Ken Ham Critiques Dr. Craig's Genre Analysis of Genesis

Dr. Craig & Joshua Swamidass address Ken Ham's claim that Dr. Craig's genre analysis of Genesis is based solely on his opinion.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[happyguy]

If people think Dr Craig is remotely unfriendly to a high view of scripture, they are rejecting their greatest ally in academia.

[Rayceunit]

I've never seen YECs and OECs debate each other in a serious, respectful way, or in a way where you could get anywhere close to a definitive answer, and I feel like I may never see it happen. I dont even want to tell people I'm a YEC anymore, and I dont care to convince people anymore, the debate and the attitude around it has just frustrated me to no end

[DLAbaoaqu]

Nowadays I wonder if Ham thinks Jesus is a literal door… (John 10:9-16)

[GavinLockard]

Prof. Craig mentions Origen and Augustine, the only two church fathers to have unusual interpretations of Genesis, as evidence that we shouldn't read Genesis in a straightforward way. But Origen and Augustine were both young-earth creationists, and their opinions don't help evolution (for example, Augustine believed the creation was instantaneous based on a mistranslation of Sirach 18:1 in the Apocrypha).

[biblicalbrainstorm]

YECists project their modern worldview onto the text and then say “I’m reading it literally.” No Ken Ham, you are reading it from a 21st century, post-Aristotelian, post-enlightenment, modern, western literal mindset. I could care less how “I” would read it literally, I care about how the “ancient Israelite” readers at the time read it literally. The fact is Craig is right that the genre and culture is different, and an ancient Israelite would have come to a much different conclusion reading the same text than we would, and their view would be nowhere near modern YECism.

[hwd]

I agree with Ken Ham, many atheists that I have debated on You Tube appeal to Dr Craig as an evolutionist to justify their atheism, "Yeah but WLC is an evolutionist so even he recognises that evolution is scientific and not a religion".

Dr Craig ignores the principle of first mention, that a word is always literal before it is used as a metaphor or simile etc, so he's eg is wrong to say just because Revelation or other books use metaphors and apocalyptic language, therefore Genesis does too.

Atheists understand that evolution and Genesis 1-11 are not compatible with a Young Earth Creationist point of view.

I'm not saying that Dr Craig is not saved but evolution and Young Earth Creationism are a stumbling block to the faith of many Christians that lead them to become atheists.
Evolution is a slippery slope to unbelief.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati has also written a book The Genesis Account, A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11.

Dr Sarfati also did a podcast recently on WLC's latest book, In Quest of the Historical Adam
A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, which I recommend.

I hope Dr Craig can have a podcast or discussion with those at AiG or CMI on this issue

[samuelarthur]

Just the duration between Genesis 1:1-2 before the enumeration of days (from verse 3) should show anyone that Genesis does not say the age of the universe.

[stevenpearson]

I'm a big fan of Dr. Craig and his temperament in addressing personal attacks while remaining reasonable and thoughtful in trying to address the facts. I am thankful for his ministry and have learned a lot from him in many areas. That said, it seems the perspective that portions of Genesis are poetic or some other literary form besides a literal account, as the way around the problem of evolution (or as a method of saying it isn't necessarily contrary to scripture) doesn't fully answer the claims of scripture on this subject. There are multiple Bible verses after Genesis, texts Christians believe are inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), which confirm the interpretation that man and his sin is the cause of death.

Example Texts:
"For since by man came death. . . For as Adam all die" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)
"Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all humanity because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

If man and his sin are the cause of death... (According to apostolic New Testament interpretation)


How can a system (evolution) which would have necessarily pre-existed man as the means by which he came to be, rely on death and destruction to produce him? Darwinian evolution is based on the survival of the fittest.

I understand the allure of the scientific consistency that 'survival of the fittest' has with our basic understanding of biology today, with cells being born and dying all the time. However, I don't think the Bible was talking about what was occurring at the cellular level. Even if it were, there would have had to have been a change at the level of cellular biology (which a creator God could certainly manage) along with a curse that caused man to now die because of that sin. Evolutionary biology has not produced any evidence that would cause me to endorse it as plausible, especially considering its apparent contradiction to these (and other) New Testament texts in addition to Genesis. I steered away from Genesis because of the question of its literal interpretation in the view of Dr. Craig.

If I'm missing something, I'd love to know what. I'm not posting to be combative, but to try and make sure we're not being picky and choosy with scripture in order to prioritize another perspective. I know it's all too human for us to do this with many areas we find difficult to swallow. I do it at times in other areas myself, and thankfully have brothers and sisters in the faith who help me to think things through more thoroughly. Appreciate your consideration and any further clarifications you can offer.

In Christ,
Steven

[lesliesavage]

This video never answered the charge. It looks like it is obvious that Craig doesn't believe all of creation is factual, and the commentator didn't let Craig talk, while leading him away from what Ken Ham may of been getting at.

[intelligentdesign]

I'd love to see them debate on this topic.

[bassmanjr]

How about they are both wrong? Ken Ham says it is literal and WLCs view on Adam is nonsensical. I'm an evangelical and both views are incorrect IMO. I also firmly believe they are both believers and doing their best to understand God's word.

[kprosser]

Dr. Craig's analyses are very worth studying, although I'd say his comparison of Genesis 1-11 with Revelation is not appropriate as John the writer in passages in Revelation is clearly saying he's received a vision, and therefore not literal, whereas Genesis' author's statements are largely given as reports. Compare Rev 1v9 with Rev 4v1-2, for actuality against visionary symbolism. The worldwide devastation reported in Genesis 6-9 is arguably well testified by the worldwide fossil finds. Discovery of background radiation is testimony to early light waves Gen 1v3-4. The global commonality in human languages which makes translation possible, is best explained by a single origin referred to Gen 11v1.

[MichaelAndrews-uygl]

Ken Ham has not explained why there was darkness between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The Bible is clear that God is light and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). Where did the darkness come from ? This is a question that must be answered before any possible support for young earth creationism can even be considered. Many continue to avoid this issue, but it cannot be ignored. You have to come to grips, that the angelic creation came before human creation. This is clearly implied in Job 38:6-7, as specified by God himself. No one can pinpoint the time frame between these two events of creation. The element of time here could be of an immense proportion. Isaiah 14:12-21 certainly adds fuel for thought when pondering this subject.

[CollinBoSmith]

As far as I know, Augustine’s “figurative” interpretation of Genesis was that they were made in 6 literal days, but done instantaneously in those days. That’s a far cry from any old earth theory. I’m not sure on the specifics of what Origen believed, but he was also notorious for analogizing literally everything in the Bible and was known for creating a huge problem in the church with simple exegesis for centuries after his life. To use these two as fodder for your old earth argument is really misleading.

[SeaScienceFilmLabs]

Which part is “Figurative, ” Exactly? :)

New Subscriber here.

[elkhuntr]

This view of Genesis is very disturbing. Nothing will cause a young Christian college student to lose their faith more than being convinced by a Christian apologist that Genesis doesn't actually mean what it plainly says. They would be better off facing obsinate atheist professors than this. Genesis is the foundation for the entire bible, theology of salvation, etc... Dr. Craig has brilliant arguments everywhere else, but his view on Genesis and Adam is a real stumbling block.

[NickSandt]

Fundamentalists always wanna take everything at face value 🤦🏻‍♂️

[jessebryant]

I wish we could have like a 3 person per side panel in a debate on this topic. I don't suppose it will ever be put to rest...

[SeaScienceFilmLabs]

Hey, Dr. Craig: What kind of Christian doesn’t believe the Book of Genesis is Truth, but instead Mostly “Allegory” and “Metaphor?”

You doubt the flood was a “Global Flood” as it’s written in the book of Genesis?

{Genesis 7.18-24 KJV} 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Do you assume “Under the Whole Heaven” actually Means “Not under the Whole Heaven?” 🤣

[KevinDay]

I object: Revelation is absolutely a 100% literal, accurate account of history. It perfectly describes the vision John literally saw 😜