of OT historicity on the basis of NT citations。 Such figures may be merely literary and illustratively employed。 Similarly， some NT references to Adam and other figures and events of the primaeval history may describe merely the story-world of Genesis… But in 1 Cor 15:21-22 and… Rom 5:12-21 we do have clear assertions of the historicity of Adam。 What is asserted … in these key passages does not， however， really go beyond what we have already affirmed… namely， that there was a progenitor of the entire human race through whose disobedience moral evil entered the world…。 Adam is regarded by Paul as a historical person whose actions affected the course of history… Adam’s sin is… the fount of … spiritual death that beset our world， which suffices for the affirmation of a historical Adam。” （Pg。 241-242）Turning to ancestral humans， he asserts， “the beautiful cave art … at Lascaux … in France was undoubtedly created by human beings… Viewing these paintings， we sense ourselves standing in the presence of a ‘thou，’ someone who is one of us。” （Pg。 262-263） Later， he states， “The paleontological evidence … are thus consistent with pushing the boundary for the origin of humanity back before the origin of Homo sapiens so as to include Neanderthals and Denisovans as members of the human family。” （Pg。 279） He adds， Given that the use of imagery and representation in art is a signature of modern human behavior among Homo sapiens， it would be prejudicial to deny the humanity of the Neanderthal artists。” （Pg。 304） He continues， “one of the singly necessary… conditions for human speech is already present… in Neanderthals。” （Pg。 323）He suggests， “the existence of a historical Adam and Eve need not imply their sole genetic progenitorship… once Adam and Eve’s descendants replaced Homo heidelbergensis， we know that there was interbreeding among the extended human family， but we can only conjecture as to what happened in the interim。” （Pg。 355） He continues， “At some time and place in the gray mists of antiquity， we hypothesize an original human pair uniquely endowed with cognitive capacities that would come to be associated with Homo heidelbergensis。 Exactly when and where the hypothetical founding couple lived cannot as yet be determined… The uneven paleoanthropological record of human cognitive achievement … plausibly indicates that changing environmental conditions serve to call forth behaviors latent in human cognitive capacity… Adam and Eve may therefore be plausibly identified as members of Homo heidelbergensis and as the founding pair at the root of all human species。” （Pg。 357-359） He also clarifies， “Homo heidelbergensis was not some hybrid ape-man but was recognizably human… [This] brings the startling realization that， as members of the human family， Neanderthals， Denisovans， and others were， like us， people whom God loves and for whom Christ died… We may see some of them， therefore， in the eschaton， and I think we shall be delighted to do so。” （Pg。 364-365）He concludes， “God’s creation of Adam and Eve plausibly required [God]… to furnish them with rational souls different from any sort … that nonhuman animals might be thought to possess。 Thus， Adam and Ever were something radically new… We might think it unfair of God not to extend to Adam and Eve’s contemporaries the same opportunity of a relationship with God… [unless] we recognize a biological difference between Adam and his progenitors… for there is nothing unjust about treating animals as animals。” （Pg。 378-380）This book will be “must reading” for anyone （including skeptics and atheists， as well as Young-Earth creationists） seriously studying these issues。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0