Part Two: William Lane Craig - New Perspectives on the Historical Adam | AAR/SBL 

I'm grateful for the work being done here. This content is very useful when discussing my faith with my atheist friends. This is another example that theists (Christians specifically) can have their biblical convictions/doctrines and data of modern science/philosophy in the same room.

something struck me at the end with the last question. craig admitted that his theological/philosophical conclusion was not based upon linguistics (the language of the bible i guess?) this is logically equivalent to athiest conclusions that don't use linguistics. theology seems to be really flexible which is good i guess. from the kalaam argument which uses philosophical and scientific premises leading to a theologically significant conclusion to ancient adam arguments that don't need any linguistic premises at all. need to think on this

I think Dr Craigs error here is not so much one of his conclusions but rather his entire approach. It should be understood that the concept of being in the ‘image of God’ is both a binary and non-binary classification. In fact, everything in creation, from atoms all the way up to plants and insects and lower animals to primate and hominids are all expressions of God’s nature. God Himself is the template for everything He creates. In that sense, all things are in God’s image ‘to some degree’. That is why it is not binary. The real, binary, distinguishing line is that between things and beings that are partially in the image of God and fully in the image of God. A being having intellectual capacity and a capacity for culture and even empathy is not what determines if that being is in the full image of God. As impressive as those faculties are, that is a very low bar. Other species of hominid may share many high function qualities with Homo Sapiens, but that does not make them fully in the image of God. The objective of a being’s physiology is to be an electro-chemical, experiential mould for the eternal soul to be shaped by and to grow in. A living, adapting mould that miraculously changes and adapts to fit the needs as the spirit grows. The body of a particular animal or species of hominid has to be evolved to a high level of sophistication to enable the soul occupying it to have emotional, intellectual and wilful experiences. To in turn enable that soul to grow into a Godly being and eventually reach spiritual perfection (if unencumbered by sin). After all, we see a different ability to grow in emotional and mental sophistication in various primate species. So why would we assume that every hominid species affords the same spiritual growth potential? It is a mistake to dismiss the differences between Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and other hominids as inconsequential. What may seem like a minor difference to us, can be a deciding factor as to just how that being’s soul can develop. I should also point out that God sometimes bestows titles not yet earned in order to engender within a person an aspiration to grow into the role. An example of this would be for a fallen person to refer to themselves as a ‘child of God’. The Bible makes it very clear that our lineage from God was cut off and we were engrafted to Lucifer/Satan and as such, we fallen people are a ‘brood of vipers’ (offspring of a serpent). We are only a child of God when we engraft to his son (reborn) and even then, our fallen nature means we still have unconscious sympathy with our false god parent Satan in that we are ‘like’ him as much as we are ‘like’ God. We only become true and full sons and daughters of God when we become perfect. But God wishes us to know that our original status is as a child of God. So it is fitting that we refer to ourselves as such even though we are not in actuality that yet. In the same way, a being is not in the full image of God until that being becomes perfect. Here, we must distinguish between being ‘perfect’ (complete/mature and also unfallen) and being ‘perfectly pure’. Adam and Eve were created/born perfectly pure, but they were not perfect as they had not grown to fullness and oneness with God. And as it turned out, they never did as that process was derailed by the fall. Adam and Eve, and ourselves are not actually created in the image of God, rather we are created with the potential to grow to perfection/fullness where we will be in the image of God. Being in God’s ‘full’ image is not just about having emotion, will and rational faculties as God does. It is also about holiness and perfection. A baby, even an unfallen baby born sinless as Adam and Eve were, is not developed and mature and perfect as God is. Were they to have grown to perfection as Jesus did, ‘then’ they would have been in the full image of God. Again, we sometimes describe things in an aspirational way even if that thing is not yet fully realised. God used all things of creation, which are in his image to some degree, to develop to higher and higher degrees of his image. The objective was to have a physical body that was of such emotional, wilful and intellectual sophistication that it could enable the spirit within to develop to spiritual perfection, holiness and be fully in the image of God. That vessel is the Homo Sapien physiology. Other Hominids may share some of our facilities in terms of certain levels of intellect and emotional capacity but there is a reason that God let them all go extinct (God put man into a deep sleep). The end product of the Homo Sapien physiology (from a ‘rib’ or ‘branch’ of hominids) was attained. Adam and Eve were Homo Sapien and although they adulterated their souls and lineage with the blood of Satan and we later even took on some DNA from other hominids, God has been working to purify us through religion and especially through the umbilical reconnection to Him through our engrafting to his son. The real question is not if other hominids were human; especially as there is no truly agreed definition of human. It is to ask what type of physiology is conducive to a spirit becoming perfect in in the ‘full’ image of God. Dr Craig’s lack of understanding of this focus is actually alarming. It would be catastrophic if many other hominid types were alive today as he would passionately argue for cross breeding. If this were to occur, and in enough numbers, the end result would be the destruction of God’s billion year refinery work in bringing about Homo Sapiens and whatever unique qualities our physiology contain. Especially how those qualities pertain to what is needed for the spirit to grow that final step from partial image of God to full image. I discussed this in part on my RU-vid channel in my video about Adam's Rib but will do an expanded talk too.

Craig says, "We are therefore biblically committed to Adam and Eve as actual historical persons from whom all humanity has descended." Seriously? How is it that the talking snake or the making of Eve from Adam's rib fail to raise a red flag for Craig that the story might be fiction?

Genesis literal or not, doesn't change the lineage listed that is literal

The "Garden of Eden" was in the east (hebrew qedem). This refers not to a geographical location, but to "aforetime/a time before time existed. The fall of mankind happened in the spiritual realm. All spirit resides with God. We are born out in time, clothed" in skin" right here on earth. Adam&Eve were the first of mankind to walk this road. Most likely there were humanoid forms walking the face of the earth for thousands of years... In preparation for the fall that God knew would happen. The bride of Christ's redemptive purpose is to ultimately reconcile "heaven&earth" again.

The Greeks also allegorized their own stories of their gods to try and match them better with reality

Доктор Крейг вы ничем не отличаетесь от безбожников в плане их мифоистории согласно которой жизнь зародилась путем эволюции. Адам согласно Христианскому учению реальная личность сотвореннная не из предшествующих животных, но из праха земного