The Scriptures are Truth. You are Esau from the Caucasians=Cave Dwellers.
The Negroes are the Israelites=Judah of Jacob seed. and there are 11 more tribes of Jacob whom share the seed of Jacob. It's your right to believe how you well please, but know this Giants where of the world, You want science to give you proof. We know we die right? do you need a scientist to give you evidence on death ? Scriptures are coming to pass your findings are not! However you believe in Wealth??? Bye ESAU.
@QaraahFilms The observation of our death can be related subconsciously in our mind loosely through the Scientific Method through Observation and Understanding. Even if Scientists didn't exist; It would not give any more credulity to the claims of the bible. Postulating something that is unproven and not based in reality is not a good enough explanation.
For years we didn't understand what a Rainbow was, so people just said "God did it" Yet is this a good enough answer?
If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then why did Gleason Archer feel the need to write a 476 page book entitled 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties' in order to try and explain away the many contradictions and discrepancies within it?
The existence of Christian Apologists signals a failure of the central tenants of Christianity - that an infinitely intelligent Supreme Being directed the writing of the Bible. Consider this: The works of Shakespeare contain over 880,000 words – more words than in the Bible. Writings containing some of the most profound insights into the human condition ever penned. Yet, there is no cadre of apologists explaining the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors in Shakespeare’s works.
@apeek7 Should it necessarily be the case that every person should instantly have an understanding and acceptance of all truths? Knowledge of truth is taught and learned, and there's no reason to expect that any particular true claim will not have to be defended against various attacks.
@JWHurwitz Defending a position is quite different from explaining away errors and inconsistencies... Either bats are birds or the Bible is in error. Either the mustard is the smallest of seeds or Jesus (God) doesn’t know what he is talking about. Either you should kill a disrespectful child (Leviticus 20:9) or you should kill a disrespectful child per Jesus (Mark 7:9-13)…
@apeek7 Should it necessarily be the case that every person should instantly have an understanding and acceptance of all truths? Knowledge of truth is taught and learned, and there's no reason to expect that any particular true claim will not have to be defended against various attacks.
@pakleglia i tried to send you a message but you have it blocked,,why? Lets look at what you said. First you stated [I don't need to prove there is no god, the burden of proof is on you to prove there IS a god.] Why do I need to prove there is a God. Read Gen. 1:1,,, I cannot prove that God did that, I cant prove that Jesus is God, but I choose to believe that. God's word has always been and has never been changed. Why do you believe in richard? If you want to debate, unlock your messages.
@pakleglia That is an exceptional choice of words,, parroting. Did you learn that from brett or thunder what ever his name is, or did you do your on reasearch. Look,, maybe you will be the first to answer this one question,, What is the real proof that makes you believe the way you do? What if you are wrong?
the description and video explain exactly how i take the bible in discussing it with christians. i still get 'if you don't really believe it, why do you think it says that?'
If it did happen, it probably was an algal bloom. The whole blood thing was probably a human misunderstanding of the event, hence we can assume that the bible was written by humans.
@mousaey IF the event happened at all (or is a story based upon something like an algal bloom that was witnessed without any connection to an "exodus"), I completely agree with you. THIS is the conclusion one should draw from reading such stories in the Bible.
I really enjoyed a lot of your videos, but not this one.
It takes you 7 minutes to say that you take the bible literally (without believing in it). If you ignore any other interpretation as "not serious" you may be missing out on a lot of things... Even if you don't believe it is inspired by god.
@MARI0LAND Yes, I understand where you're coming from and certainly there are a number of ways in which one can approach the Scriptures. However, my point here is of rewriting the Bible in order to make it align with certain worldviews. For example, not taking the Bible seriously when it says "blood" filled the Nile and assert instead that it was an algal bloom in order to try and "explain" what the story "really meant." Under who's authority do such apologists operate? Largely, their own.
thats the trouble with 'intepretation' by admitting things in the bible are wrong you are making a mockery of your entire beleif system becuase you are admitting in the future you will probably say what your saying now is also wrong.
It makes you insincere. At least reliegous fundamentalist lunatics are sincere.
I disagree here. Admitting your errors is a virtue which allows understanding and progress, and any honest pursuit of the truth will necessarily be littered with those histories of errors. To me, what makes apologists interpretations so incredulous and hollow is the lack of reasoning when logic is neutered by language which is not held accountable to collectively agreed upon definitions. At that point it's basically a Rorschach test for whatever morality/opinion you want to justify.
Well, I was not there at the time, but science has pretty well proved that the Universe had a beginning. Alan Guth (developer of the Inflationary Universe Model), Alex Vilenkin (developer of the Quantum Creation model) and Arvind Borde (professor at Tufts) published an article on the subject through MIT called "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete". In it they prove that the Universe had a beginning.
@robertvroom On page 176 of his book “Many Worlds in One” Vilenkin states, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Guth has called the Universe “The Ultimate Free Lunch. “
@robertvroom You can watch Roger Penrose talk about his new theory for the beginning of the Universe at watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0/ He really starts talking about this at about 5:00. This video shows the length cosmologists are going to to avoid the problem of an absolute beginning.
Why would God be considered unnatural? Supernatural sure, but not unnatural. Of course if the theist is correct, God created everything, so everything has a supernatural cause.
@robertvroom This question of course assumes that the Universe permits life strictly by chance, life had a natural cause (this has been shown to be hugely improbable as well), the theory of evolution is correct about evolution being unguided, that there were no miracles… We also need to ask the question of which is more likely, that the Universe began to exist from absolute nothingness or that there was an intelligence that started everything?
I take the scientist view very seriously,,, especially when they say 15 billion years ago something in the universe compressed to the size of a small ball then exploded,,, or 4.5 billion years ago the earth formed and was a hot ball of rock, then after millions of years we had oceans. So now we have a sun, earth is rock, and we have water and some how that give birth to the primordial soup and that give birth to LIFE. WOW, I guess if scientist that white is white,,,, if must be white.
@Creationist6000 Don't lie. You don't take science seriously. If you did, you wouldn't have written something this foolish and ignorant. Do you really think scientists just "say"? Or do you think there's a bit more behind that?
@brettppalmer I take science very seriously as long as it is observational science,, anything outside of that is a theory which means its a guess and you have the nerve to call me foolish. The Big Bang, String Theory, Snowball Earth, Molecues to Man, no proof, its all a theory (guess). You need to finish the verse in Proverbs 30 5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
@Creationist6000 Yes, you're being foolish. Someone saying they take science seriously, and then equating scientific theories to "guesses," is spouting foolishness. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. So, tell me, do you add to the word of God? Or do you take it seriously? Did over 2 million Hebrews leave Egypt during the exodus, or didn't they?
@brettppalmer You are famous for rabbit trails,,, the Bible says 600,000 on foot that were men. However verse 1:7 (Exodus) says the children of Israel were fruitful,, so yes there probably was 2 million total (women and children). Is there historical evidence, yes. Does OBSERVATIONAL science prove molecues to man? The answer is no. I use to believe science until i did the some extensive research,,, then i understood the definition of Theory. Read 1 Corinthians 2:14
@Creationist6000 "Famous for rabbit trails..."? You learn a couple of catch phrases from Logic 101 and suddenly you think you can argue on the 'net. Sheesh.
Look, Creo, check out my web article on the population figures of the Exodus where I depants JPH. I don't think I have to hold your hand to get there, but if I do, let me know and I'll go put on my shoes. After you read that exhaustive research you get back to me on the whole "there is historical evidence" for that biblical assertion, k?
@GeneralCalculus An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. We can take all the theories of evolution and none of them can be tested and observed.
@Creationist6000 Creo, stop. Seriously, just stop. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself. You're doing nothing but barfing up creotard talking points which have no substantial basis in reality. And, when you do that without having the necessary educational background to understand what you're saying, you just look ridiculous. You'd be doing yourself a big favor if you just slinked away back into the darkness of the pews.
@brettppalmer Sorry brett,, just responding to a question. I am so sorry if I am hurting your very informative and scientific videos. I am working on a video of my own,, I'll send you a link when its done.
@Creationist6000 Oh boy....won't take my advice, eh? Actually going to produce and publically air a video embarrassing yourself. Ok. It's your decision. And, yes, please do send me the link when it's done....
I ask you to look at research carried out by Richard Lenski using the bacteria Escherichia coli. It is a working observable example of evolution in progress. His research proves without a doubt the process of evolution.
Thats the trouble with creationists they don't bother to actually look up what science has already proven.
@srspower I have,,, to my knowledge there is no person that believes in Creation will try to argue against what you are saying. Changes within its own kind,,, everybody believes that, its the bacteria to a Elephant I have a problem with.
@Creationist6000 That's because for whatever reason you can imagine steps between a lemur which eats bamboo shoots and one that eats bamboo leaves, but you can't imagine that similar steps taken which separate species of lemur were also taken by "bacteria" to eventually evolve elephants. You can imagine the steps taken to evolve one lemur into another (speciation) but for whatever reason you can't imagine steps which take single-celled organisms into multi- (like elephants: also speciation).
Thats a common misconception. We didn't evolve form apes and elephants didn't evolve form bacteria. We all have a common ancestor. For instance some fish are more closely related to humans than other fish. Its all there in the genome you can track it.
And if you had a massive line going form our ancestoral 'ape' to us you would never see a generation that looked different from its parents or children. So its very gradual.
I agree with the author that most passages in the Bible are meant to be taken seriously as the truth (I think he would agree that statements such as in Songs 4:4 are not meant to be taken literally however). The first real problem mentioned in this video is the problem of miracles. What is the aregument given? “Of course, this just sounds absurd to modern ears, the Nile turning to blood. Pish posh.” This is not an argument, it is just a statement not backed by facts.
I assume the problem is that such an event is not naturally possible, which as Ehrman or Hume would say, makes it the least likely option by definition. We see things that are naturalistically impossible all the time however (tons of metal flying through the air or floating on the water, people sticking a piece of metal into a machine causing controlled explosions to take them where they want to go, wires carrying a person’s voice across the country…).
If there is an intelligent being involved who has the power and a reason to do something, probabilities become unimportant. Only if we begin by saying there is no intelligent creator can we say miracles are unlikely, and this is one of the points under discussion.
The author does admit the problem of cultural context, but states that since the Bible was written by a timeless, omnipotent God and that these issues should not have applied to his work.
He therefore thinks that we cannot trust this being as the author. Most apologists would say that God can do anything that is logically possible (God cannot create a round square, a married bachelor… or a world in which all beings always freely choose the right choice since free will requires the ability to truly choose). People sin, which brings our societies further from God’s word, and God gives us the free will to move out of his will. I think this is the major cause of misunderstanding.
@robertvroom Gotta admit, Bob, this didn't make much sense to me. I don't understand why/how "sin" could muddy up God's Word if, in fact, he didn't want it muddied up.
@robertvroom That's a mighty big "IF"! But, yes, surely if there is a god he/she/it could turn the Nile to blood. Now, provide the evidence that he/she/it did.
@robertvroom Of course, and none of those things you mention are "miracles." We can explain them. The burden is on the apologist to explain how the waters of Egypt could turn into blood (not an algal bloom).
@robertvroom Bob, the comment about the Nile was not meant to be "an argument," but a summation of the skeptical position. The burden is not upon the skeptic to provide evidence the waters of Egypt in fact became blood, that is the apologist's task. What I was pointing out was that when some apologists DO get around to accepting their burden, they deveate from the biblical text and reinterpret "blood" to be something else (like an algal bloom). And I happen to disagree with rewriting scripture.
@brettppalmer The burden is upon anyone with a stake in the game. I claim that something is true so have a burden of proof. You state that something is false so have a burden of proof. There are places where the Bible describes appearances rather than what actually happens (the possibility of an algal bloom or talking about the sun rising & setting, etc.), but frankly, I think miracle claims can stand scrutiny.
If you are interested, there is all kinds of evidence pointing to a creator of the Universe (science & philosophy, not just Biblical). The excellent evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (vindicating his claim), and the fact of specific fulfilled prophecies give me reasons to trust much of the Tanakh and the New Testament. Since I think there is very good evidence for Jesus’ identity, and Jesus accepts the Tanakh as true, I have reason to as well even when I do not have direct physical evidence.
@robertvroom philosophy provides opinions, not evidence. Outside of the Christian tradition (Bible and a few obscure passages from believers), there is zero historical evidence that Jesus even existed. To suggest that we have evidence that he came back to life after death is absurd in the extreme. All we have is the say-so of people who wrote their testaments decades after the event supposedly happened. To call that evidence is ludicrous.
@notthecheatr Philosophy is not evidence, but nothing can be done without it. What kinds of questions should science investigate? How should it investigate? What qualifies as evidence? These are all philosophical questions. Without philosophy, science could not be done.
As to Jesus, even Richard Dawkins admits the man probably lived (God Delusion p 122). There are very, very few scholars today who would agree with you that there is “zero historical evidence that Jesus even existed.”
@robertvroom There are even certain facts about his life that even skeptical scholars (like Bart Ehrman, Shelby Spong, Dominic Crosson, most members of the Jesus Seminar…) agree upon. Gary Habermas reviewed all of the literature from all sides over a 20 year period, and the below facts are agreed upon by over 95% of Bible scholars (with the exception of point three, which is supported by closer to 75%)
1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) He was buried by a rich member of the Jewish leadership
@robertvroom 3) His tomb was found empty a few days later by a group of Jesus’ female followers
4) The disciples had experiences that they attributed to the risen Jesus
Also, the disciples were willing to die for the statement that they had seen the resurrected Jesus (people will not die defending a statement that they know is a lie)
There are non-Christian writings talking about Christ and Cristus, one mentions Jesus by name.
@robertvroom Tacitus tells us that Cristus was executed under Pilate, and that by the time Rome burned in the mid 60’s AD, there were enough Christians around for Nero to place the blame on them for the burning. This is within 30 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.
The prejudice against the authors of the Bible is also silly, but this post is getting to long. Let me know if you want more info on this.
@robertvroom Tacitus may or may not have been copying the Christians, but even if he wasn't, so what? He gives no details and certainly never mentions miracles or a resurrection. The Jesus Tacitus tells us about was an ordinary man who died.
Early Christians had a very strong desire for the story to be true. They wouldn't have asked a lot of questions, because they *wanted* the story to be true. It validated their very existence.
@notthecheatr Why do you not consider the Bible a good source? It has been used effectively to tell archaeologists where to dig, over 80 statements in Acts have been verified (trade routes, locations of places, names & titles of people…) The most common answer I hear is that the authors are biased, but I don’t think that is reasonable. Let’s say you were a witness at a robbery. You identify the man in a lineup and are called into court, but the defense attorney objects because you are biased.
@robertvroom You are entering the courtroom believing that he is guilty! Of course the reason you think he is guilty is that you witnessed the act in question.
Why do you think that the miracle stories were an invention? There is nothing strange about the idea of miracles… unless of course you discount the idea of an intelligent creator at the outset. After all, humans do things that are naturalistically impossible all the time (flying through the air in 100+ ton pieces of metal for instance.
@robertvroom Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and others mentioned Jesus within 100 years of Jesus’ death. Tacitus, a Roman historian, says that Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 AD. This means that within less than 35 years of Jesus’ death, there were enough Christians that using them as a scapegoat made sense.
@robertvroom There are also good reasons to date the writing of the Bible earlier than traditional. Paul died in the mid 60’s. If Luke knew about this when he wrote Acts, he would not have ended Acts with Paul in jail. Luke was written before Acts, and Luke used Mark as a source. Matthew and Luke have over 200 lines in common that are not included in Mark, but the way the information is used makes it look like in some cases Matthew quoted Luke and in others that Luke quoted Matthew.
@robertvroom This argues for a second, independent source in existence when they were writing (Q).
So in the Bible we have books written by at least nine people, the last of which was written about 60 years after Jesus’ death (Revelation). Two books that are attributed to Paul by even the most skeptical scholars push the oral tradition of the Resurrection within seven years of the events.
@robertvroom There are non-Christian writings, some within 20-30 years (originals are lost, but are quoted by a few authors), and within 80-90 years Tacitus tells us of Christian activities in Rome, and Pliny was asking for advice on how to deal with Christians. Compare the historical evidence for Jesus against almost any other ancient person, and the evidence for Jesus comes out on top.
@robertvroom Of course the Bible has /some/ historical facts. Otherwise it wouldn't have convinced anyone. But you're only mentioning all the successes of Biblical archaeology, and none of the failures, of which there were many (especially in the OT/Hebrew Bible). The Bible was written by people with definite political motive, and some of the events were very likely skewed or even entirely made up. The Bible isn't useless, but you certainly shouldn't trust it to tell the truth about everything.
@robertvroom You must remember that whenever the Bible agrees with archaeology, it is archaeology that confirmed the Bible to be true, not the other way around. Likewise, if the Bible agrees with science, it is science that confirms the Bible to be true, not the other way around. The only source of objective facts we have is the empirical world of nature; every book is tested by science, not science by the book.
@notthecheatr I agree with you that archaeology/science confirms the Bible & not the other way around. I do not agree that the only source of objective facts that we have is the empirical world of nature however. After all, is your statement an objective fact that is empirically verified by nature?
It is not reasonable to talk of failures in archaeology, as the historical record is badly broken. Our understanding is partial.
@robertvroom The more confirmation you find of the statements made, the more you should trust the source.
What I am saying is that the authors of the NT have shown themselves to be careful, accurate and truthful, and the Bible has proven to be reliable over and over. The only reason that any doubt is thrown on their testimony is the miracle claims. There are three reasons to lie/deceive; these are sex, power and money. The followers of Jesus got none of these things.
@robertvroom They were ostracized by Jews and Romans alike, and all but one ended up dying for their claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. Many were arrested numerous times, whipped, beaten, chased out of towns… and there are no records of any changing their testimony.
@notthecheatr What I mean is that you seem to be stating that it is an objective fact that we only find objective facts in nature. unless the statement that "nature is the only place we find objective facts" can itself be demonstrated in nature, then by your definition, this statement cannot be an objective fact. The statement is self defeating.
@robertvroom No, because the statement I made is a logical one, based on the definition of the word "objective." Objective facts are facts which exist independent of human thought. The statement I made is a fact, but it is not an objective fact because it only exists because we are here to think of it. Objective facts, such as the natural world, would exist even if we weren't here, but we wouldn't be able to say "nature is the only place to find objective facts" if we didn't exist.
@robertvroom Can you find objective facts outside of nature? Do you have any evidence that God exists up to and including evidence that he would exist if humans did not?
@notthecheatr Things that I consider to be good evidence include the fact that the Universe began to exist, and (as seen in nature) things that begin to exist have a cause. It began to exist in one of the astronomically few ways that allows for any kind of life. If you want references from scientists you would respect, let me know. The problems with abiogenesis is another reason for belief. The only possible reasons are necessity, chance or design, and statistically design is the best option.
@robertvroom As to the first point, how do you know the universe began to exist? Do you have proof? Were you there? Even science doesn't claim to know if the universe had a beginning. On to the second, what things that have begun to exist have an unnatural cause? Everything in nature that has begun to exist was caused by something else in nature. Science takes us all the way back to the Big Bang without a single unnatural beginning ever needed or discovered.
@robertvroom Oh, and let's not forget that Paul told people that if they did not believe him, there were about 500 witnesses still living that they could ask about the facts. This would be a very bold statement if Jesus had never lived, and therefore there were no witnesses to his life, death & resurrection.
@robertvroom The gospels don't say Jesus appeared to 500 people. If you believe the gospels, there were NOT 500 reliable witnesses of the resurrection. Maybe 50, but even that seems like a stretch. And considering that the gospels were written so many decades later that most of these people would have been dead, it's convenient, right? Witnesses can be corrupted or made up.
@robertvroom Non-Christian writings give few details if any, and as all of them are written long after the alleged fact, they could all just as easily be copying from the Christian tradition (which by that time was running strong) as opposed to any actual historical knowledge. While I personally doubt that Jesus didn't exist at all, a skeptical mind must admit it's entirely possible as there are no primary sources. Even all the Bible books were written some decades after the alleged fact.
@robertvroom Indeed, it seems unlikely the early Christians would have invented these details. What they probably did invent was every single miracle story in the New Testament.
@robertvroom I agree philosophy is important, I was merely remarking that it has nothing to do with evidence.
Yes, it seems that the Bible probably wouldn't have been concocted entirely out of myth. Very probably there was a man named Jesus, who died on a cross. But again, there really is zero historical evidence. You have the Bible, and a couple of obscure references from people who probably just copied the Bible.
@AGNOSSI All of Ehrman's books are spectacular! And so are those by William Dever. See, especially, "What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It."
Ehrman does not believe that the Bible is necessarily true, but he agrees that the words we have are almost completely the words that were originally written. Don't believe me? Read p 252 of Misquoting Jesus. He says he and Metzger only disagree on 1-2 dozen verses out of many thousands. This puts Ehrman in line with most conservative scholars in saying that the New Testament we have is about 99.5% correct.
Why did god need people to write a book for him if he created the entire universe. It seems rather odd that a god that wanted us to believe he was the author of something would use such a cumbersome and questionable mechanism for getting that information to us.
@archeng123 You just don't give scientists enough credit. You should really start researching what science have discovered up to 2010. You will be genuinely surprised by how much they actually know now about many subjects we considered impossible to understand just some years ago. Science doesn't fail at quantum physics. It's just different, no more than another realm of physics with cold, predictable rules that scientists are working very hard to understand, nothing supernatural about it.
Excellent video. The bible has some wonderful parables in it, along with a lot of blood sacrifice and mumbo jumbo, it's not a book you can take literally. Mind you, i noticed that AnswersinGenesis are ACTUALLY building a replica of Noah's Ark in the state of Kentucky.. this thing is going to be MASSIVE, ..they're gonna need a lot of wood!!!!
I agree, literalists don't take scripture literally enough. The sun and moon rise and set. The stars are tiny lights in the dome of the sky. Adam (Man) was composed of earth and God's breath. The talking snake was a talking snake. The Jews took 40 years to travel 300 miles. Two bears mauled 42 children. Paul expected the End Times before his own death. Heaven has 144,000 male virgins undefiled by woman.
Unfortunately, scripture is for the literate, the rest learn via hearsay, i.e. the pulpit.
@mysterioso2006 Ha ha...yep. I had a cold last week and it lingered a bit when I recorded that part (I'd already recorded everything else a couple of weeks prior but as I was working on the end I had a thought to add that section in!) I also recorded the scripture readings when my throat was at its worst! Ended up sounding pretty good, don't ya think? I didn't manipulate my voice at all for those parts! HA HA!
@Makargo123 1.) Both. I do know a lot of the Bible by heart, but I script all my videos. 2.) No. It's a personal thing. 3.) I am not religious in the slightest. 4.) I started making the videos as a suppliment to my website. However, I'm enjoying it here so much more and I'm reaching far more people than I did with the site. I'm considering making most of my online articles into videos and then shutting down the website.
@brettppalmer Please don't shut down the site...at least not until I copy and paste all the articles. BTW how do you explain that you posted this video two days ago but it didn't pop up in my "Subscriptions" box?
@ctastrophe Well, like I said, the articles will be reproduced as videos so no real content will be lost (and, if I'm really going to convert all that writing into vids, it'll take quite a while!). And, I've no idea why videos don't pop up in people's subscription boxes. I've heard that's a general problem on YouTube. I'm told folks can sign up for email notifications of new content, but not really sure how!
@mysterioso2006 thats kinda why i said "any sort of way", im just clarifiying, and yeah i have seen his other videos *especially The Zeitgeist*---epic movie hahaha
@Futureplanet Ok. But when Jack and the Beanstalk says Jack sold the cow for three magic beans, you don't think it "really" meant 4 magic beans, or 12 magic beans, or not magic beans at all but that "magic beans" are a metaphor for the capitalist system which strips material of its inherent worth, right? When it says three magic beans it means three magic beans.
Well spoken, I also find it interesting how some people prefer to push their own responsibility of actually reading the book and forming an opinion on the apologists, pretending it is not them who evaluate what is being said.
Sadly I know such a person, and she pretends that she doesn't have to "do the apologetics", there's others who know more about it who do that for her....
So: "If it can make sense to someone, it /can/ make sense to me"
I think the key word here is "Inspired" The moderate Christians tend to see, as far as I'm aware, the bible as a book written by man, inspired by the words of god to write down scriptures mixing them in with cultural standards of the time.
Inspired does not mean directly translate or copy. However when expressing claims of validity that the bible is the literal word of God, as in the DIRECT words that god said, then we can deconstruction them as appropriate.
@Nightmare060 But this gives too much wriggle room for the apologist, which is why they've gone from the "Word of God" Bible to the "Near-Enough to the Word of God Once I've Interpreted it for You" Bible. If man wrote the Bible in such a way that his mortal influences confused and corrupted the Word of God, don't you think this omniscient, omnipotent being would have "turned up" the inspiration just enough to get exactly what he wanted across?
@brettppalmer Good point! Hell I'll go one step further and say that such a powerful god wouldn't even have to make people with the potential of mis-interpreting his words.
If God was truly enough of an interventionist enough to talk to people to give them his word to begin with and create everything, surely he wouldn't have to make people play a long game of Chinese whispers!
@PeterThenn Well, yes, sort of. But even "inspired by God" carries with it the assumption of inerrancy. Even if the Bible was "merely" inspired, it was inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity which cannot inspire falsehoods or inaccuracies. This god cannot be muffled by human inadequecies. If this god wanted the text to read that 6,000 men, not 600,000, left Egypt at the exodus but he was working with a buffoon of a writer, surely he could have gotten his 6000 in spite of the buffoon.
Language is not accurate mean. Speech has not literal uses, metaphor, parable. But the increase of plausibility comes with decrease of certainty. If we broadly interpret the bible it could mean anything
@humbleu Clearly the Bible contains literary constructions and these are easy to distinquish. Again, when a prophet, for example, recounts a vision, I don't believe the vision was of something he literally saw (i.e. something he could have recorded with a camera), but something only he witnessed (we can debate whether or not he "was in the spirit" or just hallucinating). But, if the Bible says 600K men left Egypt at the exodus, then the the Bible says 600K men left Egypt at the exodus. Period!
@eatcarbs You are misreading the bible. You must read the bible with your heart....upside down...under 55 Watt blacklight...while standing on one leg. See...it all makes sence then. (Oh...did i mention the secret decoder ring?) Just send me 10 percent of your gross income and I will loan you the decoder ring.
indeed I do believe this is the most noble and honest way to treat the bible.
thordurinn 2 weeks ago
AH WELL THE BIBLE SILLY FAIRY TALES THAT NEED TO BE TRASHED !
flexbrat 1 month ago
The bible is "true" because it says so? Really? And that's the extent of your critical reasoning skills?
mikefromwa 1 month ago
The Scriptures are Truth. You are Esau from the Caucasians=Cave Dwellers.
The Negroes are the Israelites=Judah of Jacob seed. and there are 11 more tribes of Jacob whom share the seed of Jacob. It's your right to believe how you well please, but know this Giants where of the world, You want science to give you proof. We know we die right? do you need a scientist to give you evidence on death ? Scriptures are coming to pass your findings are not! However you believe in Wealth??? Bye ESAU.
QaraahFilms 2 months ago
@QaraahFilms The observation of our death can be related subconsciously in our mind loosely through the Scientific Method through Observation and Understanding. Even if Scientists didn't exist; It would not give any more credulity to the claims of the bible. Postulating something that is unproven and not based in reality is not a good enough explanation.
For years we didn't understand what a Rainbow was, so people just said "God did it" Yet is this a good enough answer?
Of course it isn't.
TheAsymmetrical 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then why did Gleason Archer feel the need to write a 476 page book entitled 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties' in order to try and explain away the many contradictions and discrepancies within it?
dingodavid 3 months ago
Comment removed
dingodavid 3 months ago
love it !!! keep it up !! is what we need now days more than ever, thru soldiers of God
albusai 4 months ago
Quite an enjoyable video.
FluctuatingThought 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
The existence of Christian Apologists signals a failure of the central tenants of Christianity - that an infinitely intelligent Supreme Being directed the writing of the Bible. Consider this: The works of Shakespeare contain over 880,000 words – more words than in the Bible. Writings containing some of the most profound insights into the human condition ever penned. Yet, there is no cadre of apologists explaining the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors in Shakespeare’s works.
apeek7 7 months ago
@apeek7 Should it necessarily be the case that every person should instantly have an understanding and acceptance of all truths? Knowledge of truth is taught and learned, and there's no reason to expect that any particular true claim will not have to be defended against various attacks.
JWHurwitz 5 months ago
@JWHurwitz Defending a position is quite different from explaining away errors and inconsistencies... Either bats are birds or the Bible is in error. Either the mustard is the smallest of seeds or Jesus (God) doesn’t know what he is talking about. Either you should kill a disrespectful child (Leviticus 20:9) or you should kill a disrespectful child per Jesus (Mark 7:9-13)…
apeek7 5 months ago
@apeek7 Should it necessarily be the case that every person should instantly have an understanding and acceptance of all truths? Knowledge of truth is taught and learned, and there's no reason to expect that any particular true claim will not have to be defended against various attacks.
JWHurwitz 5 months ago
@pakleglia i tried to send you a message but you have it blocked,,why? Lets look at what you said. First you stated [I don't need to prove there is no god, the burden of proof is on you to prove there IS a god.] Why do I need to prove there is a God. Read Gen. 1:1,,, I cannot prove that God did that, I cant prove that Jesus is God, but I choose to believe that. God's word has always been and has never been changed. Why do you believe in richard? If you want to debate, unlock your messages.
Creationist6000 7 months ago
@pakleglia That is an exceptional choice of words,, parroting. Did you learn that from brett or thunder what ever his name is, or did you do your on reasearch. Look,, maybe you will be the first to answer this one question,, What is the real proof that makes you believe the way you do? What if you are wrong?
Creationist6000 7 months ago
the description and video explain exactly how i take the bible in discussing it with christians. i still get 'if you don't really believe it, why do you think it says that?'
lol
GodsArePeopleToo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
If it did happen, it probably was an algal bloom. The whole blood thing was probably a human misunderstanding of the event, hence we can assume that the bible was written by humans.
mousaey 10 months ago
@mousaey IF the event happened at all (or is a story based upon something like an algal bloom that was witnessed without any connection to an "exodus"), I completely agree with you. THIS is the conclusion one should draw from reading such stories in the Bible.
brettppalmer 10 months ago
I have said it before but I'll say it again.
I love the music you using, we have very similar styles, E.s Poshumus, Immediate music and so on.
Great video, keep it up!
MackanK94 11 months ago
Excellent video!
redbloodsales 1 year ago
I really enjoyed a lot of your videos, but not this one.
It takes you 7 minutes to say that you take the bible literally (without believing in it). If you ignore any other interpretation as "not serious" you may be missing out on a lot of things... Even if you don't believe it is inspired by god.
MARI0LAND 1 year ago
@MARI0LAND Yes, I understand where you're coming from and certainly there are a number of ways in which one can approach the Scriptures. However, my point here is of rewriting the Bible in order to make it align with certain worldviews. For example, not taking the Bible seriously when it says "blood" filled the Nile and assert instead that it was an algal bloom in order to try and "explain" what the story "really meant." Under who's authority do such apologists operate? Largely, their own.
brettppalmer 1 year ago 9
@MARI0LAND notice his answer. Lets rewrite everything to suit our needs. There lies a huge problem,, if you do not believe it, just rewrite it. Yeah!
Creationist6000 7 months ago
thats the trouble with 'intepretation' by admitting things in the bible are wrong you are making a mockery of your entire beleif system becuase you are admitting in the future you will probably say what your saying now is also wrong.
It makes you insincere. At least reliegous fundamentalist lunatics are sincere.
srspower 1 year ago
@srspower
I disagree here. Admitting your errors is a virtue which allows understanding and progress, and any honest pursuit of the truth will necessarily be littered with those histories of errors. To me, what makes apologists interpretations so incredulous and hollow is the lack of reasoning when logic is neutered by language which is not held accountable to collectively agreed upon definitions. At that point it's basically a Rorschach test for whatever morality/opinion you want to justify.
Sinuev1 11 months ago
Well, I was not there at the time, but science has pretty well proved that the Universe had a beginning. Alan Guth (developer of the Inflationary Universe Model), Alex Vilenkin (developer of the Quantum Creation model) and Arvind Borde (professor at Tufts) published an article on the subject through MIT called "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete". In it they prove that the Universe had a beginning.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom On page 176 of his book “Many Worlds in One” Vilenkin states, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Guth has called the Universe “The Ultimate Free Lunch. “
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom You can watch Roger Penrose talk about his new theory for the beginning of the Universe at watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0/ He really starts talking about this at about 5:00. This video shows the length cosmologists are going to to avoid the problem of an absolute beginning.
Why would God be considered unnatural? Supernatural sure, but not unnatural. Of course if the theist is correct, God created everything, so everything has a supernatural cause.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom This question of course assumes that the Universe permits life strictly by chance, life had a natural cause (this has been shown to be hugely improbable as well), the theory of evolution is correct about evolution being unguided, that there were no miracles… We also need to ask the question of which is more likely, that the Universe began to exist from absolute nothingness or that there was an intelligence that started everything?
robertvroom 1 year ago
I take the scientist view very seriously,,, especially when they say 15 billion years ago something in the universe compressed to the size of a small ball then exploded,,, or 4.5 billion years ago the earth formed and was a hot ball of rock, then after millions of years we had oceans. So now we have a sun, earth is rock, and we have water and some how that give birth to the primordial soup and that give birth to LIFE. WOW, I guess if scientist that white is white,,,, if must be white.
Creationist6000 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 Don't lie. You don't take science seriously. If you did, you wouldn't have written something this foolish and ignorant. Do you really think scientists just "say"? Or do you think there's a bit more behind that?
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer I take science very seriously as long as it is observational science,, anything outside of that is a theory which means its a guess and you have the nerve to call me foolish. The Big Bang, String Theory, Snowball Earth, Molecues to Man, no proof, its all a theory (guess). You need to finish the verse in Proverbs 30 5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Creationist6000 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 Yes, you're being foolish. Someone saying they take science seriously, and then equating scientific theories to "guesses," is spouting foolishness. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. So, tell me, do you add to the word of God? Or do you take it seriously? Did over 2 million Hebrews leave Egypt during the exodus, or didn't they?
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer You are famous for rabbit trails,,, the Bible says 600,000 on foot that were men. However verse 1:7 (Exodus) says the children of Israel were fruitful,, so yes there probably was 2 million total (women and children). Is there historical evidence, yes. Does OBSERVATIONAL science prove molecues to man? The answer is no. I use to believe science until i did the some extensive research,,, then i understood the definition of Theory. Read 1 Corinthians 2:14
Creationist6000 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 "Famous for rabbit trails..."? You learn a couple of catch phrases from Logic 101 and suddenly you think you can argue on the 'net. Sheesh.
Look, Creo, check out my web article on the population figures of the Exodus where I depants JPH. I don't think I have to hold your hand to get there, but if I do, let me know and I'll go put on my shoes. After you read that exhaustive research you get back to me on the whole "there is historical evidence" for that biblical assertion, k?
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 "Does OBSERVATIONAL science prove molecues to man?"
Proof exist only on mathematics and law. Science do not and cannot prove anything, it can only disprove.
GeneralCalculus 1 year ago
@GeneralCalculus And by the Four powers of Chaos. What the heck is "Observational Science"?
GeneralCalculus 1 year ago
@GeneralCalculus An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. We can take all the theories of evolution and none of them can be tested and observed.
Creationist6000 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 Creo, stop. Seriously, just stop. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself. You're doing nothing but barfing up creotard talking points which have no substantial basis in reality. And, when you do that without having the necessary educational background to understand what you're saying, you just look ridiculous. You'd be doing yourself a big favor if you just slinked away back into the darkness of the pews.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer Sorry brett,, just responding to a question. I am so sorry if I am hurting your very informative and scientific videos. I am working on a video of my own,, I'll send you a link when its done.
Creationist6000 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 Oh boy....won't take my advice, eh? Actually going to produce and publically air a video embarrassing yourself. Ok. It's your decision. And, yes, please do send me the link when it's done....
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 Did you ever make that video? Can I have a link?
abk0100 11 months ago
@Creationist6000
I ask you to look at research carried out by Richard Lenski using the bacteria Escherichia coli. It is a working observable example of evolution in progress. His research proves without a doubt the process of evolution.
Thats the trouble with creationists they don't bother to actually look up what science has already proven.
srspower 1 year ago
@srspower I have,,, to my knowledge there is no person that believes in Creation will try to argue against what you are saying. Changes within its own kind,,, everybody believes that, its the bacteria to a Elephant I have a problem with.
Creationist6000 1 year ago
@Creationist6000 That's because for whatever reason you can imagine steps between a lemur which eats bamboo shoots and one that eats bamboo leaves, but you can't imagine that similar steps taken which separate species of lemur were also taken by "bacteria" to eventually evolve elephants. You can imagine the steps taken to evolve one lemur into another (speciation) but for whatever reason you can't imagine steps which take single-celled organisms into multi- (like elephants: also speciation).
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@Creationist6000
Thats a common misconception. We didn't evolve form apes and elephants didn't evolve form bacteria. We all have a common ancestor. For instance some fish are more closely related to humans than other fish. Its all there in the genome you can track it.
And if you had a massive line going form our ancestoral 'ape' to us you would never see a generation that looked different from its parents or children. So its very gradual.
srspower 1 year ago
Well I tried about 4 times to type out my question but I just can't seem to formulate it into only 600 words ALAS...
inquiry10 1 year ago
I agree with the author that most passages in the Bible are meant to be taken seriously as the truth (I think he would agree that statements such as in Songs 4:4 are not meant to be taken literally however). The first real problem mentioned in this video is the problem of miracles. What is the aregument given? “Of course, this just sounds absurd to modern ears, the Nile turning to blood. Pish posh.” This is not an argument, it is just a statement not backed by facts.
robertvroom 1 year ago
I assume the problem is that such an event is not naturally possible, which as Ehrman or Hume would say, makes it the least likely option by definition. We see things that are naturalistically impossible all the time however (tons of metal flying through the air or floating on the water, people sticking a piece of metal into a machine causing controlled explosions to take them where they want to go, wires carrying a person’s voice across the country…).
robertvroom 1 year ago
If there is an intelligent being involved who has the power and a reason to do something, probabilities become unimportant. Only if we begin by saying there is no intelligent creator can we say miracles are unlikely, and this is one of the points under discussion.
The author does admit the problem of cultural context, but states that since the Bible was written by a timeless, omnipotent God and that these issues should not have applied to his work.
robertvroom 1 year ago
He therefore thinks that we cannot trust this being as the author. Most apologists would say that God can do anything that is logically possible (God cannot create a round square, a married bachelor… or a world in which all beings always freely choose the right choice since free will requires the ability to truly choose). People sin, which brings our societies further from God’s word, and God gives us the free will to move out of his will. I think this is the major cause of misunderstanding.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom Gotta admit, Bob, this didn't make much sense to me. I don't understand why/how "sin" could muddy up God's Word if, in fact, he didn't want it muddied up.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@robertvroom That's a mighty big "IF"! But, yes, surely if there is a god he/she/it could turn the Nile to blood. Now, provide the evidence that he/she/it did.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@robertvroom Of course, and none of those things you mention are "miracles." We can explain them. The burden is on the apologist to explain how the waters of Egypt could turn into blood (not an algal bloom).
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@robertvroom Bob, the comment about the Nile was not meant to be "an argument," but a summation of the skeptical position. The burden is not upon the skeptic to provide evidence the waters of Egypt in fact became blood, that is the apologist's task. What I was pointing out was that when some apologists DO get around to accepting their burden, they deveate from the biblical text and reinterpret "blood" to be something else (like an algal bloom). And I happen to disagree with rewriting scripture.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer The burden is upon anyone with a stake in the game. I claim that something is true so have a burden of proof. You state that something is false so have a burden of proof. There are places where the Bible describes appearances rather than what actually happens (the possibility of an algal bloom or talking about the sun rising & setting, etc.), but frankly, I think miracle claims can stand scrutiny.
robertvroom 1 year ago
If you are interested, there is all kinds of evidence pointing to a creator of the Universe (science & philosophy, not just Biblical). The excellent evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (vindicating his claim), and the fact of specific fulfilled prophecies give me reasons to trust much of the Tanakh and the New Testament. Since I think there is very good evidence for Jesus’ identity, and Jesus accepts the Tanakh as true, I have reason to as well even when I do not have direct physical evidence.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom philosophy provides opinions, not evidence. Outside of the Christian tradition (Bible and a few obscure passages from believers), there is zero historical evidence that Jesus even existed. To suggest that we have evidence that he came back to life after death is absurd in the extreme. All we have is the say-so of people who wrote their testaments decades after the event supposedly happened. To call that evidence is ludicrous.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr Philosophy is not evidence, but nothing can be done without it. What kinds of questions should science investigate? How should it investigate? What qualifies as evidence? These are all philosophical questions. Without philosophy, science could not be done.
As to Jesus, even Richard Dawkins admits the man probably lived (God Delusion p 122). There are very, very few scholars today who would agree with you that there is “zero historical evidence that Jesus even existed.”
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom There are even certain facts about his life that even skeptical scholars (like Bart Ehrman, Shelby Spong, Dominic Crosson, most members of the Jesus Seminar…) agree upon. Gary Habermas reviewed all of the literature from all sides over a 20 year period, and the below facts are agreed upon by over 95% of Bible scholars (with the exception of point three, which is supported by closer to 75%)
1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) He was buried by a rich member of the Jewish leadership
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom 3) His tomb was found empty a few days later by a group of Jesus’ female followers
4) The disciples had experiences that they attributed to the risen Jesus
Also, the disciples were willing to die for the statement that they had seen the resurrected Jesus (people will not die defending a statement that they know is a lie)
There are non-Christian writings talking about Christ and Cristus, one mentions Jesus by name.
robertvroom 1 year ago
Comment removed
robertvroom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robertvroom Tacitus tells us that Cristus was executed under Pilate, and that by the time Rome burned in the mid 60’s AD, there were enough Christians around for Nero to place the blame on them for the burning. This is within 30 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.
The prejudice against the authors of the Bible is also silly, but this post is getting to long. Let me know if you want more info on this.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom Tacitus may or may not have been copying the Christians, but even if he wasn't, so what? He gives no details and certainly never mentions miracles or a resurrection. The Jesus Tacitus tells us about was an ordinary man who died.
Early Christians had a very strong desire for the story to be true. They wouldn't have asked a lot of questions, because they *wanted* the story to be true. It validated their very existence.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr Why do you not consider the Bible a good source? It has been used effectively to tell archaeologists where to dig, over 80 statements in Acts have been verified (trade routes, locations of places, names & titles of people…) The most common answer I hear is that the authors are biased, but I don’t think that is reasonable. Let’s say you were a witness at a robbery. You identify the man in a lineup and are called into court, but the defense attorney objects because you are biased.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom You are entering the courtroom believing that he is guilty! Of course the reason you think he is guilty is that you witnessed the act in question.
Why do you think that the miracle stories were an invention? There is nothing strange about the idea of miracles… unless of course you discount the idea of an intelligent creator at the outset. After all, humans do things that are naturalistically impossible all the time (flying through the air in 100+ ton pieces of metal for instance.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and others mentioned Jesus within 100 years of Jesus’ death. Tacitus, a Roman historian, says that Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 AD. This means that within less than 35 years of Jesus’ death, there were enough Christians that using them as a scapegoat made sense.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom There are also good reasons to date the writing of the Bible earlier than traditional. Paul died in the mid 60’s. If Luke knew about this when he wrote Acts, he would not have ended Acts with Paul in jail. Luke was written before Acts, and Luke used Mark as a source. Matthew and Luke have over 200 lines in common that are not included in Mark, but the way the information is used makes it look like in some cases Matthew quoted Luke and in others that Luke quoted Matthew.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom This argues for a second, independent source in existence when they were writing (Q).
So in the Bible we have books written by at least nine people, the last of which was written about 60 years after Jesus’ death (Revelation). Two books that are attributed to Paul by even the most skeptical scholars push the oral tradition of the Resurrection within seven years of the events.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom There are non-Christian writings, some within 20-30 years (originals are lost, but are quoted by a few authors), and within 80-90 years Tacitus tells us of Christian activities in Rome, and Pliny was asking for advice on how to deal with Christians. Compare the historical evidence for Jesus against almost any other ancient person, and the evidence for Jesus comes out on top.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom Of course the Bible has /some/ historical facts. Otherwise it wouldn't have convinced anyone. But you're only mentioning all the successes of Biblical archaeology, and none of the failures, of which there were many (especially in the OT/Hebrew Bible). The Bible was written by people with definite political motive, and some of the events were very likely skewed or even entirely made up. The Bible isn't useless, but you certainly shouldn't trust it to tell the truth about everything.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@robertvroom You must remember that whenever the Bible agrees with archaeology, it is archaeology that confirmed the Bible to be true, not the other way around. Likewise, if the Bible agrees with science, it is science that confirms the Bible to be true, not the other way around. The only source of objective facts we have is the empirical world of nature; every book is tested by science, not science by the book.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr I agree with you that archaeology/science confirms the Bible & not the other way around. I do not agree that the only source of objective facts that we have is the empirical world of nature however. After all, is your statement an objective fact that is empirically verified by nature?
It is not reasonable to talk of failures in archaeology, as the historical record is badly broken. Our understanding is partial.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom The more confirmation you find of the statements made, the more you should trust the source.
What I am saying is that the authors of the NT have shown themselves to be careful, accurate and truthful, and the Bible has proven to be reliable over and over. The only reason that any doubt is thrown on their testimony is the miracle claims. There are three reasons to lie/deceive; these are sex, power and money. The followers of Jesus got none of these things.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom They were ostracized by Jews and Romans alike, and all but one ended up dying for their claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. Many were arrested numerous times, whipped, beaten, chased out of towns… and there are no records of any changing their testimony.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom You might say so - nature is the only place we find objective facts. Everything else is opinion or conjecture.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr What I mean is that you seem to be stating that it is an objective fact that we only find objective facts in nature. unless the statement that "nature is the only place we find objective facts" can itself be demonstrated in nature, then by your definition, this statement cannot be an objective fact. The statement is self defeating.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom No, because the statement I made is a logical one, based on the definition of the word "objective." Objective facts are facts which exist independent of human thought. The statement I made is a fact, but it is not an objective fact because it only exists because we are here to think of it. Objective facts, such as the natural world, would exist even if we weren't here, but we wouldn't be able to say "nature is the only place to find objective facts" if we didn't exist.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@robertvroom Can you find objective facts outside of nature? Do you have any evidence that God exists up to and including evidence that he would exist if humans did not?
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr Things that I consider to be good evidence include the fact that the Universe began to exist, and (as seen in nature) things that begin to exist have a cause. It began to exist in one of the astronomically few ways that allows for any kind of life. If you want references from scientists you would respect, let me know. The problems with abiogenesis is another reason for belief. The only possible reasons are necessity, chance or design, and statistically design is the best option.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom As to the first point, how do you know the universe began to exist? Do you have proof? Were you there? Even science doesn't claim to know if the universe had a beginning. On to the second, what things that have begun to exist have an unnatural cause? Everything in nature that has begun to exist was caused by something else in nature. Science takes us all the way back to the Big Bang without a single unnatural beginning ever needed or discovered.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@robertvroom Oh, and let's not forget that Paul told people that if they did not believe him, there were about 500 witnesses still living that they could ask about the facts. This would be a very bold statement if Jesus had never lived, and therefore there were no witnesses to his life, death & resurrection.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom The gospels don't say Jesus appeared to 500 people. If you believe the gospels, there were NOT 500 reliable witnesses of the resurrection. Maybe 50, but even that seems like a stretch. And considering that the gospels were written so many decades later that most of these people would have been dead, it's convenient, right? Witnesses can be corrupted or made up.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@robertvroom Non-Christian writings give few details if any, and as all of them are written long after the alleged fact, they could all just as easily be copying from the Christian tradition (which by that time was running strong) as opposed to any actual historical knowledge. While I personally doubt that Jesus didn't exist at all, a skeptical mind must admit it's entirely possible as there are no primary sources. Even all the Bible books were written some decades after the alleged fact.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@robertvroom Indeed, it seems unlikely the early Christians would have invented these details. What they probably did invent was every single miracle story in the New Testament.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@robertvroom I agree philosophy is important, I was merely remarking that it has nothing to do with evidence.
Yes, it seems that the Bible probably wouldn't have been concocted entirely out of myth. Very probably there was a man named Jesus, who died on a cross. But again, there really is zero historical evidence. You have the Bible, and a couple of obscure references from people who probably just copied the Bible.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@archeng123 Yeah best to put it down to a magic if we cant prove it via other means........what?
myjizzureye 1 year ago
Another well presented argument.
crazypills2 1 year ago
The very best book that I have read along these lines is:
"Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why"
by Bart Ehrman
If you have not read this book, then you don't know what you are missing. A great read.
How can we say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, when we don't have the words?
AGNOSSI 1 year ago
@AGNOSSI All of Ehrman's books are spectacular! And so are those by William Dever. See, especially, "What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It."
brettppalmer 1 year ago
Comment removed
robertvroom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ehrman does not believe that the Bible is necessarily true, but he agrees that the words we have are almost completely the words that were originally written. Don't believe me? Read p 252 of Misquoting Jesus. He says he and Metzger only disagree on 1-2 dozen verses out of many thousands. This puts Ehrman in line with most conservative scholars in saying that the New Testament we have is about 99.5% correct.
robertvroom 1 year ago
I suppose that God cannot make up his mind to which bible interpretation is right.
connerjd 1 year ago
Well crafted video with a solid point. Thanks
Netwriter 1 year ago
well said.
NemoUtopian 1 year ago
I'm sure Zeus had his apologists, as well.
ctso74 1 year ago
Grey
ExJWPedo 1 year ago
as human nature exists and the becoming of being ness perpetuates
you cant have black or white its the becoming of IS that exists pure potentiality
unto itself
Try to Replace Is with Maybe and see what you get
ExJWPedo 1 year ago
black is black white is white
But there are Grey Areas we are the Grey areas
there are NO absolutes
Human nature cannot take balck or white it needs grey to exist
there cannot be total rigidity it would be to strong and uncomfortable
there is no blacks or whites there is only IS
ExJWPedo 1 year ago
Why did god need people to write a book for him if he created the entire universe. It seems rather odd that a god that wanted us to believe he was the author of something would use such a cumbersome and questionable mechanism for getting that information to us.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Good point. He should have put it all on an ipod.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@archeng123 You just don't give scientists enough credit. You should really start researching what science have discovered up to 2010. You will be genuinely surprised by how much they actually know now about many subjects we considered impossible to understand just some years ago. Science doesn't fail at quantum physics. It's just different, no more than another realm of physics with cold, predictable rules that scientists are working very hard to understand, nothing supernatural about it.
InSaneTK 1 year ago
Excellent video. The bible has some wonderful parables in it, along with a lot of blood sacrifice and mumbo jumbo, it's not a book you can take literally. Mind you, i noticed that AnswersinGenesis are ACTUALLY building a replica of Noah's Ark in the state of Kentucky.. this thing is going to be MASSIVE, ..they're gonna need a lot of wood!!!!
bonnie43uk 1 year ago
Well.... I would take the Bible seriously, but I'm not a homicidal sociopath.
Desertphile 1 year ago
I agree, literalists don't take scripture literally enough. The sun and moon rise and set. The stars are tiny lights in the dome of the sky. Adam (Man) was composed of earth and God's breath. The talking snake was a talking snake. The Jews took 40 years to travel 300 miles. Two bears mauled 42 children. Paul expected the End Times before his own death. Heaven has 144,000 male virgins undefiled by woman.
Unfortunately, scripture is for the literate, the rest learn via hearsay, i.e. the pulpit.
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
5:52 Sudden pitch drop?
mysterioso2006 1 year ago
@mysterioso2006 Ha ha...yep. I had a cold last week and it lingered a bit when I recorded that part (I'd already recorded everything else a couple of weeks prior but as I was working on the end I had a thought to add that section in!) I also recorded the scripture readings when my throat was at its worst! Ended up sounding pretty good, don't ya think? I didn't manipulate my voice at all for those parts! HA HA!
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer The scripture readings were pretty sweet
mysterioso2006 1 year ago
Hey Brett, PLEASE answer these questions for me, PLEASE!!!!
1) do you yourself know alot about the bible by memory? or do you script it out for youre videos?
2) do you have a job where such knowledge is needed?
3) are you religious in any sort of way? you say u take the bible seriously..
4) and why did you start making videos for youtube? or start videos at all?
PLEASE answer them Brett, PLEASE!!
Makargo123 1 year ago
@Makargo123 1.) Both. I do know a lot of the Bible by heart, but I script all my videos. 2.) No. It's a personal thing. 3.) I am not religious in the slightest. 4.) I started making the videos as a suppliment to my website. However, I'm enjoying it here so much more and I'm reaching far more people than I did with the site. I'm considering making most of my online articles into videos and then shutting down the website.
brettppalmer 1 year ago 3
@brettppalmer Please don't shut down the site...at least not until I copy and paste all the articles. BTW how do you explain that you posted this video two days ago but it didn't pop up in my "Subscriptions" box?
ctastrophe 1 year ago
@ctastrophe Well, like I said, the articles will be reproduced as videos so no real content will be lost (and, if I'm really going to convert all that writing into vids, it'll take quite a while!). And, I've no idea why videos don't pop up in people's subscription boxes. I've heard that's a general problem on YouTube. I'm told folks can sign up for email notifications of new content, but not really sure how!
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@Makargo123 Dude, 3 should be painfully obvious if you've ever seen any of his other videos.
He's an atheist.
mysterioso2006 1 year ago
@mysterioso2006 thats kinda why i said "any sort of way", im just clarifiying, and yeah i have seen his other videos *especially The Zeitgeist*---epic movie hahaha
Makargo123 1 year ago
Props.
SpookyFan 1 year ago
I take the bible as seriously as Jack and Beanstalk. Both tell tales that are complete ficional fairytales written long ago.
Futureplanet 1 year ago
@Futureplanet Ok. But when Jack and the Beanstalk says Jack sold the cow for three magic beans, you don't think it "really" meant 4 magic beans, or 12 magic beans, or not magic beans at all but that "magic beans" are a metaphor for the capitalist system which strips material of its inherent worth, right? When it says three magic beans it means three magic beans.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
Very good video. What was the song used please? I've heard it in a couple of movie trailers.
oliverscott2007 1 year ago
@oliverscott2007 Two songs used, Oliver. One is called "Serenata Immortale". The other is "Nara" by ES Posthumus
brettppalmer 1 year ago
Sorry for ranting all over your comment area =P
nuckable 1 year ago
Well spoken, I also find it interesting how some people prefer to push their own responsibility of actually reading the book and forming an opinion on the apologists, pretending it is not them who evaluate what is being said.
Sadly I know such a person, and she pretends that she doesn't have to "do the apologetics", there's others who know more about it who do that for her....
So: "If it can make sense to someone, it /can/ make sense to me"
nuckable 1 year ago
Excellently stated!
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
Too right. Needs to be said.
Danmill23 1 year ago
Well done sir!
JaguarJ0nes 1 year ago
I think the key word here is "Inspired" The moderate Christians tend to see, as far as I'm aware, the bible as a book written by man, inspired by the words of god to write down scriptures mixing them in with cultural standards of the time.
Inspired does not mean directly translate or copy. However when expressing claims of validity that the bible is the literal word of God, as in the DIRECT words that god said, then we can deconstruction them as appropriate.
Nightmare060 1 year ago
@Nightmare060 But this gives too much wriggle room for the apologist, which is why they've gone from the "Word of God" Bible to the "Near-Enough to the Word of God Once I've Interpreted it for You" Bible. If man wrote the Bible in such a way that his mortal influences confused and corrupted the Word of God, don't you think this omniscient, omnipotent being would have "turned up" the inspiration just enough to get exactly what he wanted across?
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer Good point! Hell I'll go one step further and say that such a powerful god wouldn't even have to make people with the potential of mis-interpreting his words.
If God was truly enough of an interventionist enough to talk to people to give them his word to begin with and create everything, surely he wouldn't have to make people play a long game of Chinese whispers!
Nightmare060 1 year ago
There is also a BIG difference between inspired by and written by.
PeterThenn 1 year ago
@PeterThenn Please expand, while being particularly mindful toward who is doing the inspiration and why.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer
If there is a God, there would be a difference between inspired by and written by.
If a Holy Text is inspired by a God,
it would still be influenced by the views of the human author and subject to interpretation.
If it was written by that God, it would not be.
So the apologists in their need to interpret prove that it was not written by a God.
Not to mention that the author may only believe it is divinely inspired.
PeterThenn 1 year ago
@PeterThenn
I find the assumption that a text supposedly written by a God needs interpretation to be the Supreme Arrogance.
Which shows you my opinion of Apologists.
:)
PeterThenn 1 year ago
@PeterThenn Well, yes, sort of. But even "inspired by God" carries with it the assumption of inerrancy. Even if the Bible was "merely" inspired, it was inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity which cannot inspire falsehoods or inaccuracies. This god cannot be muffled by human inadequecies. If this god wanted the text to read that 6,000 men, not 600,000, left Egypt at the exodus but he was working with a buffoon of a writer, surely he could have gotten his 6000 in spite of the buffoon.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
@brettppalmer
Inspired by (to me) does not mean being told what to write or even to write.
It means they had an experience they at least thought was of divine origin and wrote about it.
But then again, it may have been written to achieve exactly the effect it has had on the world.
Not to 'enlighten' us but to herd the cats in a particular direction.
:)
PeterThenn 1 year ago
I consider the existence of Christian theology/apologetics as the admission of Christians that, at face value, their religion doesn't make sense.
army103 1 year ago 16
@army103 BINGO!!!
brettppalmer 1 year ago
great video
frunchzz 1 year ago
Language is not accurate mean. Speech has not literal uses, metaphor, parable. But the increase of plausibility comes with decrease of certainty. If we broadly interpret the bible it could mean anything
humbleu 1 year ago
@humbleu Clearly the Bible contains literary constructions and these are easy to distinquish. Again, when a prophet, for example, recounts a vision, I don't believe the vision was of something he literally saw (i.e. something he could have recorded with a camera), but something only he witnessed (we can debate whether or not he "was in the spirit" or just hallucinating). But, if the Bible says 600K men left Egypt at the exodus, then the the Bible says 600K men left Egypt at the exodus. Period!
brettppalmer 1 year ago
Taking the bible word for word is noble, however, the text lends itself to hundreds of contradictions.
eatcarbs 1 year ago
@eatcarbs Well, so be it!
brettppalmer 1 year ago
God is unchangeable - James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable - Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/ Ex 33:1,3,17,14
eatcarbs 1 year ago
God is tired and rests - Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests - Is 40:28
eatcarbs 1 year ago
God is seen and heard - Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard - John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
eatcarbs 1 year ago
@eatcarbs You are misreading the bible. You must read the bible with your heart....upside down...under 55 Watt blacklight...while standing on one leg. See...it all makes sence then. (Oh...did i mention the secret decoder ring?) Just send me 10 percent of your gross income and I will loan you the decoder ring.
MrJmm999 1 year ago 11
God dwells in chosen temples - 2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples - Acts 7:48
eatcarbs 1 year ago
God is satisfied with his works - Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works - Gen 6:6
eatcarbs 1 year ago