Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig.

Today, the creation of life and biological diversity, part 22.

For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

Well, in our lessons together, we have argued that the figurative and metaphorical language

of the primeval narratives, as well as certain inconsistencies within narratives in Genesis

1 and 2, make it plausible that these narratives are not to be read literally.

The author has given to us stories of the creation of the world and of mankind's origin

and rebellion against God, which embody certain important truths expressed in a highly figurative language.

Since the pentatucal author has an interest in history, he intends for his narrative to be

taken at some level as historical, to concern people who actually lived,

and events that really occurred. But those persons and events have been clothed in the

metaphorical and figurative language of myth.

It's probably futile to try to discern to what extent the narratives are to be taken literally,

to identify which parts are figurative and which parts are historical.

And therefore, I think that the objections of someone like Kenton Sparks, who regards

the narratives as completely unhistorical, his objection to taking the primeval history to be a combination of history and theology, I think, is unfair.

Sparks demands, if the author of Genesis uses mythical imagery to describe the people in events, then which images are symbolic and mythical

and which are closer to historical reality? Did a serpent speak in the garden? Was the first woman

made from Adam's rib? Was there a worldwide flood? Well, I see no

reason to think that the viability of a genre analysis of Genesis 1 to 11 as mytho history

should depend upon or imply the ability to answer such questions. The author simply doesn't

draw such clear lines of distinction for us. What then are some of those central truths expressed

...