Eli invites Dr. Jason Lisle to discuss the debate surrounding the Historical Adam, and to interact a bit with Dr. William Lane Craig's recent work on the Historical Adam.
I never knew there were clear arguments for a young earth. Hugh Ross and Dr William Lane Craig were my bread and butter.... until Dr. Lisle came to town! He keeps the Bible as the final authority, doesn't take his eye off correct theology while interpreting science and still demonstrates that these don't conflict with each when interpreted correctly.
Yeah, I was introduced to Hugh Ross through the Reasons to Believe television show. It didn’t clear all of my issues with evolution and Biblical creation, but it set me on the path. …and then I saw one RU-vid video (from this channel, BTW) with Dr. Jason Lisle and was like 🤯
It helps to remember that God wrote the Bible so it could be clearly understood by the layman, as well as the intellectuals. There was no such belief as millions of years back in Biblical days. A day was understood as a day: 24 hours, of daylight, and night time. It wasn't until evolution raised it's evil head, that the concept of millions, and billions of years even became part of our lexicon. "Come let us reason" is my favorite verse. God said "Us". He will help us to use our reasoning ability that He gave to us.
Dr. Lisle and Ken Ham and earlier Kent Hovind were all SNAKE OIL SALESMEN! They are smooth talkers and they will point BACKWARDS to GENESIS and they basically tell you INTERPRET GENESIS exactly the way I do, or you aren't a SINCERE CHRISTIAN your just about as bad as SECULAR ATHEISTS!! I have studied all the ANSWERS IN GENESIS videos and they ALL have MISCHARACATERIZATIONS in each of them that make them FALSE. ALL CHRISTIAN PhD GEOLOGISTS, PhD Christian Astronomers, and PhD Christian Earth Science all point to a OLD EARTH CREATIONISM!!
The guy is as False and FAKE as Kent Hovind. Hovind pushed this Young Earth Creationism garbage way before Lisle and others and it didn't make sense then any more than it does now. The dangers here is the YEC group lie about all the "evidence" they try to put forwarded. If these YEC folks are so correct let them publish in REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. They never do because they know the garbage they are pushing can ONLY be pushed on poor non-scientific Christians and they claim they are bringing people back to the TRUE FAITH and only the ANSWERS IN GENESIS people know the TRUTH. NONSENSE none of theit garbage Science flies with anyone. Don't you realize there are no PhD Christian Physicists PhD Christian Earth Scientists, or PhD Christian Astronomers buy into this YOUNG EARTH GARBAGE. It's terrible to the salvation of young people also because they see through these SNAKE OIL SALESMAN. YEC is a business and these AIG fanatics push this Viciously and its not truthful and GOD is LOVE AND TRUTH and I don't find ANY TRUTH in AIG videos and I have dissected all of them. I am a PhD level Physicist that measured nuclear weapons and I also contributed to Medical Cancer Therapy detectors in my career. I now teach high school Science in my retirement and I just shake my heads with these fanatics!!
which " bible to you suppose the poor hhandicapped dolt yo be defending from whom?- Bookworms. Lisle is clearly barmy and not playing with a full deck to say nothing of the screamingly obvious autism; the twat is also a proud bigot but that might have something to do with the autism
God bless you, Dr Lisle! Thank you for confirming my own thinking about Craig's ideas! I have been appalled at the number of "apologists," including Craig, who swallow the secular narrative whole, and are happy to sacrifice the truth of the Word to make it acceptable to the secularists. Craig makes his argument by denying the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and the possibility of the miraculous; they cannot be true because they are "impossible." His appeal to mythohistory is pure equivocation.
Thank you fellas for defending the normal honest reading of the Bible. Dr. Hugh Ross has tapped out and not recovered from his debate with Dr. Lisle so I don’t suspect Dr. Craig will accept the challenge.
I have followed many shares by Dr. Jason. Excellent experience with his high order thinking, views, and knowledge. Thank you so much for all these materials. I may ask you to invite Dr. Jason elaborates on what God meant by "our image " in the Genesis. Thank you. God bless you.
@@bayesianhulk I said you can't practice science rightly without the scriptures. What is the scientific method? How was it discovered , and by what means?
@@bayesianhulk no one claims that the Bible is a science book. Many different genres are present in the Bible and Genesis is historical narrative. There was a great statistical analysis done by Dr. Boyd on this. Also the Scientific method can not be used to detect or research supernatural miracles. There is no repeatable resurrection of Christ or him turning water into wine. If you had that wine today and scientifically investigated that wine you would not get them correct conclusion about its origin. Science by definition excludes the truth in that case since it is a materialistic method. Therefore it can not be the highest authority when it comes to ultimate biblical truths and not only that but it necessarily arrives at the wrong conclusions.
I've been wanting to see a discussion between WLC and Dr. Lisle since he ruffled a few feathers with his Adam book. Have you guys tried to set this up?
“The opinion of those who say with regard to the truth of the faith, that it is a matter of complete indifference what one thinks about creation, provided one has a true interpretation of God is notoriously false. Because an error about creation is reflected in a false opinion about God.” St. Thomas Aquinas Angelic Doctor and Father of the Church Summa contra Gentiles
It's *Your* teddybear to worship or the dummy tit on which you suck in you own idolatrous little world, but it pleases you so we'll just leave it at that. Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew? Were you born a bigot or did you go on a course?I would be better off asking a dog than a bigot like you would I not Elsie?
We, myself included , need to be walking in God ‘s revealed will, found clearly in scripture, so that we are more sensitive to the Holy Spirit as we read His word. I’m confident that many of our disputes are the result of us getting in the way of the Holy Spirits leading.
There is no curing you idolaters of your idolatry is there?You don't give a flying fcuk that you are pissing on one of the more important commandments do you?
1:00:51 They are written in the same style etc. They use the waw-consecutive. Now to be precise, the waw-consecutive is indicative of narrative. It may be used in non-historical narrative, but it is not used in poetical texts. I think that is was dr Lisle meant, but this short section may give the impression that the waw-consecutive in and of itself indicates historical narrative. In order to determine whether or not the narrative is historical, the waw-consecutive is not enough but there needs to be more, which there, of course, is in Genesis 1-11.
Hi Eli. Your interviews are about the best I've come across fur a range of reasons. But may I humbly suggest something which I'm sure you practice, but could be improved on for an even more effective and God honouring outcome. In your discussion with Jason Lisle on the historical Adam, a number of times your own thoughts got the better of you and you cut short what Jason was seeking to explain with your own thoughts and observations. Albeit in connection with what Jason was explaining. May I suggest that you put your thoughts or observations on hold til it's clear that the interviewee has finished making his point. One of a number of advantages in consciously seeking to do this is that it allows the interviewee to feel unrushed and unpressured in assembling and verbalising what he's seeking to say. All that said, Bro Eli, I thank God for you and your insightful interviews. And may our God Bless you and Use you Mightily in your labours of Love in Him. Our All. 😊 - bro russ fanebust, Sydney, Australia.
I’ve enjoyed much of your content, but when I heard you say you were a Calvinist I was stunned. I don’t think you will ever do it, but if you would look at Leighton Flowers or Steve Gregg’s websites concerning Calvinism it might help inform you. For a man who has spent his adult life trying to inform others on the subject of taking the Bible seriously, if you don’t look at at least one of these men’s websites, that would be a shame.
BTW the repentance that God grants in 2 Tim. 2:24-26 is conditional on the response of the sinner who is being corrected by a Christian and who is captive by the devil, "And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."
There is no curing you idolaters of your idolatry is there?You don't give a flying fcuk whether or not you are breaking one of the more important commandments do you? Bigotry is like religion it stupefies. You*are* a bigot are you not?
There*are_no* christians just as there are no stand-on-their-own-shoulders_ians. If you imagine you have the ingredients required to be a christian, you are mistaken
I'm Orthodox. The Church teaches a historical Adam, and original sin, while not inherited, affects us all because of Adam's fall. Original sin is a RESULT of the fall, rather than a punishment for what another person did during their lifetime. Original sin affects us all, but an innocent infant is not blood guilty at birth for Adam's sin. Baptism is washing for purification, dedicating the child to God.
Actually, Orthodoxy teaches Ancestral Sin, rather than western Original Sin. We suffer the effects of Adam's failure to follow God's warning, rather than being guilty of Adam's transgression. It's a nuanced difference from western juridical views of sin.
*Which* church teaches a historical Adam? What is the difference between a historical Adam and any other Adam? Adam who?-Smith? You have*absolutely_no* ide, have you?
The autistic are like that, and it is *screamingly_obvious that the bigot Lisle is autistic; it would not surprise me if the poor creature's causes or parent or one of them is autistic.
Great discussion around WLC's book. I have to agree with your conclusions Dr. Lisle. More than this, your theology is spot on re the radical/total depravity of humans. We are born dead in sin and are in need of a Savior, not merely a doctor.
You-yes you titch sent Paul did you?"us"being you and which specific identifiable interlocutor . in which specific text does Paul use the word" bible"? You just thought to to yourself 'fcuk it why not lie' non-one will know did you not little Miss. Pantsonfire?
We are the descendants of the grandsons and great grandsons of Noah that were actually named. Ever hear of Asher? He is the father of the Assyrians (G). How about Aram? The father of the Arameans (F). Elam? Elamites (H). Cush Cushites (E3 M35 V6 M281), Phut early Phoenicians (E3 L19), Mitzrayim Egypt (E3 M78), Tiras Thracians (L), Gomer Europeans (R), Madai Medes (Q), Ancient Italy Tubal (K), Canaan Canaanites (E3 Z830), Arphaxad Hebrews and Arabic (I&J), Lud Lydians (F2), Meshek Siberians (N), Magog Asia (O), Javan is the Ancient Greek Mediterranean sea people (T). How about learning some human history people? You can’t make up known human history. It’s the only history there is. Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them like I just did and give you each of their haplogroups!
@@kathleennorton7913 I do have a channel and an updated version of the Table of Nations. My “religion” is truth. If it’s not true, I don’t want any part of it. The geology that we have of a number of mega sequences of consecutive water deposited sediment layers over a mile deep with fossils in them around the world on every continent necessitates a global flood catastrophe. I know that hurts the belief of every other made up alternate narrative. It just happens to be a fact that we are all the descendants of those who stepped off of the Ark in the area around Mesopotamia. You can’t argue with known human history or ancient calendars going back only 5,000 years. The ancient civilizations are all descended from Noah who had sixteen grandsons that became the sixteen ancient the civilizations each with their own paternal haplogroup lineage. The Bible is the only text that outlines the following Table of Nations. 1) Tubal Italy K, 2) Javan Greek sea people T, 3) Tiras Thracians L, 4) Magog Asian O, 5) Meshek Siberians N, 6) Madai Medes Q, 7) Gomer Europeans R, 8) Arphaxad Arabs Hebrews I&J, 9) Elam Elamites H, 10) Asshur Assyrians G, 11) Aram Arameans F 12) Lud Lydians F2, 13) Cush Cushites A B & C. 14) Phut early Phoenicians E1, 15) Canaan Canaanites E2, 16) Mitzrayim Egyptians E3, D is likely the Sinite tribe from Canaan. C is the descendants of Nimrod since they can’t possibly be from anyone else. Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them like I just did and give you each of their haplogroups! The evolutionary out of Africa claim is exactly backwards since the *oldest* progenitor is Japheth the ancestor of Eurasians then the Semitic populations of Shem and then the Hamitic African is the youngest progenitor with their eldest sons connecting the three different families descended from the three sons of Noah. It took me a while to understand that the evolutionary claim is assuming that SNP markers are being gained forming the stair steps out of Africa when *the reality is* that the original SNP markers cited are in fact being lost forming the opposite stair steps out of West Asia as known human history shows. The stair step out of Africa claim has to be addressed because the SNP markers are *real* evidence but the evolutionary assumption is exactly backwards. The correct view requires that the older most original genomes of the Japhethites be connected to the Semitics by way of the eldest son of Shem which is Arphaxad (IJ). Arphaxad’s descendants can share the (IJK) SNP marker with the descendants of his uncle Japheth while the descendants of his younger brothers do not share that same (IJK) SNP. You have to root the tree with Japheth the oldest son of Noah and then the oldest son of Shem (IJ Arphaxad) and then Elam and then Asshur and then the youngest brothers Aram and Lud. So you have to begin with the *most original* Y chromosome of Noah’s oldest son Japheth and then the changes occur in the people who were born later. It’s not necessarily a stair step of descendency. It’s changes in the Y chromosome with time. *Arphaxad isn’t descended from Japheth.* He just shares a marker with his uncle that his father used to have when he was born. Shem then lost the marker when Arphaxad’s younger brothers were born. The descendants of Shem are then connected to the descendants of Ham by way of Nimrod the King (C) the the eldest son of Cush who is the eldest son of Ham. So the Hamitic CF (xD&E) paternal haplogroup SNP marker was lost to the *odd ones out* and less original younger brothers and cousins verifying the Table of Nations outlined in Genesis.💥 Learn the Bible before trying to learn anything else. It’s also noteworthy that the D paternal haplogroup lines up with the E2 haplogroup of Canaan which is his son’s tribe of Sinim the Biblical namesake of China. So the only Hamitic haplogroups outside of Africa are the C of Nimrod and the D of the Canaanite tribe of Sinim which is still there in Andaman, Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese areas today.
@@Calatriste54 My “religion” is truth. If it’s not true, I don’t want any part of it. The geology that we have of a number of mega sequences of consecutive water deposited sediment layers over a mile deep with fossils in them around the world on every continent necessitates a global flood catastrophe. I know that hurts the belief of every other made up alternate narrative. It just happens to be a fact that we are all the descendants of those who stepped off of the Ark in the area around Mesopotamia. You can’t argue with known human history or ancient calendars going back only 5,000 years. The ancient civilizations are all descended from Noah who had sixteen grandsons that became the sixteen ancient the civilizations each with their own paternal haplogroup lineage. The Bible is the only text that outlines the following Table of Nations. 1) Tubal Italy K, 2) Javan Greek sea people T, 3) Tiras Thracians L, 4) Magog Asian O, 5) Meshek Siberians N, 6) Madai Medes Q, 7) Gomer Europeans R, 8) Arphaxad Arabs Hebrews I&J, 9) Elam Elamites H, 10) Asshur Assyrians G, 11) Aram Arameans F 12) Lud Lydians F2, 13) Cush Cushites A B & C. 14) Phut early Phoenicians E1, 15) Canaan Canaanites E2, 16) Mitzrayim Egyptians E3, D is likely the Sinite tribe from Canaan. C is the descendants of Nimrod since they can’t possibly be from anyone else. Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them like I just did and give you each of their haplogroups! The evolutionary out of Africa claim is exactly backwards since the *oldest* progenitor is Japheth the ancestor of Eurasians then the Semitic populations of Shem and then the Hamitic African is the youngest progenitor with their eldest sons connecting the three different families descended from the three sons of Noah. It took me a while to understand that the evolutionary claim is assuming that SNP markers are being gained forming the stair steps out of Africa when *the reality is* that the original SNP markers cited are in fact being lost forming the opposite stair steps out of West Asia as known human history shows. The stair step out of Africa claim has to be addressed because the SNP markers are *real* evidence but the evolutionary assumption is exactly backwards. The correct view requires that the older most original genomes of the Japhethites be connected to the Semitics by way of the eldest son of Shem which is Arphaxad (IJ). Arphaxad’s descendants can share the (IJK) SNP marker with the descendants of his uncle Japheth while the descendants of his younger brothers do not share that same (IJK) SNP. You have to root the tree with Japheth the oldest son of Noah and then the oldest son of Shem (IJ Arphaxad) and then Elam and then Asshur and then the youngest brothers Aram and Lud. So you have to begin with the *most original* Y chromosome of Noah’s oldest son Japheth and then the changes occur in the people who were born later. It’s not necessarily a stair step of descendency. It’s changes in the Y chromosome with time. *Arphaxad isn’t descended from Japheth.* He just shares a marker with his uncle that his father used to have when he was born. Shem then lost the marker when Arphaxad’s younger brothers were born. The descendants of Shem are then connected to the descendants of Ham by way of Nimrod the King (C) the the eldest son of Cush who is the eldest son of Ham. So the Hamitic CF (xD&E) paternal haplogroup SNP marker was lost to the *odd ones out* and less original younger brothers and cousins verifying the Table of Nations outlined in Genesis.💥 Learn the Bible before trying to learn anything else. It’s also noteworthy that the D paternal haplogroup lines up with the E2 haplogroup of Canaan which is his son’s tribe of Sinim the Biblical namesake of China. So the only Hamitic haplogroups outside of Africa are the C of Nimrod and the D of the Canaanite tribe of Sinim which is still there in Andaman, Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese areas today.
I do not understand why it is controversial. The literal plain reading of Genesis 1 through Genesis 11 is the way God would have all to read it. Drop the mic.
What is the difference between "the historical Adam and any other Adam? dOoes that Lisle dolt not understand that bigotry and Christianity are incompatible, but since he is no christian it hardly matters.
If only you had some slight a idea either what a scientist is or what a philosopher is, but you are about to demonstrate that you have not the faintest ide
The difference between a(whatever you mean by but have not the faintest idea)" scientist" and a philosopher being.....? You have not the faintest idea? No surprises there
Essentially the line of proof here is: Adam must be true, otherwise our faith isn´t. Well, everyone with one working brain cell would call this the fallacy of wishful thinking.
What does"Adam must be true" *m-e-a-n*? Are *you* true? I would be better off asking a dog than you little Elsie bigot, would I not? Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
No need to defend the Bible. I'm glad that Dr. Lyle does and does so in such an intellectual and inerrant manner but the truth is we do not need to defend the Bible, our beliefs and our God to anyone. Why? Because the unbelieving secularist cannot understand nor believe what the holy spirit has shown and put into the hearts of God's children.
Help me with this please: Were I to wish to be able to identify "*The*" Bible* how might I go about discovering which bible is"*The"*bible given that bible is merely a cognate o book.What makes*"The"* bible *"The"* bible and who gets to decid which o billions or trillions of books is *"The"* bible? You have not the faintest idea? *No*surprises there. Having(which you do ned to do do you not?) looked up the meaning of bigot, would you describe your self as a bigot? You need to look up bigot do you not?
I question whether Dr. Lisle can maintain a consistent Biblical epistemology. The Bible teaches that the stars are set in a heavenly firmament, which is incompatible with observation.
This you are thinking of; "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." and this? "14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." I do not think he reads into these verses what you read into them or he would have the problem you say. Modern interpretion is that ancient jews thought of the sky as a shell around the earth. If one believes the bible is not form God, that understanding is relevant.
Areyou a blood Jew or a religious Jew? You clearly have no idea what epistemology meas Yhere is no such thing as" biblical epistemology, but being entirely innocent of ay wits or learning, you would not be able to understand that. If you have *absolutely_no*ide what a word means it is probably best not to use it- biblical epistemology my arse.
You clearly have *absolutely_no* idea what epistemology means if you suppose there to be a what-you-call " biblical epistemology. There is.... no..... such.... thing as "biblical epistemology. You Elsies were best advised not to use words with with the meaning of which you are wholly unfamiliar, but if you really wish to display your pignorance, that is, of course entirely a matter for you. Is it not plain to you that Lisle is some sort of idiot savant - autistic?
There is no such thing as "Biblical epistemology.If you don't know what epostemology ir what the word means, don't use it Lilse is an half-witted autistic bigot- the former not his fault the latter also he cannot help-the dolt thinks he gets brownie points for being a bigot and his handicap- autism may well contribute to that, it being neither a sword nor a shield,but on any view the poor creature is somehow retarded
It is so myopic to assume what we understand as science today is "settled" and extremely detrimental to a Christian worldview. Follow the understanding of the atom from the time it was first defined by the ancient Greeks until now and then consider how your view of scripture would have to change to account for new understandings throughout history. It's not good.
You reprsent the "Christian worldview" do you? What exactly*Is* "Christian worldview"? Whatever you say it is? How can there be a " Christian worldview" when there*are_no* christians exactly has there are no able to stand-on-their-own-shoulders_ians and for exactly the same reason.
@@wealthyking3189 Yea he ate his own head sandwiched between two unicorns, wherafter he buggered fifty centaurs. Have you got your EDR Earliest Date of Release from the lunatic asylum yet?
Sadly, ‘scholars’ like Jason think ‘their interpretation has to be the ONLY possible, when he gives exceptions to his own fundamental interpretation. Jason misunderstands Dr. Craig’s point throughout, sadly, showing his devotion to presup-silliness than truth…sad display of what is wrong with presuppers
Seems like you have a postmodernism point of view, like Dr. Lisle said, there can only be one correct interpretation because the author only had one meaning of the text. How can we know? Rules of hermeneutics.
@@Nobleeagle100 which rules are you referring to, and where might I find those rules in Scripture? And are you suggesting fallible humans can come up with infallible rules that lead to infallible interpretations?
Why even call yourself a Christian? If you're not even going to believe the Bible and try to fit utter nonsense into it to try and suck up the God-haters why not just go all the way? 🤦♂️
5:30 Jason was Adam's body - that God says was created from the dust of the earth - designed to last forever, meaning it would never die? In other words was death of the physical body caused by Adam's sin or was it rather eternal death - from which no return is possible (without a resurrection) - that was brought about due to sin? Is it accurate to say Adam's mortal earthly body was created as a temporary vehicle that, had no sin taken place, would've been replaced - perhaps after lasting a thousand years - with a spiritual body composed of an eternal substance in the same way those in Christ at his return will be changed in a twinkling of an eye from flesh to spirit?
Jason was chief argonaut titch. You just make thesethings up as you go along to you not? Now that you have looked up bigot-which you must must you not, would you describe yourself a proud bigot? Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
For Dr. Lisle...If there was some evidence that convinced him the universe is more than 10K years old, would that disprove the Christian God, because his revelation would be wrong? Let's say we meet an alien race from a nearby star and they have video recordings from up to 100K years ago. Dr Lisle would have to update his "interpretation" of Genesis after all he has a sinful nature.
If only you had some isea what " the universe" is or could set out what you seek to convey when you use the word"the universe", but you are about to demonstrate that you have*absolutely_no* idea what you seek to vonvey by the words " the universe, and clearly lack the wits to be able to ferap that iniversals can only be imaginary/Craig vey bighght but clings to the ideas that the god fantssy is insome way relrevant to christianity but he may well understand that idolatry and Christianity are incompatible and is not an half-witted bigot like that imbecile bigot Lisle
What exactly do you seek to convey when you use the words "the universe"? Depending on how you answer that to speak of the universe as having an age or beginning is oxymoronic, but given the the universe can only be a species of universal it can those can only beimagined- nmore than image/idea that cannot be directly immediately personally experience*other_than* as an idea or image or creature of the associative/dreaming apparatus or function or mind.
@@vhawk1951kl When I say "universe" I mean our time/space bubble. When I say "reality", I mean all that exists. There could be another kind of time besides our time. There could be another kind of space besides our space. The Big Bang is just a point we have no method yet to look beyond. My best guess for the foundation of reality is quantum fields (not conscious). Our universe is just a manifestation of quantum fields. Secondly, if you add the property of consciousness to the foundation of reality, you are adding an arbitrary and unnecessary property. Consciousness adds no extra explanatory power.
@@gabrielteo3636 You wrote” when I say "yhe universe" I mean our time/space bubble. When I say "reality", I mean all that exists. There could be another kind of time besides our time. There could be another kind of space besides our space. The Big Bang is just a point we have no method yet to look beyond. My best guess for the foundation of reality is quantum fields (not conscious). Our universe Boil that (not one word of which you understand) down what it comes to is x=y-x where neither x nor y is defined or ascribed any value you simply substitute one unknown for another.-the only question is whether or noy it is clear to you that that is what do you did “all that exists” like any universal can only be imaginary You clearly have no idea what you mean by universe reality or space time bubble which are x’s which you say mean y mean x-the formal term for which is circularity or begging the question-you merely substitute one meaningless term for another You and some unspecified other (“our”) seemingly have something called a space time bubble, which would not by any chance be a six foot tall invisible-to-all-but-you rabbit called Harvey would it? You clearly have no idea what the word” conscious” means nor what you seek to convey when you use it;I doubt you have any Latin but who knows? How exactly do you-yes You* experience your famous” space time bubble? What have I discovered? You have no idea what you mean by universe reality or space time bubble all of which -like “all that exists”can only be imaginaryand even less if idea what you mean by conscious Question is can you understand that universals *can_only*be imaginary by whch I mean cannot be directly immediately personally experienced save as idea cim imacum concepy in the dreaming/associative apparatus or function in which it is*Image_ined, or in simpler terms x you may experience but *All* x’s *can only* be an idea or image- it is axiomatic that you cannot experience all x’s. Thus universals can_*only* be imaginary(cannot be directly immediately personally experienced) QE D. By an huge irony when you say "reality", you mean what can only be imaginary[all that exists]-which can_only* be imaginary it being axiomatic that you cannot directly immediately personally experience all-that-exists-for the screaming obvious reason that it can only be imaginary albeit that particular instances of it(some x’s) can be experienced. Your famous” Big Bang” is your_own* experience or invention. You having experienced it when and where? You have no better idea of when you mean by “ exist” than you have the universe, space time bubble or reality-[nor the slightest idea of what it is about reality that makes it real[ nor what real or exist means and no better idea of the meaning of the words that you parrot than a parrot has. All you have done is jumble together x’s and ‘ys in a meaningless formula x=y=x , where neither x nor y is defined or ascribe any value, which is simply substituting one unknown for another unknown, and by a twist of irony define reality by reference to something that *can_only* be imaginary What the devil is a space time bubble and exactly how and when did you - yes You* experience it? In fact how could you I or anyone experience a space time bubble unless(as I am beginning to suspect) it is a six foot tall invisible-to-all-but-you rabbit called Harvey In sum : You have no idea for conscious reality, the universe space time bubble all of which are as interchangeable as they are imaginary, or let us say that you tell me that x=y =x where neither x nor y are defined or ascribed a value Why not just tell the truth and say in plain terms that you have *absolutely_no idea wht you mean by real, conscious or the universe? It is far better than intellectual algebra or x=y=x where one unknown is defined in terms of other unknowns aka circularity or the fallacy begging the question. Make is easier for yourself and address this question what in particular is it about what-you-call” reality” that *makes it real of realityand reality for whom unless you sre one of that select band that suppose that there is something to which you/they are not privy called reality. Had you any Latin the meaning of conscious would be plain to you but semingly you don’t , so it isn’t The queer thing about men (human beings/dreaming machines ) is that they mechanically-automatically assume that because they have the word, they necessarily understand or have its meaning.
There’s about as many arguments in favour of a young earth (please note I didn’t say evidence) as there are for a flat earth. Get together and listen to the rest of the world population laugh. “Young Earth” which would by definition open the front door to a god another thing you have no evidence for, so you you try the back door.
Look up the fallacy argumentum ad populum' and see if you can understand *Why* it is a fallacy. the supposition that there is a democracy of truth Aka argumentum is one of the hallmarks of an Elsie-one the witles Lower Classes(L C ), but the whole thing about the Elsies that they simply cannot understand that there is no democracy of truth, cannot understand that it is *irrelevant* to the truth or otherwise of X how_many* people suppose X to be true or otherwise; it is a sort of shibboleth for weeding out the witless Elsies
@@CR-yd4qe The significance of 4 billion years being? Why do you raving lunatics give a flying fcuk *how* old the t is ? If you had any more wits than a dog you would realise that *any*any* length of time older than your attention span is completely and utterly m-e-a-i-n-i-n-g-l-e-s, but I would be better off addressing a dog than a bigot like you would I not? You are a proud bigot are you not? It is simply gibberish to speak of a an old or a young earth but I do not expect a dog cum imbecile child yo understand that or the fallacy of begging the question Take my advice if you abuse those asinine and infantile symbols*as_if* you were an imbecile child, and...... you..... *do*, you must *expect* to be take for the imbecile child which you clearly are. Who knows may be you are as autistic as that cretinous bigot Lisle who is clearly labouring under an handicap possibly the same handicap as you. You needed to look up bigot did you not?Now you know you *are* a bigot do you not? Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew? No, matter you are clearly a bigot and an idolater as well as labouring under an handicap.You certainly have no higher learning possibly a degree; that much is *screamingly_obvious* thus I would be better off addressing a dog than you. Idon't give a flying fcuk *how* old the earth is, but on any view *not* that of a dog or imbecile child it is *screamingly_ obviously* several millions of years old simply as a matter of common sense with which you autistic bigots have clearly parted company.How old *do* you raving lunatics suppose the earth to be? A day, a week, couple of months, an hour and a half? - what? But I would be better off a dressing a dog than you would I not?
Hoe could you-an ephemeral creature know anything a bout "thousands of years ago" or anything pre-Now? Who told you that "everything in the area originated at Sumer thousands years ago.."and why do you believe them? I would avoid universals were I you, given that they can *only* be imaginary, but then you are entirely innocent of any sort of intellectual accomplishment or ability are you not? Yes, it *is* that obvious.
*What leads you to suppose that *anyone* can*Be* a christian? You could no more be a christian that you can fly, particularly when you have * absolutely_no* idea what i means to be a christian, nor could you possibly find out given that any tradition that there may have been of Christianity can only be extinct, it having become extinct with the death of the last pupil of a pupil of a pupil of the founder who is vey dead indeed. but I would ne correct to say that you have no more any idea of what a tradition is or what the word tradition means than you have a degree or any form of higher learning would I not?
So you not" believe_in" atoms electrons and particles (all of which are plainly imaginary?Does your religion scientism not compel or require you to believe in that of which you have no direct imediste personal experience exactly as the goddist loons must believe_in their god thing whatever that may be? Is not the fact of the matter that you have *absolutely_no idea* what you mean by science and are about yo demonstrate that?
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28 KJV Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 KJV Jesus loves you repent You're a sinner in need of a Savior That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 KJV
In the end, his beliefs are not based on evidence, but in the face of evidence simply because he wants them to be true. This is not the attitude of a scientist.
Yeah, they have it all backwards. It’s all conformation bias, cherry picking, deliberate misunderstanding, outright ignorance,… They’re awful people because they’re so deceitful, which, in turn is pretty funny considering they’re supposed to be Christians.
48:40 "We're the ones who brought sin and death into the world" Bullshit. God SENT sin and death into the world through Adam and Eve. God knew they would eat the fruit before he made them.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Dr. Lisle has tried to do that in other places and in his books, so I think he understands the importance of starting an argument at the beginning. Secondly, there is a difference between proof and persuasion. An argument can sufficiently prove a conclusion without being persuasive to certain people (this may be due to the fact that either, the argument presented is fallacious, or the person’s presuppositions prevent them from agreeing to the conclusion). Lastly, the primary purpose of this discussion is to talk about the historical Adam, so I am having trouble understanding the foundation of your question. Clarification would be helpful so I can follow where you are coming from. -Thanks:)
@@RevealedApologetics " Historical Adam " has exactly ZERO Historical supporting evidence. Doubt that? Then cite the requirements for historical accuracy and list the ones that can apply to Adam. Fairly simple actually.
"creation"being supposed to mean..... .....You have not the faintest idea? Why might you - a creature entirely innocent of wits and learning have any semantic or philological skills have any idea of what it seeks to convey by create or creation thus I be better off as asking a dog than duch a creature as that, would I not? He's an idea you run along and ask someone_else what *you* mean by "create"given that you have*absolutely_no* idea
Do you know which cultures don't have flood myths? Those in areas that don't experience flooding. Hmmmmm... And of course, Babylonia flood myths long predate the Hebrew food myth. Hmmm....
@@cygnusustus From my understanding, even deserts with no rivers flood. I would think that all cultures would be aware of flooding, but I may be wrong.
@@williambillycraig1057 ...and yet not all cultures have flood myths. The obvious truth is that floods are extremely common, and mythology often exaggerates the size of common physical phenomena to make them seem more powerful or threatening, so it is really unsurprising that flood myths are common. It is ridiculous to conclude they are all referring to a single global flood. Obviously they are not.
@@cygnusustus, I see your point; it is a good one. Time should be spent identifying coming themes in them and then seeing if one could establish a link to the Genesis account.
So God created Adam and Eve, denied them the knowledge of good and evil, told them they would die the very day they ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (which didn't happen btw and not sure how they would have known what death even was if they had no experience with death), either wasn't aware of when the serpent was tempting Eve or just let it happen for fun and then punished them for what he must have known was going to happen if he really is omniscient. And you think this story is real and that it doesn't make your God look like an idiot or like the world's worst parent?! I will never understand grown adults that believe this complete and utter nonsense.
The story of Adam and Eve(apart from being a guess at solving the chicken/egg problem) is clearly a warning by the writers of genesis against being the salve of the functions -it is a warning against all that good/evil,right/wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo which springs from the emotional(like/dislike function) Good =likeable, and right=likeable Evil=dislikeable and wrong=dislikeable Liking and disliking are thus the fruit of the tree ofthe*K-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e* of good and evil- characterising what is and cannot be different as goo-likeable or evil-dislikeable or wrong-dislikeable I f you will the moral or essential thrust of the tale is a warning *A-g-a-i-n-s-t* morality/ethics or all that normative ought/should right/wrong mumbo jumbo which causes so much trouble in this world and it is clearly written tongue-in-cheek because it has talking snakes and mister god taking s stroll-which are *So* ludicrous that they can only mean this..... is.... allegory not to be taken literally Think about it what *could* the fruit of the tree of the *k-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e-* of good and evil possibly be if it is *not* all that good/evil, right/wrong. Morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo that cause so much trouble?
@@cygnusustus Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
I always crack up laughing when Calvinists talk about how people don't understand logic and that they should be teaching young people how to use logic and that they have written books on logic when their entire doctrinal theology is a morass of contradiction, inconsistency and incoherency!!! rotfl!
Wow coming back and reading this guys comment again I think I actually cringed worse than the first time even! 😖😵🤦♂️ If anyone needed to just shutup and stop "rotfl" at his own perceived brilliance and of course that genius and totally sound refutal of Dr. Lisle he actually posted for two seconds even, so maybe he could actually learn something from Dr. Lisle about logic ... (and/or adult maturity) .... its this guy to a tee! 😜😂
GOD who knows all things cannot create possible worlds, but whatever he ordains comes to pass, yet knowing Adam would exercise his free will to chose to disobey.
@@danielmann5427 And He knew what Adam would have freely chosen, because He decreed it by His will. Otherwise, He would have had to learn what Adam would do, thus negating His omniscience.
Ithink Craig understands that The story of Adam and Eve(apart from being a guess at solving the chicken/egg problem) is clearly a warning by the writers of genesis against being the slave of the functions -it is a warning against all that goood/evil,right/wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo which springs from the emotional(like/dislike function) Good =likeable, and right=likeable Evil=dislikeable and wrong=dislikeable Liking and disliking as thus the fruit of the tree of the*K-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e* of good and evil- characterising what is and cannot be different as goo-likeable or evil-dislikeable or wrong-dislikeable If you will the moral or essential thrust of the tale is a warning *A-g-a-i-n-s-t* morality/ethics or all that normative ought/should right/wrong mumbo jumbo which causes so much trouble in this world and it is clearly written tongue-in-cheek because it has talking snakes and mister god taking s stroll-which are so ludicrous that they can only mean this..... is.... allegory not to be taken literally Think about it what could the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil possibly be if it is *not* all that good/evil, right/wrong. Morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo that cause so much trouble?
So Jesus created Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and now Putin, and every murderer in the world who are all without sin, according to this Dr. Lisle. "He alleviated this problem". Does he listen to himself?
"(Craig) has accepted uncritically the secular teachings about origins (based on scientific research)" Dr. Lisle has accepted uncritically the rambling mythology of ignorant barbaric superstitious bronze-age goat herders. If I had to accept one of these uncritically (fortunately I do not, and neither does Craig), I would go with Craig every time on this. Because I am an intelligent rational person.
An intelligent and rational person would realize the statement that the Bible was written by "ignorant barbaric superstitious bronze-age goat herders" is an example of chronological snobbery. If you do not like the scientific understanding of the day, wait a while, it will change. What is seen as solid scientific facts today may do a 180 shortly. One day scientists say the Universe is eternal; the next, they say it had a beginning. One day a Darwinian view of molecules to man evolution is the standard; next, a Neo-Darwinian view is preferred. Now the Neo-Darwinian evolution of molecules to man has fallen out of favor with no other natural mechanism to take its place. Are we are living in a real-world, or are we virtual beings existing in a virtual world. While we should keep the progress of science moving forward, we should reframe throwing stones from our glasshouse; we may be surprised to find out how little we truly know.
@@williambillycraig1057 An intelligent person would realize that the statement that the Bible was written by "ignorant barbaric superstitious bronze-age goat herders is factually true. A foolish person would make up an term like "chronological snobbery" as an ad hominem dismissal. "Now the Neo-Darwinian evolution of molecules to man has fallen out of favor" Nope. Darwinian evolution is still the bedrock of biology. Your ignorance of science does not refute science.
@@cygnusustus Julian Barnes, an atheist, turned agnostic, would disagree with you in his book Nothing to Be Frightened Of. In his book, he writes "...although we are more informed, we are no more evolved, and certainly no more intelligent than them. What convinces us our knowledge is so final?" We are all ignorant. Sadly, only a few people are aware of their ignorance; they do not know what they do not know. I hope you grow in wisdom and knowledge.
@@williambillycraig1057 "Julian Barnes, an atheist, turned agnostic, would disagree with you in his book Nothing to Be Frightened Of. " Please let Julie know that I couldn't give a flying flock. And I never claimed our knowledge was final, so that was a pretty pointless reference. The irony is that the religious are the ones claiming absolute knowledge. Not the skeptics. Not the atheists. "Sadly, only a few people are aware of their ignorance" Typically that group is dominated by scientists, and theists are drastically underrepresented. "I hope you grow in wisdom and knowledge." I always am. You should try it. Got anything else, or was that it?
@@cygnusustus, I think you missed the point. You stated that the biblical writers were "ignorant barbaric superstitious bronze-age goat herders." My use of a non-Christain author was to show that people who speak openly against religion in general and Christianity directly disagree with your chronological snobbery. His thoughts on our ancestors are decidedly different than yours. So while you and Julian Barnes may agree on much, Barnes stands against you on this. I did not quote him to prove you wrong, only to show you that there are on your side that does not disparage our predecessors as you seem to do. According to Barnes, the way he came to this was not "because I've acquired more knowledge in the meantime: just more awareness of ignorance." So, as I said in my last thread, I am ignorant; I try to overcome ignorance by listening to others and understanding their arguments. I have had good conversations with some atheists in the past; when I interact with these, they usually have good reasons for not believing, along with good arguments against religion. But sadly, this is the minority of dialogs, but I know that many Christians fall into this trolling category as well. I hope I am wrong, but I get the feeling that you may fall into the trolling category. I say this due to your last sentence where you quote me saying, "I hope you grow in wisdom and knowledge." You responded by saying, "I always am. You should try it." This will be my last update on this thread; I do not think this will be a productive conversation. If I had to guess how you will respond, I would say it will be with some snarky remark; but I hope not. I do want to say that I have agreed with one of your arguments on flooding. You did make a good point, and I acknowledged that in the thread. I say this to show that I do not care about winning arguments but easing my ignorance. I hope you continue in your growth of knowledge and wisdom.
