My Comments on this book:
He has been a reputed Christian theologian, philosopher and apologist with magnificent contribution in Christian apologetics. This work is really adorable. Honestly, I don’t have any expertise on this subject that makes me capable to comment on his work. Meanwhile, I have noted certain issues that I would like to present as my personal comment on his work.
-
His proposal of Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history seems tenable enough to convince eager minds that Genesis 1-11 is not actually dealing with things that our modern mind is attempting to ask such as making sense of 6 days creation, vegetarian world, talking snake, amazing tree of life and knowledge, unbelievable long life-spans, disputable age of the earth and so on. Seriously, he has made case that we cannot satisfy ourselves intellectually on these topics. They remain fantastic elements for our mind more likely as mythological frameworks.
-
He seems to embrace antiquity of the world but disregards concordist interpretation like day/age and alternative day/age views of Genesis.
-
He seems to reject the view that ancient took their bizarre description of the world literally such as solid dome, flat earth, etc. He insists these were mere figurative languages or to be precise, they were phenomenal description. Ben Stanhope seems to disagree with his assertion. His most recent book ‘(Mis)Interpreting Genesis’ has opposite argument to that of Craig’s.
-
He has spent enough pages to explain and clarify how to understand myth and whether Hebrews borrowed from surrounding cultures just because they have similar accounts.
-
For OECs and YECs, his proposal might seem to be ‘Escaping Approach’ i.e. to escape from challenging questions by simply saying Genesis 1-11 belongs to mytho-history genre. Dr. Kimball has also brought a similar case in his book ‘How (Not) to Read the Bible’.
-
He attempts to make us assure that taking Gen. 1-11 doesn’t demean divine inspiration of the scripture.
-
Christians may misunderstand his work against Sufficiency of scripture dogma as he has admitted one needs to navigate even pagan surrounding cultures to understand the context of early chapter of Genesis. This has been a typical objection from YECs although they have also used surrounding cultures’ data to prove a younger earth.
-
Critics might charge him for forcefully proving Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history using ANE context. This can be a serious allegation for forced compromise to fit modern science.
-
The book can be stumbling block to those who embrace inerrancy and infallibility of scripture since he discusses plenty of inconsistencies in narration.
What shall be your analysis on his assessment?