We do not need to make Christianity up-to-date and acceptable by mythologizing Genesis 1-11 (5/5)

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24

Aug 21, 2025

To conclude the final essay on William Lane Craig’s book In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), we now need to look specifically at those parts of Genesis 1-11 which Dr. Craig asserts are mythological - that is, never intended to be taken literally. These elements are either (1) “fantastic elements . . . which, if taken literally, are so extraordinary as to be palpably false” (104-105); or (2) “anthropomorphisms,” human-like descriptions of God “which, if interpreted literally, are incompatible with the transcendent God described at the beginning of creation” (102).

These disputed points are listed in order with separate subheadings in Chapter 4, “Are the Primaeval Narratives of Genesis 1-11 Myth (Part 2).” The allegedly fantastic elements are (using his headings) (109-131):

Six-Day Creation
Vegetarianism
The Snake
The Trees of Life and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
The Rivers of Eden
The Cherubim
The Antediluvians’ Life Spans
Noah’s Flood
The Table of Nations
The Tower of Babel
The Age of the Earth

Given separately under one heading, Anthropomorphisms (102), are:

The creation of Adam
God walking in the garden, searching for the man and woman in hiding
God’s regret for having made man
Being pleased with the smell of Noah’s offering in Genesis 6-9, and
The story of the Tower of Babel, “where God comes down to see the city and tower that the people have built.”

David fighting in Saul’s armor

Of course, a book could be written to cover all of those points in detail, but that really will not be necessary. To defend the literal, historical truth of those allegedly fantastic and anthropomorphic elements, what we need are not detailed, scientific, theological, or philosophical studies. Many of these points can be dealt with more briefly than one might think.

This does not mean we have to say “Just believe!” We don’t need to ask people to deny plain facts, but neither do we have to conform biblical narratives to the demands of corrupt and fallen human reason, and of our evil modern culture.

What we need first of all is faith, that spiritual insight and understanding which is the gift of God.

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. (Hebrews 11:3)

We also need wisdom. This is that deeper understanding not only of the origins of the cosmos, but also of the nature and character of God as he has revealed himself to us by his Word, and by that illumination of the Spirit which alone makes the Word effectual.

Along with faith and wisdom, we also need discernment. We read in I Corinthians chapter 12 that the discerning of spirits is one of the gifts and operations given by God - and what can we discern in the spirits of those who say “Did God really say this? Does the Bible really mean that? We are so advanced and sophisticated now, we can’t possibly believe those things”?

Along with faith, wisdom and discernment, we also need obedience. Christ said in John chapter 7:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Things are not always what they seem. God’s ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts - and sometimes we are allowed to say that we do not know why God does all the things that he does. In such cases we can trust that the Lord God who made the heavens and the earth knows more than we do.

A fifth necessary quality is humility. We like to imagine we are so intelligent nowadays, but Paul says that knowledge puffs up. In that same context he also says:

And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Even with all of our modern knowledge of the physical creation we have only scratched the surface, and each new discovery only opens the doors to yet deeper and greater dimensions of the unknown.

We don’t even understand our own souls. How images enter the brain through the eyes to awaken thoughts and emotions is still a complete mystery.

So, to understand the points of Genesis 1-11 now under consideration, we need more than PhDs, more than scholarship, more than mere human reason and logic. All of those things have their place, but we need to remember that corrupt and fallen human reason, naturally alienated from God by blindness and sin, is not the final arbiter of what is real and what is not real, of what is possible and what is not possible.

Now, to briefly look at the points in God’s Word disputed by corrupt and fallen human wisdom:

1. Six-Day Creation

Bible believing Christians will have no difficulty accepting that God has the power to create the universe in the six distinct phases described in Genesis. The God who can speak an entire, functioning universe into existence is constrained by nothing other than his perfect will.

Neither will those who truly believe in the God of the Bible dispute that God has not only the ability, but also the right, the authority, to create the world as described in Genesis, if he so chose.

It is only the advent of modern science that has turned what once was commonly accepted among Christians into a difficult point. The objections of modern secular human wisdom at this point are two-fold. (1) The apparent age of the earth and (2) the very different sequence by which modern secular wisdom thinks the universe actually did come into being.

Concerning the first point, that will be covered when we look at Craig’s 11th point, The Age of the Earth.

Concerning the second, the secular world’s commonly accepted sequence of events in the creation of the universe is all nothing but speculation. The emergence of the universe out of nothing has not been observed in any laboratory, and all such theories are purely speculative. Moreover, they are commonly based on trying to understand how the cosmos might have come into being by purely natural processes alone, and all too often presuppose the complete absence of God.

The non-existence of God is generally assumed, a plausible secular explanation is sought, and the end result is the wisdom of the world. Human wisdom and knowledge have their uses in other areas, but in attempting to replace God with natural causes, they are blindness, delusion, vanity and folly.

The six day creation was confirmed by God to Moses in Exodus chapter 31:17:

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, has stated this about the initial origins of the cosmos:

The results we have obtained support the idea that the universe began a finite time ago. However, the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the presently known laws of physics. [1]

2. Vegetarianism

Craig wonders how carnivorous beasts would be able to exist without that killing and death which came subsequently to the fall.

This is a very shallow and trivial objection. It is ridiculous to assume that the maker of heaven and earth could create such an extraordinary variety of living creatures, and then be unable to modify their digestive processes.

Bears are very large, powerful and aggressive beasts, yet are omnivorous, and can subsist on foods of plant origin. So can gorillas, large and powerful creatures, also subsist on a primarily vegetarian diet.

Moreover, we read in two different places in Isaiah that

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

And also,

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Admittedly, prophecy can be difficult, but there is no reason whatever why these prophecies cannot be literal.

Do people think that after God’s initial creative outburst he is chained up by the same natural laws that he himself made, and is now unable to alter them?

3. The Snake

The talking snake in Genesis chapter 3 has been an object of ridicule for a long time, but that ridicule is silenced by the reality of Satan.

The prophecy of Genesis 3:15 is commonly if not universally understood to apply to Satan, thus directly linking that spiritual power of wickedness to the serpent.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We read in 2 Corinthians that

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Now, if someone wants to argue that we here have another instance of primitive Near Eastern mythology, they have just nullified Paul’s entire second letter to the Corinthians, and revealed the true nature of their unbelief - that it is straight from the devil himself.

Revelation chapter 12 also refers to Satan as a serpent, as does Revelation chapter 20. May we say of these two references, as Joseph said of Pharaoh’s dreams, that they were doubled for confirmation?

Moreover, Christ as the Second Adam was subjected to Satan’s temptation, only he succeeded where Adam failed - and in this second temptation, since Christ was capable of dealing with the full reality of who and what Satan was, there was no need for disguise. But if Satan had appeared to Eve in his full enormity, it would have been vastly more difficult, if not impossible, for him to persuade her of anything.

As to whether or not Satan assumed the form of a serpent, or entered into an existing one, that is not explained to us.

On reading this passage literally

We could stop here and move on to the next subject, but unfortunately, Craig has complicated this topic unnecessarily by saying that those who read this passage literally are not allowed to introduce Satan into it. He states:

Although a literal interpretation of this figure [the snake - my note] might be purchased by taking the snake to be an incarnation of Satan or a pagan deity, such an interpretation not only reads a personage into this passage but, more importantly, 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” (Genesis 3:1 NRSV). (111-112)

As to this two part argument - that (1) the passage itself does not mention Satan, so a literal reading may not introduce this new element, and (2) satanic involvement “seems implausible” since the serpent is described as naturally crafty in its own right - the second point is nothing but straw.

What “seems implausible” to corrupt and fallible human wisdom is completely irrelevant. The virgin birth “seems implausible” to many. So does the existence of God himself, as do the resurrection from the dead and the day of judgment, not to mention many other places throughout the entire Bible.

I fear Dr. Craig has been seriously damaged by his useless pseudo-philosophy. God created the bold lion and the timid mouse; the mighty eagle and the helpless little duckling; the docile dog and the treacherous hyena. The natural motions and appearance of the serpent are immediately suggestive of craft, of guile, and concealment. If this seemed the most suitable form for Satan to adopt, these are matters far beyond our natural reason, and we know only what has been revealed.

As to saying that a literal reading does not allow the introduction of something that is not explicitly mentioned, that is completely false.

One of the most elementary principles of biblical interpretation is that one verse or passage clarifies another. Thus we can use other verses to deepen and broaden our understanding of any particular passage.

The fact that we believe verses about Christ’s death and resurrection literally does not prevent us from using other passages to understand this more fully. Passages in Hebrews and Colossians about the full deity of Christ add to our understanding of his sacrificial death and resurrection, and the idea that we are forbidden to apply them because they introduce elements that are not mentioned in the gospel narratives of the crucifixion is ridiculous.

4. The Trees of Life and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

This seems fantastic to Craig. There is that word ‘seems” again. I do not care what seems fantastic to Dr. Craig or to anyone else.

We read in the book of Revelation that there is “the tree of life,” which bears twelve different fruits, apparently on a regular monthly basis, “and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”

What if that is the very same tree referred to in Genesis? Who knows? And in what manner might its leaves be used for healing? I don’t know, but I do not use my small amount of understanding as the yardstick to determine things far beyond my experience.

As to the Tree of Life, I am content to leave that with God, rather than be condemned in the end as one “intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.”

Moreover, what if when God says “and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” he is speaking derisively, as in “The Lord shall have them in derision,” as in Psalm 2:4?

We read in Genesis chapter 11 where God says of the men building the Tower of Babel “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” Obviously those men could not have had unlimited power to do whatever they imagined, and the Lord is possibly speaking derisively here also.

5. The Rivers of Eden

The four rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14 were never a problem for me. I figured that those details were lost in the mists of time, and found far more interesting subjects in the sacred books to engage my higher faculties than useless, unimportant and unanswerable questions. But Craig says the Tigris and the Euphrates do not have a common source, not considering that geographical realities might have been somewhat different thousands of years ago, especially after the literally earth-shaking changes that could have been caused by the flood.

He goes on to state that “Many scholars” think the Gihon was the Nile, and it would be impossible for the Nile to have the same source as the Tigris and the Euphrates - but what if the Gihon was not the Nile? What if those “scholars” simply do not know what they are talking about?

These vain and idle speculations are nothing but cobwebs.

6. The Cherubim

Denying Genesis 3:24, Dr. Craig uses an astonishing argument. I had to look at it a couple of times to be sure I wasn’t missing something.

After quoting Genesis 3:24, Craig says:

What makes this detail fantastic is that the cherubim were not thought to be real beings but fantasies composed of a lion’s body, a bird’s wings, and a man’s head. Nahum Sarna observes that the motif of composite human-animal-bird figures was widespread in various forms in art and religious symbolism in the Fertile Crescent, and the biblical cherubim would seem to be connected with this artistic tradition. The name cherubim seems to be related to the kuribu, man-headed bulls with eagles’ wings that frequently stood outside Mesopotamian temples. (119)

So, man-headed bulls with eagle’s wings called kuribu are connected to the cherubim placed by God at the entrance of the garden, and who can believe in such fantastic creatures as that? So, this detail is obviously fantastic and unbelievable.

This is an invalid argument and has nothing whatever to do with any of the angelic manifestations described anywhere in the Bible.

It does reflect Dr. Craig’s belief that Genesis 1-11 contains many elements of Ancient Near Eastern mythology, as if it were not the divinely inspired Word of God, but rather the expression of a primitive, pre-scientific mindset.

To reject a biblical passage on such flimsy grounds is not scholarship, but only idle speculation.

7. The Antediluvians’ Life Spans

Concerning the remarkably long lives of people before the flood, Craig states that “Commentators have found no explanation of these life spans that commends itself to most scholars.” (120)

Apparently “most scholars” do not believe that God, who designed and created the human body, has the ability to regulate the metabolisms of the beings he created.

If God wanted to make someone live 10,000 years on this earth, in the same body, he could do so.

Many people seem to think that God has the power to create things but after that his power is limited to the scientific laws that he himself created.

Is this any harder to believe than someone walking on the water, or speaking, and calming a storm by his word alone?

Some of these scholars don’t even believe in the God of the Bible. They have invented a humanistic sort of God that is not able to work outside of their expectations and have unjustified faith in their own intelligence and worldly wisdom.

Craig also objects that, with these long lives, “Shem, Noah’s son, even outlived Abraham. He was still alive when Esau and Jacob were born!” (120) I didn’t check Craig’s numbers, but if he did not make a miscalculation somewhere and his findings are correct, so what? Who cares?

I have to wonder about people who, when confronted with the remarkable spiritual depths and insights of the Bible, turn aside to focus on irrelevant trivia, instead of worshipping and praising God for his greatness and his mighty works.

8. Noah’s Flood

One does not need to spend a great deal of time on this.

If God chose to do so, he could put all of the creatures on earth inside of a walnut and bring them out after a hundred years multiplied by a thousand. And if God, subsequent to the first creation, formed every bird and beast out of the ground in a special creation to be named by Adam, he could easily have done the same for Noah - or do we imagine that after the first days of creation God’s creative power was exhausted, or else shackled by the material constraints of the material reality that he himself had designed and made?

Craig says “Modern geology and anthropology have rendered such a catastrophe all but impossible.” (121) I believe in the Bible more than I believe in modern experts speculating on extraordinary events that have never been observed. And what sort of evidence would there be?

How many layers of silt would have been washed away by swirling waters, to be distributed by the receding waters in unpredictable ways, and then further exposed to the elements in subsequent centuries? What if there are geological features that do point to a flood but people refuse to admit something so contrary to their pre-conceived certainties?

Flood geologists have presented such arguments, but I have not studied them and we do not need to rely on them. We believe in the Flood because the Bible teaches it, and to those whose eyes are closed to the realities of God, all of the arguments in the world about geological evidence of the flood will have little impact. The main arguments are the power of God to do such a thing, and the inability of modern secular materialists to conceive of anything outside of their own parameters.

9. The Table of Nations

Concerning the description in Genesis 10 of the descendants of Noah and their dispersion across the earth, Craig says “Gunkel ridiculed the idea that after the flood ‘the nations of the earth originated from the expansion of a single family.’ ” So, who is this Gunkel who ridicules the Bible, and whom Craig quotes as if his opinions had some relevance? (128)

Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) was a “scholar” who believed that the Genesis Creation account is rooted in, derived from, or influenced by other ancient Near Eastern myths. He was also a leading advocate of the historical-critical method of Old Testament studies, based on the idea that the Old Testament was not the divinely inspired word of God, but was a humanistic document made of various myths and legends cobbled together by scribes over centuries of time.

Here is a brief overview of his approach:

Gunkel viewed the narratives of Genesis as being the product of professional storytellers who recounted their stories regularly at popular festivals—tales of snakes and trees and floods. He attempts to trace the history of the literature of Genesis from its earliest primitive inception through its long evolution as it was molded in different parts of the country under differing circumstances and by different tribes, and as it assimilated the various foreign influences that were imposed upon it. [2]

What if Gunkel was merely a blind fool?

Personally, I think Craig is making a serious error in assigning too much significance to the speculations of a man who did not even believe in the Bible. Craig does this with other writers as well, as if the Bible were a book that did not require the gift of faith for true understanding.

Anyway, Paul says in Titus that we should

. . . avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Such questions are unprofitable and vain, for reasons which are not hard to grasp. The genealogies given at various places in the Bible are placed there for our edification, and we can read them for general information, but we lack sufficient information to analyze every detail.

For example, Craig states that some of the peoples listed in the Bible as being descendants of Ham are considered by modern linguists to be descended from Shem instead. But there are two problems with this sort of fault-finding.

First, “Trust the experts” has not worked out very well for us recently - and who knows if these modern experts are wrong?

Secondly, what if there was some intermingling between the families, so that some descendants of Ham were incorporated into the family of Shem through intermarriage, and vice versa?

So we can dismiss these criticisms as foolish, unprofitable and vain.

10. The Tower of Babel

When it comes to this incident, Craig states:

As a result of modern linguistic studies, we know that such a sudden, unitary origin of the world’s languages is palpably false. (129)

I believe Dr. Craig is in error. Here are a couple of representative quotes:

There is no clear-cut answer to this question. Every culture has its own explanation and story, crafted over the centuries.
Some say that mankind began with one common language that evolved as humans migrated.
Others say that the multiple languages developed independently over time.

And also,

The origin of the world's languages is a complex and debated topic, with no definitive answer. However, several theories attempt to explain how language evolved from early human communication. These theories often explore the transition from gestures and vocalizations to the complex systems of grammar and vocabulary we see today.

Since, as we have discussed earlier, Dr. Craig posits an evolutionary origin of the human race, he must adhere to an evolutionary development of language also - but Darwin’s outdated Victorian theory of progressive optimism is hopelessly incapable of explaining the emergence of language.

Perhaps Dr. Craig is referring to the discovery of Proto-Indo-European, a basic foundation from which various European languages are thought to have developed (given the many similarities between them). However, God could easily have created various language families or groups with similar characteristics.

Just because various species of fish or birds have similar structures, this does not mean they evolved from each other.

Whatever the case may be, there is no scientific evidence whatever that the Tower of Babel incident did not occur, or that language itself was not a part of our unique humanity given to Adam and Eve at creation.

11. The Age of the Earth

This is the most complex of Dr. Craig’s objections, and books have been written about it. However, as with other questions, lengthy scientific and theological or pseudo-theological explanations are not necessary.

To begin with, it would not bother me in the least if God simply created the world and the universe with the appearance of age. Not that I assert it as a fact, or as Christian doctrine - but it is possible, and arguments against it are not irrefutable.

That God had the ability to do that if he chose to do so should not be disputed. That he created Adam as a fully grown adult and not as a helpless new-born baby is generally accepted. God, if he had wanted to do so, could have created trees with growth rings, geographical formations with the appearance of age - all of that is within the reach of God’s divine, creative power.

That very theory was proposed by an Englishman, Philip Henry Gosse, in the mid-nineteenth century, but it went over like a lead balloon. Called the Omphalos Theory, after the Greek word for “navel” - as in, “Did Adam have a navel?” - it was rejected by Christians and non-Christians alike.

The secularists rejected it, because it was not true science, merely an unfalsifiable “God-did-it” argument. To them, only naturalistic theories of origins were acceptable.

The Christians also rejected it. Not only did it seem too much like a clever evasive tactic that was invented just to escape scientific evidence. It also would supposedly make God a trickster, a deceiver. God would thus be dishonest, if not malicious.

None of those objections carry a great deal of weight. Many of the secularists (not all) objected to any sort of divine activity whatsoever. To them, only a purely naturalistic theory of origins was acceptable, and any divine activity was “unscientific,” and “empirically unverifiable.”

The Christian objections are also invalid.

(1) Paul teaches in Romans chapter 1 that the reality of God is evident in creation.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

We also read in Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

And, in Psalm 150:

Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

People without modern science were able to perceive that the universe spoke of a creator. This was evident to some of the Greek and Roman philosophers, writing outside of the Christian revelation, and should be evident to people today - and would be evident, if their hearts were not blinded by sin.

(2) Thus, if (!?) God did create the world with the appearance of age, people would be without excuse. If they do not believe the testimony of God’s word, and of the heavens themselves, placing more faith in their scientific knowledge, they will be without excuse on the day of judgment.

(3) Moreover, we read that when people reject God, he can choose what direction their rebellion will take.

Here are several biblical examples of this:

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. (Isaiah 66:4)

Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish. (Jeremiah 6:21)

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

Thus, if God were to shroud the origins of the world and the cosmos in mystery, he would not be deceiving or tricking anyone, since the truth of his divine creation is open to all who have eyes to see.

But why would God do such a thing? The answer is not far to seek.

There are two reasons we need to consider.

(1) God has deliberately set up a system in which he cannot be found by human knowledge.

We read in I Corinthians 1:21, that God says:

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The significance of this is often lost. It means, that God cannot be found by human wisdom. This is why none of any of the world’s greatest philosophers, thinkers and scientists, without revelation, were able to come even remotely close to the truth of God manifested to us in Christ.

Even if they did hit on some truths here and there, the reality of God in Christ was and is inconceivable except to minds illuminated by the gift of faith.

Thus, if God did decide to hide the origins of the earth from human wisdom, I say “Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

(2) In order for faith to be truly meaningful, unbelief has to be a viable option. If Christ had come to earth with a host of angels and blazing trumpets, and walked the earth as the supernatural being described in Revelation chapter 1, his eyes like a flame of fire, his countenance like the sun, and his voice as the sound of many waters, it would have been impossible for people to deny him. They would have been forced by the evidence of their own senses to worship him as God, and salvation by faith would not longer be possible. Also, there could have been no crucifixion, as people would have been too terrified to even consider such a thing.

The same might be said, on a lower level, about the creation of the world. If all scientists were compelled by empirical evidence to realize that the earth and all that is in it appeared suddenly a short time ago, it would be almost if not completely impossible to argue against divine creation.

So, just as God concealed the divine nature of Christ behind every appearance of a natural origin, he had the ability and the authority to do the same with the earth and the cosmos.

It is also possible - and as far as I know this is a theory unique to myself - that in the creation of the world all of the millions of years of geological development did in fact occur. Glaciers advanced and receded, continents drifted apart, mountain ranges arose and rivers carved out valleys and canyons - but all at astronomically accelerated rates of speed. Millions of years could have been compressed into a few hours, sort of like the time lapse photography videos we saw in high school showing months of a plant’s development in a few minutes.

Is anything too hard for the Lord? Bible-believing Christians know the answer to that.

As to scientific methods of dating the earth, they could all be wildly inaccurate. Known laws of radioactive decay cannot be extended back indefinitely into the beginnings of creation, in which all sorts of unknown things could have been going on that would throw all of their intricate calculations completely off.

Thus we can truly say “The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God” - not the human knowledge by which we design a building, cure an illness, or build a bridge, but the false wisdom that seeks to pry into mysteries of origins that no man has seen. Such things are only known to us by revelation - divinely inspired and inerrant revelation, including Genesis 1-11.

The anthropomorphic arguments

The various examples of alleged anthropomorphisms given above can all be dealt with together.

There are many such things throughout the whole of Scripture, and if we want to start dismissing them all as being mythological, we will need to bring out a new version of the Bible. I suggest calling The Swiss Cheese Bible (New! Improved!).

In Exodus 31 we read of God writing the laws on stone tablets with his finger.

In Acts 7:34 we read where God says

I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them.

In Acts 4:30 the Christians prayed that God would stretch out his hand to heal.

In speaking of the infinite and invisible God’s dealing with men, such expressions are right, necessary, and proper, and only cause confusion among those who either are drifting from the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3), or are too proud to submit to the word of God, or both.

Galatians 6:1

In closing, I am reminded of those words in Galatians, which say

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

I don’t want to blast Dr. Craig, or the growing numbers of Christians who share his approach, as heretics or deceivers. I do think that excessive reliance on the false wisdom of the world is eclipsing more and more the light of God’s truth as revealed to us in Genesis 1-11.

I also observe that this is inevitably having serious repercussions on Christian faith and practice in other parts of the Bible outside of Genesis 1-11.

We read in Daniel 7:21 of a mysterious horn which came out of the head of a beast

I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.

Are not the powers of darkness now prevailing against the churches in new and different ways?

Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church - but does “his church” consist of those who are increasingly given over to false teachings and deceptions?

These are times of great and increasing spiritual darkness, and we need now, more than ever, a certain, sure, and inerrant word of God, from the opening words of Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation.

May God reveal to us the wiles and temptations of the devil, so that we are not taken unawares and led astray by the false wisdom of the world.

[1] Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind of the Universe (New York: HarperOne, 2021), 117.

[2] E. Edward Zinke, “What about form criticism? Have the methods of Biblical-critical studies been developed in full recognition of the authoritative role of Scripture?”, Ministry: International Journal For Pastors (January 1978, https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1978/01/what-about-form-criticism, accessed 8/20/2025.

Nascent Life

Discussion about this post