Peter Leithart observes that William Lane Craig is a moderate on Genesis, and Craig responds that a figurative reading was the Pentateuchal author's intent!

In which Leithart amusingly puts back on his discarded Protestant hat to defend the faith from a mind-reader trapped in a cul-de-sac.

[H]e sneaks into the head of the author of Genesis to discover that the biblical account of Eden and the fall was “fantastic, even to the Pentateuchal author himself.” ... Some Evangelical theologians deny the existence of a historical Adam entirely, which means that Craig’s position is a moderate one.

-- Leithart, here in "Doubts About William Lane Craig’s Creation Account"

If an aspect of a story contradicts what the Pentateuchal author believed, it is unlikely to be literally intended.

... the Pentateuchal author would have known that ... sunset and sunrise could not have occurred prior to the creation of the sun ...

... If the stories are inconsistent with one another when read literally, that suggests that a literal interpretation is not intended.

-- Craig, here in "Mytho-History in Genesis"

 

There is no human person named Jesus of Nazareth? Scripture repeatedly says people knew such a person, including the ascended Christ himself!

Subordinationism of one kind or another is inevitable, as illustrated by William Lane Craig

Here, where the full humanity of Jesus is denied because it is subordinate to the one divine person:

[T]here is no human person named “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.

 

Oops:

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.  

-- Acts 2:22

 

 

 

 

And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.

 

-- Luke 24:19

William Lane Craig Doubts The Accuracy Of Matthew's Presentation Of Jesus' Apocalyptic Sayings

When the evidence is uncomfortable, if you can't trim it, cast doubt on it.

Here (italics mine):

Matthew blends in with Jesus’ mission charge to the twelve disciples certain prophecies about the end times, about the coming of the Son of Man. So you get a verse like Matthew 10:23, “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” Originally this was probably a saying about the end of the world, the coming of the Son of Man; but here Matthew has woven it into this mission discourse to the Twelve. ... [B]y putting this saying in this context, Matthew makes it sound as if Jesus is saying to the twelve disciples, “Before you have gone through all the towns of the Israel, the coming of the Son of Man will occur.”

This is a perfect illustration of my contention. If Matthew 10:23 did not mean that the Son of Man was going to come again before the mission of the Twelve was over, there is no reason to think that Matthew 24:34 means that the Son of Man is going to come again within the first generation. We can’t be sure how this saying was originally given or what its context was. ...

But now look at how Matthew handles this verse in Matthew 16:28. Here Matthew, telling of this same event, rewords it. Remember, they didn’t have quotation marks. This is paraphrased. Here is Matthew’s way of putting it: “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Now that does [italics original] sound as if they are going to see the return of the Son of Man in their own lifetime! But we know that Matthew is paraphrasing this passage in Mark 9:1, which doesn’t really say that. Matthew is passing it on in a somewhat different way. This case again illustrates my point. These sayings may have a very different meaning in their original context. Someone who only knew Matthew 16:28 might well think that Jesus is saying, “There are people here who will not die before they see my parousia,” but when you read Mark 9:1, that is not at all obvious.

--------------------------------------------------------

At least with Albert Schweitzer's interpretation, Matthew and Mark are allowed to stand as reliable presentations of (failed) apocalyptic.

So who's the "conservative", William Lane Craig, or Albert Schweitzer?

Why Descartes Is Wrong: "Our Mind Is Under Our Complete Control"

"The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"

 -- Jeremiah 17:9

Quite apart from that, is the mind under our complete control when we are dead? The fact that we cannot control the fact that we cannot avoid death suggests otherwise. The ancients would say that our mind could not possibly be under our complete control, dead or alive, since it, like the rest of our selves, depends utterly on God for its existence. Human being is contingent being, and therefore is not autonomous.

William Lane Craig is much too sanguine about Descartes, here.