The Historical Adam with William Lane Craig
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2023
- Maybe God host Eric Huffman sits down for a second time with one of the world’s greatest living Christian apologists, author and philosopher William Lane Craig, to tackle the controversial subject of Adam. Was Adam a real person? And if so, who was he and when did he live?
For Dr. Craig’s first Maybe God interview, click here.
More work by Dr. Craig: www.reasonablefaith.org
Support future episodes! Now accepting tax-deductible stock and crypto gifts:
www.maybegodpod.com/donate
Subscribe to the Maybe God channel for more content like this: / maybegodpodcast
Follow Maybe God on social media for more content like this:
/ maybegodpod
/ maybegodpod
Subscribe to the Maybe God Podcast:
On Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Crage, your service is of an immense value! I am always looking up to you all the way from Ukraine! May God bless you!
the interviewer has a great voiceover projection..
While I am not a YEC (young earth creationist), the idea of pushing the historical Adam all the way back to 750,000 - 1,000,000 years ago brings up a big question mark for me in terms of the timeline of events. As Craig asserts with his hypothesis, the historical Adam of three quarter of a million years ago would have had the same size brain capacity and function as modern humans today. And so, if humans just as smart and developed as us today were around all that time ago, why does human civilization only go back about eight to ten thousand years ago? When the atheists asserts that modern humans are only 100,000 to 250,000 years old, I have the same objection. I just find it hard to believe that humans practically identical to us today didn't come to civilize until, on the earliest estimation, 90,000 years into their existence, and on the furthest extent (adopting Craig's view) upwards of three quarter of a million years into their existence.
What happened during all that excess time?
Beautiful things. They didn't settle.
Why do you think that? Technological and cultural modernisation is largely dependent on the agricultural revolution, which could not occur until after the last Ice Age. Prior to that people were short-lived and at the subsistence level of development.
@gunzor8717the flood, the world was wiped out. younger dryas period.
Your objection is warranted because all this hundreds of thousands of years business is nonsense. There are 10 generations from Adam to Noah, 10 from Noah to Abraham, and then 40 from Abraham to Jesus. That's it. Nothing more.
WLC has completely lost the plot and believes way too much in 'the science.' There's no way Adam and Eve were created or evolved from Neanderthals almost a million years ago. Swamidass said WLC's genetic diversity argument that leads to dating Adam back that far is totally wrong.
I think WLC raised amazing points, questions and conjectures, as usual. He is one of my favourites. The concept of paleo / historical mythology seems appropriate to Genesis 1-11 but also to the overall study of human origins in the scientific world. Bone fragments are exaggerated in their implications, many palaeontologists contradict one another and let’s face it, a bone that represents a missing link in human origins is sexier than bones from pigs or apes. Fascinating none the less. Let’s keep all this in perspective. It is like we have a few pieces to describe a 1000 piece puzzle. Thank you for the presentation. Loved it.
If you calculate the number of people who disembarked from the ark in Noah's day (8) and plot population growth at a modest rate (1% more or less) over 4200 years, you end up with a total number now on the Earth of 7 to 8 Billion. I understand Prof. Craig doubts that a world-wide flood occurred, but if he wants to start with 2 people 750,000 years ago, I have to ask, "Where are all the people?""
Population does not grow in that linear fashion, but exponentially. We know that the earth is around
4,500,000,000 years old. Homo sapiens is at least 200,000 years old.
Regardless of the age of the rock we live on, population with a 1% annual growth rate will double every 72 years or so. At that rate, 8 people would become 7 billion in a little over 4,000 years. As we like to say, "Do the math." If homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years as you say, where are all the people?
@@denisa.kitchen4931
E-coli bacteria has a population growth rate that is so high that the population will double every 20 minutes.
This means that the exponential growth rate is so high that it would take this one type of bacteria less than 4 years to replace the entire volume of our planet with bacteria.
If you understand why this doesn’t prove that earth can not be older than 4 years you should also understand why your fallacious argument fails.
@@davethebrahman9870 It's statistically impossible that only seven billion people could have resulted from one million years of evolutionary history. Even if the population increased at only 1/2% per year for a million years, the number of people in the present generation would exceed 10 ^ 2100! To fully appreciate the ludicrous nature of the evolutionary model in this regard, consider the fact that only 10 ^ 130 electrons can be packed into the entire universe! Obviously, the creation model of human chronology offers the more reasonable figures on man's antiquity. Man's history clearly spans only thousands of years, not millions. And this fits perfectly with the indicated age of the world from the Bible.
vethebrahman9870 he didn't mention a linear growth.
Have you studied the genetic studies performed by Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, PHD? See his book "Traced" about the DNA history of the human race.
Modern science is greatly flawed for many reasons and should not override the plain reading of Genesis.
Understanding how DNA can carry forward unexpressed genetic diversity shows the unappreciated genus of our Creator.
After studying this I am an ardent young earth creationist.
Correction please Bill, positionally Levi paid tithes while still in Abrahams loins through Abraham to Melchesidec.
How does anything Craig said go against this?
Brilliant, serious conversation on such a fascinating question.
Whether dating the age of the Adamic race, or the length of time between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, I don't think Dr Craig takes into account a pre-Adamic race which is alluded to and which was destroyed by a cataclysmic(?) event which also included a flood.
But why would Adam said the world will be destroyed twice if there was already a cataclysmic event before Noah's flood?
This is just an invention. The bible doesn't even hint at it.
Scripture teaches the earth was covered with water and God acted to separate water and dry land.
Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
Why does William Lane Craig disagree with John Walton?
His approach seems to make sense of Genesis and the OT well when thinking in terms of Hebrew etymology, and ancient near eastern literature.
There are multiple reasons, but one would be that Craig identifies 10 or so features of ANE creation myths which are shared with the Genesis account, and so he thinks we should see the account as a creation account. When it says "let the waters swarm with living souls", it doesn't mention any "function", and certainly doesn't mention anything to do with a temple. Are we to think that fish existed but just didn't "swarm" until given that role? It's hard to imagine that that's what's being conveyed here. Rather, it reads like an ANE creation narrative referring to the creation of aquatic life.
Craig is finally coming to the realization, that blind allegiance to traditional Christian Theism will invariably conflict with "rational exploration, scientific discovery, and human reasoning." I commend his courage for daring to break ranks, even if just in this instance, with other cult-like members of the apologist community, who will no doubt seek to tar and feather him.
This is a bold move by a leading Christian apologist. Nevertheless, this is just the beginning of his awakening.
You've clearly not been paying attention to Craig's career up to now. He has always faced rational exploration and science head-on, and has never been tied to literalistic interpretations of Scriptural texts where there are other live options.
@@Mentat1231I accept your observations on Craig's willingness and openness to integrate parts of his beliefs with the more deductive approach taken by science. However, at his core, Craig still clings to the irrational Christian belief that an omnipotent personal God is willing to kill humans who do not acknowledge him. The suggestion here is one of disappointment: that a deep thinker like Craig has not liberated his mind from childish myths and superstitions.
Brilliant again from Craig,
As someone who deeply admired Dr. Craig, I must clarify that the Roman Catholic Church does not hold the view that Adam and Eve’s guilt are imputed to their descendants. What’s imputed is a the propensity to sin / consequence of death, both of which a direct result of our separation from the divine life (which is - thank God - restored during Baptism). However, the propensity to sin, or concupiscence, remains (until and unless a person becomes entirely sanctified.)
So babies that come out of the womb are totally innocent/sinless and therefore equal to Christ?
@@sk-un5jqThat’s an incorrect way of framing it right out of the gate, Christ is not greater than us because he didn’t sin, he was incapable of sinning due to being greater.
No. Craig is right.
@@sk-un5jqyes - they have no sin. Like all humans - they do have a disposition to disordered things.
Then you don't understand Catholic doctrine.
Sin inputted seminaly to Adams descendants. That is the main heart of the doctrine of original sin.
If you take a closer look at Genesis 1 & 2 you will notice the creation of man in God's image in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 were distinct events: Genesis 2 starts out by saying God had finished all the work of creation. "Then the Lord God formed A MAN from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." So Adam and Eve were not the first humans, they were a special creation, the first priestly family, the representatives of all mankind.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in THEIR system.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
Actually it was ezvrorebulpak that made man, or so Pallas Athene -blessing be upon her sexiness told me.
Bill, no parent teaches thier infant to sin, but it is glarimgly apparent when an infint acts selfish.
What the fcuk is " sin"?
It clearly says in Gen 2:4-8 God made man before there were any shrubs or trees which were made on the 3rd day. God made man ( Neanderthal ) before He made the plants. God made Man in His image on the 6th day. Cain lived in the land of Nod where he made love to his wife, not his sister( Neanderthal) and had children by her.
True, but Genesis neither explicitly says or even suggests that it’s describing events literally.
The passage refers to a specific region. Describing the rivers compassing it.
The word used is "Eretz" which means "land/country/region".
It says that God took Adam and placed him there, to cultivate the ground.
The words used "shrub/plant" are about cultivation. God planted them there and Adam was placed there to train for High Priesthood.
It's not saying the entire earth was barren. It's a matter of preparing a place. Same with the animals God brought there. This was beasts of the field.
Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
One of my favorite teachers. Idk about the suit though.
Amazing interview with one of the greatest apologists of our time. Thank you Dr. Craig for your hard work and diligence in exploring these intricate topics with honesty and great care. And thank the host for having him on and providing a space to have these complex conversations openly. God bless your ministries.
WLC doesn't mention the etymology of the name Adam, which is a Hebrew name.
But early scripture was written using paleo-pheonician. How old is the name "Adam"?
I get the sense from watching multiple WLC talks that he holds science above the Bible.
I'm confused as to his point of how we evolved from a hominid yet are created uniquely in the image of God. If we evolved, we found our own way to the image of God.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in THEIR system.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
He specifically addresses this starting around 51:32 through about 57:10
I believe we can´t simply rule out the plausibility of paleontology being wrong about the records. Not necessarily that they are trying to deceive us, but that they can be mistaken, although, its not far fetched to think the world is being decieved on purpose by "somebody" or many. Paleontology doesn´t say anything, nor any other science field, people are the ones who do.
Maybe the biological impossibility from population genetics would be more convincing to you?
The genetic data rules out such a couple if they lived less than half a million years ago. Plus, the overwhelming evidence that many of us trace part of our ancestry to Neanderthals and Denisovans definitively rule out an 'Adam and Eve' ancestry.
Maybe it was a lapse on Dr. Craig's part, but behemoth and leviathan appear in the book of Job, not the Psalms. Because Dr. Craig said that he uses the Psalms and Revelation to school Genesis literalists on the genre of mytho-history, I'm really surprised he would misidentify the Psalms for Job as the location of behemoth and leviathan. Therefore, I'd really like to hear his explanation of the error.
It may very well be just an error, but perhaps its because also Job is considered by many Biblical scholars to be an inspired work of fiction. However quite possibly based on a true story.
The leviathan appears in Psalm 74:14
@@perborjel7928 Jesus quoted from Job as a historical account, so it's not a work of fiction. No conservative biblical scholar would ever claim that Job is a work of fiction.
@@crunchyhippo8957Jesus didn’t quote from Job. Even if he did it wouldn’t lend any credit to its historicity. You can accept a story without believing it happened.
I admire William L. Craig's effort, but I fear that his quest leads to more problems than solves them.
The problem is, God made a promise of a "seed" in Eden. That He would "put enmity between" the serpent's seed and the woman.
"You shall strike his heel but he shall crush your head". And that is foundational to salvation. It heralds the Messiah and the virgin birth and you simply can't get past that.
Exactly, one can't get pass that and how Christ points to Satan being a liar from the beginning. And how Christ frames marriage from Genesis "...for this reason a man shall leave both mother and father and shall cleave unto his wife."
@@yamabushiwarrior996 yes, it's evident that Christ holds the account as foundational.
And Craig doesn't deny any of that. He holds to the virgin birth, the Messiah, the enmity between the woman's seed and the seed of the serpent.... Where does he deny any of this?
Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
lol
Thank God for Dr. Craig's kindness, brilliance and Spirit led insight. This was enlightening and enjoyable on every level.
Dr. Craig's contribution to the body of Christ is immeasurable
How does Adam's sin get sin get "into the world", but not into the person? Everyone born has a clean slate and clean soul when born, but not a single one ever obeys God it's a 100% fail rate even though human nature is not sinful from birth, not conceived in sin? All choose rebellion, not a single one understands or seeks God?
I'm not against the idea of the historical Adam per se, but Lane Craig says it's clear Jesus believed in the historical Adam. I would like to see him make a case for that. I don't think it's overly clear. What I have found is:
"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh"
- Mark 10:5-6
It does not say from the beginning God made two humans, one male and one female, only that from the beginning God made man in two different gender: male and female. And they, a man and a woman shall become one flesh.
Which of the several trillions of Adams do you suppose the lying bigot to have in mind?
Bill, whats the difference between iherited sinful nature, and " opened up the flood gates to humanity and everyone sins?" Seems your saying the same thing that your trying to disprove.
What the fcuk is a "sin"?I do not mean examples thereof but what is your definition of whatever sin may be
You are entirelt inocent of any sort of wits and learning are you not?
I think assuming the dating methods were accurate is the first mistake. Dating methods are always being refined. There doesnt seem to be much evidence for an old earth.
That's because you don't read science.
Craig is just trying to do his best. I believe that he stretches the time element out. It should be shortened down to about 150 thousand years ago.
A brilliant & intellectually rigorous guy is WLC.
Seems to me his talents & energy are mostly frittered away in a sort of holy crusade to convince other people that something that is not possible to prove is, nevertheless, worthy of persuading other folks to believe.
Read the Urantia Revelation. It will only take you one year and You will have another story to grind your theories against. Daune
It seems to me that Craig is quick to trust the dating methods used to determine the age of remains. How does anyone actually know if these methods are accurate? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years from one data point to the next. Seems to me that you need to make a lot of assumptions to begin with and then your results are only as accurate as your assumptions.
Because the extrapolation used by these dating methods are based off of hard mathematical laws. For a half like to be different then we calculated would require math to work differently or physics to have recently changed
@@briandiehl9257Who's "we"?
@@r.rodriguez4991 The people doing the calculations obviously
@@r.rodriguez4991
The academic consensus of the experts.😉
I find it odd that Craig is suggesting that there were created beings prior to Adam and Eve, from which God made them. I don't see where that line of thinking comes from. Is he saying that A&E "evolved" from these ancestors? Because without the death/birth cycle there can be no evolution. Read Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"-
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in THEIR system.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
@@qwerty-so6ml good luck with that 😳
@@TheStudpop
Don't appeal to YOUR GOD Lucifer (good luck).
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and SEAL UP THE BOOK, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
This is Daniel's sealed scroll, unsealed.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels making man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. (tares)
Genesis 1 only uses the word ELOHIM.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in THEIR system. (wheat)
Genesis 2:4 is where the word Lord God (YHWH ELOHIM) is found.
Exodus 20:4 YHWH ELOHIM forbids idols and likeness (embodiment = human host body).
Jesus called you a god/angel.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
What law?
Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods (H430); and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Strongs H430 Elohim = angels, gods (little g).
Right there, he called you a god (angel) that shall die like man, and fall. A fallen angel.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
No mention of unrepentant man in Matthew 25:41.
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Pray that your eyes are opened. Video from angel of Church of Philadelphia:
ua-cam.com/video/d5cFNlKXYbo/v-deo.html
SO
1 god stoped an evolutionary process, that was anyway going on, from homo habilis to h erectus to h heidelbergensis to h sapiens, just to say: now I create h heidelbergensis as a human?
2 he created h heidelbergensis in his image , then we humans evolved to homo sapiens and now we humans look more advanced then god?
I love WLC, however, how does this theory explain the genealogy that we have in the scripture? We know genealogy of Jesus to Abraham. And we know the years from Abraham to Noah, and then Noah to Adam. Scripture gives us names, genealogy, and how long they lived. This is where young earthers get their numbers. How does WLC’s theory explain away these number? If Adam was 750,000 years ago (ish) how does that fit the genealogy and years that scripture gives us to Noah and then to Abraham and then to Jesus?
Quite simply the words translated as 'son of' also means 'descendant of' and 'father of' also can mean 'ancestor of'. This is why Jesus is called 'the son of David, the son of Abraham' in Matthew. It was common way back in the day to only list the important ancestors in a genealogy. Matthew himself seems to remove certain names to uphold a perfect 14 generations in each section. This is also why we see only 2 ancestors of Moses between him and the tribes of Israel, while some of his contemporaries have 9 listed. We are just given Moses' fathers name (very important in ancient times), and his clan, not the complete genealogy.
Basically from what we know about the ancient world what you are seeing in these genealogies are just the highlights, not a complete list
@@briandiehl9257 Matthew himself seems to remove certain names to uphold a perfect 14 generations in each section? How you know that?
@@fritzieaninon8973 That is sort of what I am saying, it was common to list only some of the names, telescoping the geneology. Here mattew does that to get a perfect number
Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew or just a good old-fashioned bigot
I’m glad he’s not a young earth creationist 😅
He is a big enough lying bigot to be just that.
"We have cave painting that date back tens of thousands of Years ago." Okay, am I missing something? Two things here, human genetic tracing for a time stamp, and the aging of rocks etc.. both of these follow shaky science. I'm hoping I am genuinely missing something, surely a chap as astonishingly careful and studious as this wouldn't base his research of false premises, i.e. that we have evidence that anything on the earth is many many thousands of years old. Help please. Thank you, Andrew.
"we" being you and which specific interlocutor?
Craig actually talking reality and sense in the first 5 minutes or so..
The Bible would bring irreconcilable conflict with modern science? I'm glad I'm a young earth believer or I would be questioning all the miracles in the Bible and even the resurrection of CHRIST JESUS because they are in conflict with modern science.
It depends on the conflict. Christ's resurrection is an explicitly miraculous event that is contrary to nature. Creation is creating nature itself, and thus the process may have involved miraculous intervention at its initiation but it needn't have to for every step along the way
@@jonathanw1106 The nosensese of what -s - callled "Christ's resurrectionwas a deliberate lie insertd into the jesussey by those that wanted to make a big business out of his teaching,
It is *obviously* and *can_only be a lie because it is impossible, ad it was a stupid lie to invent because it is not remotely plausible;once a man is dead and buried he*stays* dead and buried, putrefaction commencing with seconds of the heart ceasing to beat, and at high temperatures proceeds very rapidly in ceasing to beat and within a very few hours the body starts to swell from the putrefaction gases and starts to stink.
There was never an actual flesh n blood Adam as referenced in the Old Testament. Good lord.
How do you know there wasn't a first pair of humans?
@@Mentat1231 I can fathom a 1st pair of humans, etc, but not in the Biblical sense... it's obviously a myth.
@@monkkeygawd
Did you listen to Dr. Craig's view in the video, or read his book? He thinks the story in Gen 1-11 is a myth, but that it teaches an original pair of humans.
@Mentat1231 yeah, I did, and I'm familiar via a whole ton of other videos/debates as to his views... he's a very intellectually dishonest. He's like the Christian Apologist version of Jordan Peterson. Full of themselves. And.... Full of crap.
@@Mentat1231The truth is no one really knows. Whether you believe in the Bible one way or the other its all INTERPRETATION. People fail to grasp this simple concept and they ALWAYS THING THEY ARE THE CORRECT ONES!!
If HISTORY tells us anything it's that PEOPLE get interpretations WRONG often.
Look at the CHURCH debate on wether the Earth was the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM or the SUN was. Originally they insisted the BIBLE PLAINLY read that the SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH!! The Bible says so plain as day they argued!! Now we know better!
The "LITERAL" Biblical interpretation people scare me the most, because they are the most egotistical Christians, because they are ABSOLUTELY convinced THEY are the correct ones and GOD is on their side because of their brilliant insight! These same CHRISTIAN s vehemently attack the OLD EARTH CHRISTIANS who most often admit they humbly could be wrong!
lol Sorry Craig has no credibility. I just watched the debate between Craig and Bart Ehrman where Craig was not prepared to respect the agreed framework of engagement and answer Barts simple questions (because he knew his position would be weakened). Yet he evidently them ran off to make 6 videos about Ehrman, and posted them all with the comments section turned off. Totally spineless.
Lol funny
At the 5:15 mark, Craig states that it is scientifically impossible that humanity only originated a few thousand years ago. But from a Christian perspective, it is also scientifically impossible for someone to incautiously change water into wind, to walk on water, or to feed 5000 with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. It must be considered in this debate that a miraculous event performed by God cannot and should not be tested scientifically. Creation itself was a miraculous event. If I had brought some of the wine that Jesus created miraculously at the wedding in Cana and presented it to scientists to test, they would have concluded that it took weeks or even months to achieve its level of fermentation. Science cannot test God's miracles, and if it tries, it will draw wrong conclusions.
👏👏👏
That is allegory. There *are_no* christians
Finally, Western Christian protestant talks like a grown-up man in his study of the Scriptures. Hopefully he can help the protestants mature, some in their spirituality by learning to look at the Scriptures in a new way, and possibly come to a new in much higher understanding. Modern Christianity is barely Christian at all. Outside the eastern orthodox church the teachings are basically lost.
There *are_no* christians and for certain that lying bigot is no christian
Lol, the "historical" Adam.
Where humans made in the image of God or in the image of ape beings?
@@YuelSea-sw2rp That's deep, bro! As for me, I've long ago let go of the reductionist materialist model of human life as pushed on us by atheistic scientists.
God created an entire universe out of nothing. But he needed a barbaric process over hundreds of millions of years of death and destruction in order to create some ape beings to drop some souls into? This is where you're at now in your intellectual discovery? If you want to believe that, you're free to do so. But I don't have to.
No, men(human beings/dreaming machines have made their idol misster(sic) cod in *their_own* image
Mythohistory 😅🤔
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
Craig is all confused on this matter. All human beings have always been the same. We are descended from Noah who was descended from Adam. Eve was the mother of all living.
God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him a spirit which made him come alive.
It's all straight-forward. There is no mystery to it, and any science that tells you otherwise is false science.
Craig shows he is dominated by his wife who has increasingly pushing him toward a secular worldview. Ironically he shows shaky science to be his real ‘gospel truth’ and makes it the immutable standard by which he attempts to reconcile his faith. Craig should have taken an early retirement rather than risk ruining his legacy with fallacious books that will prove him foolish in the end. At the very least, he should heed the lesson of Adam and Eve in Genesis that a man should not be careful not be led astray by his wife lest she destroys them both.
@GunZoR lol tell me your one of those pathetic, weak, beta male, fake Christians without actually saying your a fake Christian. Don’t you know the effeminate won’t inherent the kingdom of heaven? Oh well, cry more.
It seems more like he tries to protect his religious beliefs without entirely abandoning mainstream science.
As far as science is concerned there is no evidence that Adam and Eve existed and all of the actual evidence contradicts the creation myth of Genesis.
Craig is just back-peddling to save whatever he can from the absolute tsunami of information that indicates the Bible is largely mythical or legendary.
Nonsense! Archeological evidences confirm some of the key information found in the Bible, be it the names, locations, even accurate documented timings of certain events. So to think of the Bible as a largely mythical or legendary book as you put it, is simply absurd. Heck, some of the information in the Bible is even confirmed by relatively recent breakthroughs in modern science, leading many to wonder how some of these authors could have possibly known about these things ages ago. I’ll leave you with an instance, Genesis 1:1, the very beginning of the book is backed up by contemporary astrophysics - that the universe as we know it HAD a beginning; now tell me how the Pentateuchal author could’ve possibly known this let alone BELIEVED this to be true thousands of years before modern science confirmed this phenomenon (your standard big bang models), if the book of books is simply mythical in the sense you imply?
@@Tobi_237 Your position is remarkably ignorant. It is exactly the sort of pet food Muslims come up with in respect of the Quran. The fact that there is some accurate information in the Bible in no way alters the fact that these ancient documents are full of myth and legend.
@@Tobi_237 Your instance given is garbage. No physicist says that they know our universe had a beginning; merely that we cannot currently go back further than the original singularity.
@@davethebrahman9870 Don’t mistaken my position, I’m not suggesting science ‘proves’ the Bible, I’m arguing scientific discoveries have only served to complement what was stated and known theologically by the authors of the Bible thousands of years ago, so how does it follow that the Bible is a book of myths as YOU claim? This is nothing akin to what Muslim apologists argue, as that false religion is riddled with so many logical inconsistencies you can find so many here on UA-cam. And to your last point, you say no physicist concludes that the universe had a beginning, that’s just false. But let’s for the sake of argument suppose that you’re right, what else would you call ‘a point in the past which you CANNOT go beyond’ if not a beginning? Please enlighten me.
@@Tobi_237 You are still talking pap. No scientific discoveries confirm the Bible, other than as to late and particular facts such as the existence of the dual kingdoms etc. A point beyond which we cannot see is just that. Many physicists think that our universe is itself a daughter universe; others, that the singularity marked a point of the inversion of entropy. The fact is that we just don’t know, because our theories break down at the Planck scale. To claim that this is somehow an endorsement of Bronze Age cosmology is remarkably silly. The Bible presents us with a flat earth that is covered by the ‘רקיע’ (‘raqia’), a blanket of solid material. This is simply false.
As for mythology, the Genesis accounts of the creation and the patriarchs are very similar to other eastern myths, and their fabulous nature is indicated by talking snakes, giants, walking gods, people who live hundreds of years and other fairytales.