your brain is full of so much bullshit and coupled with your indoctrination since childhood, i believe that you believe all that nonsensical crap coming out of your mouth, i feel sorry for you, you are beyond help.
The story of the Creation isn't meant to explain how the Earth was created? I was raised Christian, and most of my friends were, too, and the story of the Creation was never given any other "interpretation." And where did you get the business about the other gods? What's that about? When was that EVER part of the picture? I'm sorry, I tried to listen to you objectively, but I just can't - you're contradicting yourself and your religion every time you open your mouth.
@StarchildMagic The issue of other Gods was always in the picture back when Genesis was written. In a sense, this book suffers from its own success. We all come from societies where no one believes in multiple gods because of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The problem is that we assume Genesis was written to us, when it wasn't. The book is about 3500 years old.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner You are wrong in your assumption that no one comes from societies that believe in multiple gods. There are hundreds of currently practiced religions that worship multiple deities all over the world, here are a few;
Hinduism
Buddism
Shintoism
Neopaganism
Ayyavazhi
Taoism
Anishinaabe
By the way I just think it's funny that you think your religion is the right one even though it isn't the oldest, doesn't have the most followers, and makes just as much sense as the rest of them
Oh I get it, you convinced me that the bible knows the earth isn't 6000 years old but actually 6000 years and a few days old, since there were a few days before the first day. Nooow, how does that compensate for the immense evidence pointing that the earth is in fact 4 billion years old?
All you seem to be saying is that the Genesis account is not a scientific account of creation, which is quite true. You just need to tell that to the Creationists, not atheists.
"This video does not take into account the basic rules of interpreting ancient texts."
HAHahhaah....good one. So the bible is NOT inerrant and IS open to interpretation? I LOVE how myth-believers bounce between the bible being the perfect, inerrant, completely verbatim inspired word of god and then (when faced with eating shellfish being placed in the same category as homosexuality, for example) blurble ad nauseum about, "Well, y'all gottsa interpet it righyat or id don' mayek no sents!"
Okie since you don't misunderstand science you agree with evolution, you agree that earth is not 6000 yrs old? If not then you're ignorant. Now since we also "misunderstand" the bible, please explain to us how the laws concerning slaves or rape are justified. Giving 50 silver pieces to a rape victim you consider fair, or marrying the victim for that matter. How exactly is lot a good man when he offers he virgin daughters to the mob? Please do explain.
i don't get what you are trying to do. you first say that it was not perfect en created in the image of their time. That is the fact many athiest try to say, do not read the bible like it is worte for the problems of the day. So you are actualy telling why that is so. But when you get to the adem and eve, and you accept that like if it really happend. It's all a bit confusing if you ask me
yes, like you said in the first minute, the video "the story of creation" criticizes what many christians believe to be the story of creation. so the rest of your 15 min. video to prove...what?
i was wrong.. you are not one step closer to an atheist.. you are just some brainwashed moron who can't think for himself and needs to interpret the obvious bad things and things that don't make sense in the bible according to your own satisfaction..
if there was a lawyer for hitler today defending his actions.. he would definitely sound like you.. by saying that his followers dint interpret his command in the right way when he said : kill the jews..
and by saying that humans are born with an understanding of good and bad because adam ate fruit from the tree of knowledge ..
you are implying that animals dont have an understanding of good and bad..
have you ever seen penguins.. how united they are and a penguin is even willing to love someone's child and take care of it out of sheer love.. how would you explain that.. how are animals born with that same instinct too.. but not all animals.. what are you trying to say. ?
haha. it seems like those ancient writers just wanted to sell their books and missed the important information that god probably wanted us to know.. because they thought people back then wouldnt accept god if they coudlnt understand complex things like creation of stars and universe.
now just replace that they dint write it because it wasn't discovered. i must say you are one step closer to being an atheist.. you just cant accept it.. cause you think that atheists are of the devil or something..
So basically, he doesn't know how to interpret ancient texts, but you do? Genesis isn't written to explain or answer questions about creation and evolution? Hahaha you apologetics crack me up...
Most Christians get angry and want to take it literally (especially when it suits them). Don't care about ancient texts myself, if you are that's fine. I get that this is mythology written by people a long time ago most Christians in the US today unfortunately take it literally which is very dangerous.
and you do take into account how to interpret ancient texts? You probably simpathize with them for meeting your religious ideals, but ur a lot of years late, people are supposed to have been stupider then. I can tell it a little bit, in the bible. I can totally see were they are coming from, can you, really?
"First microbial life wasn't worshiped. The text does go in the same order of events that science tells us" like what? Give an example, you mean you think God caused first microbial life and then it evolved?
@HilleInc Gen 1 skips things that would be included if the purpose was just to tell you the major events of natural prehistory. Rather, Gen 1 goes down a list of ancient deities and tells you when the were made according to the natural history timeline. So the first life mentioned is plants on land. Gen 1 is not saying that this is the first life. Rather Gen 1 is saying that "after that God made the next thing that you think is a God." They worshiped plants. It is the basis of civilization
Yeah, well I think the problem is that TheThinkingAtheist's video is talking to a specific part of the population who has a different interpretation than you.
So genesis was not written to explain how creation was made?
Well, there is alot of Christians who disagree with you, so what empirical proof do you have to show that you understand the Bible the correct way? maybe its even the Atheist who understands it the right way? And if you cant why should we take anything you have to say seriously ?
@HilleInc The evidence is hidden in translation and the passage of time. Genesis 1 goes straight through the list of Gods from a competing story, the Enuma Elish. It goes in the same order and even uses odd words for things that are created in order to make them sound more like the gods in the other story. It adds a few animal gods that people worshiped but weren't in the other story. The point of the text stands out as, "This one God made everything else." This would have been radical then
@HilleInc A reasonable question! 1)Loss of Context...Babylonian wasn't translated until the 1800's and the city itself was thought mythical until the same century. So the translating of that text and proving it's existence gave revealed the purpose for the Genesis 1 story. 2)Furthermore, the simple fact is that translation into something like English, coupled with no knowledge of the competing religions of the time, makes one lose sight of the purpose of the text.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner It is this loss of purpose for the story that leads to misinterpretations. The text was assumed to simply be a natural history of the earth before humans. People thought it was written to simply tell how God made the earth. So questions like, "What was the first life forms" were blatantly assumed to be answered by the text. But, the text never makes any statement of it's purpose. It uses puns by playing with names of Babylonian Gods.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So the text completely skips the origin of life! That was never it's purpose. What Gen 1 does is take things that were worshiped and tell you when the one God made them. First microbial life wasn't worshiped. The text does go in the same order of events that science tells us. But what it does is completely skip along the natural history down to when the next thing on the ancient list of Gods comes up.
Where do you draw the line with interpretations? If so much was simply figurative, wouldn't it be possible that even Jesus himself was allegorical? A man representative of what people "should" act like. Creating a "superman" character for people to look up to can be extremely beneficial for a primitive society.
@ArtistryofDebauchery I tried to give reasons for why the text should be interpreted in this way. It is noteworthy here that I in no way supported an "metaphorical" interpretation. My argument is that we have to understand what the text meant in the context of who it was written to before we can know what it means for us. I made another video about this. "Genesis vs. Evolution"
@ApologeticsBenJoiner But how do you know that it was made to be interpreted? Can you tell me where in the bible it says NOT to take things like Genesis literally? I would love to know, that would undoubtedly put an end to creationist efforts and many of their followers for good.
@ArtistryofDebauchery The only part that I don't think we should take literally is the word "day." The rest I take literally. My argument was that the literal meaning is not what everyone thinks it is. For the word "day," in Genesis 2:4 the entirety of the preceding chapter is referred to as one day. Furthermore, the 7th day cannot be literal because it is still going. It is never given the ending the others are. Hebrews 4 even speaks of this as a "sabbath rest of God" that remains.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So.. why would God even allow his definition of "day" be so easily mistranslated? An all powerful God could have easily prevented such an erroneous mistranslation, especially if it lead many to believe the "wrong" thing. Why doesn't He simply intervene on such a dilemma?
@ArtistryofDebauchery Why did God allow this? Perhaps letting us run our own lives? Why do atheists place so much importance on the freedom to believe what you want, but then their favorite reason to reject God is that He isn't here taking away that freedom? They claim that He should be their omnipotent dictator. But since He isn't, He doesn't exist. Here's the hymns they seem to want "Oh, most marvelous dictator. We bow in your oppressive Tyranny."
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Atheists don't "want" a dictator, they just want a reason why a "omniscient God" would allow certain things to happen; things that could have easily been prevented.
Shouldn't God at least have a clear message rather than the need for various interpretations? Or is this only reserved for dictators?
@ArtistryofDebauchery Well, I guess the question then becomes, "How challenging should God make it?" It simply doesn't break into simply easy or hard to interpret. God could have made genesis harder or easier. Why exactly He picked this amount of difficulty is the question.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner But why should there be any room for questions at all? I mean.. If you were to write a book for your children, containing extremely important information, wouldnt you want it to be as clear as possible? It's not effective to allow multiple interpretations for the same thing. But it is because of these interpretations, that there are different branches of Christianity. Who's doing it the "right" way? Will the "incorrect" interpreters be punished for a mistranslated Bible?
@ArtistryofDebauchery "But why should there be any room for questions at all?"-- They're always there. In the Garden of Eden. Eve takes the commandment not to eat from the tree to, "eat it or touch it." This is typical human behavior and is especially true for children. We always try to find ways to re-interpret it. The Jews have a law about not traveling on the Sabbath. It's so simple, but they tie strings all over the neighborhood on Friday to make it all "one house" so they can go wherever.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner The fact of the matter is that with children you soon realize that the responsibility is ultimately up to the child to keep from twisting the parent's words. Any statement can be twisted. There are correct interpretations, but ultimately God wants people to SEEK the truth. He wants us to make a decision to be honest. He challenges us with this and waits to see what we will do.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner "God wants people to SEEK the truth." Obviously, His wish to have people "seek" his "true" word has gone terribly wrong. There are atheists & skeptics. And not to mention the numerous other religions out there who all seem to claim they're "right". Could God not foresee such a disaster?Why would He permit such infringements on "His plan" to exist?
Also, How is one even able to search for the "real" word of God, when so much of it could be false?
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Do I describe a dictatorial god? No. People typically cheer on their god for the things their deity did. I am simply pointing out the things God DIDN'T do...
But don't you see my point? If there was an omnipotent & prefect Christian God, He would have made His existence obvious to us. Instead, so much doubt remains about His true intentions and existence, it suggests that such a God, if existing, is quite inept about the way He wants His "true word" to be spread or known.
@ArtistryofDebauchery "Obviously, His wish to have people "seek" his "true" word has gone terribly wrong. There are atheists & skeptics. And not to mention the numerous other religions out there who all seem to claim they're "right". Could God not foresee such a disaster?Why would He permit such infringements on "His plan" to exist?" The thing is, that you either don't give people freedom or else allow them to disbelieve.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Yeh but God apparently has allowed belief to become EXTREMELY difficult to follow. The mistranslated part of the bible is an example of this.
Correct me if Im wrong, but according to the Christian faith (and my grandma), rejecting the spirit of Jesus Christ is a sin worthy of hell, right? But how can one reject or deny the existence of something that isnt blatantly obvious to us?
If God was real, His existence should be KNOWN to us. Only then could we decide to accept Him
@ArtistryofDebauchery Jesus promised us that being a Christian will not be easy. Would you really want it to be easy? Paul says in Romans 1 that it is obvious that there is a God and that people have a problem of guilt over sin. But that's just for starters. Further issues with the Bible could easily be more difficult. "In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." John 16:33
@ApologeticsBenJoiner It should be easy. But because God has hidden His direct influence on our world, many have gone to other religions or don't even believe in a God. Did God not consider these disastrous consequences? Or does He not exist?
We should be born with the knowledge within us that there is indeed a God. Only then would we be able to make an educated choice by either sinfully denying/resisting His "obvious" existence, or choosing to follow Him. Continued.....
@ApologeticsBenJoiner instead, He only brought mention of His existence 2k years ago in Jerusalem by His ONLY son. Did he really expect his "true" religion to spread instantaneously and eliminate the "false" ones? No! It took at least 500 years for Christianity to pick up speed. Not to mention how many early Christian churches were doing it the "wrong" way.
But what about all the other cultures that have never even heard of the Christian god? They didnt even have a choice! Must they go to hell?
2. The God, whose existence is being questioned, is considered "omniscient" & desires to be worshipped.
If God is omniscient and all powerful, why didn't he prevent any room for skepticism to take place? Why isn't the existence and true word of God as blatantly obvious as the sun or the moon?
The existence of reasonable doubt thus suggests that God is either careless, imprudent or does not exist.
@ArtistryofDebauchery Oh, I didn't realize before I made my last post that you had made this post. I don't connect the fact that there are people who disbelieve with the fact that they have good reasons to doubt. I think there is plenty of room for UNreasonable doubt. If a person is truly honest, he or she will admit that there is a God. I have made two videos arguing for God's existence. They are under the "Philosophy and Christ" playlist on my channel. Feel free to check them out.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So... wait? You're saying every person who doesn't believe in God (primarily the monotheistic Christian one) is under "unreasonable doubt"? Therefore everyone who has proposed legitimate claims against the Bible is simply in denial? That's a HUGE assumption, and I can tell you right now, I am not apart of that demographic. God is not obvious. That is why it's called "faith". It's belief, not knowledge.
@MineCraftFish1 When children are young, parents tell them what they can and cannot do. Sally goes to a party with her friends. They are all using drugs. She doesn't want to be a loser. She feels that she will be a loser who gets no attention by not joining in. She says to herself, "Mom and Dad didn't tell me not to use drugs tonight." She does, gets caught, and punished. What happened here? A human being has a marvelous capacity to get confused and still think he or she is wise.
@MineCraftFish1 There are a variety of reasons that we would expect the Bible to need interpreting. Not the least of which is people. People mix things up. Sometimes it is done on purpose for an agenda. Sometimes it is the result of prior confusion. Either way, the world is full of people who are think they are wise but are really foolish. Intellectual confusion is abundant. This is why we have lawyers. This is why we have Biblical Interpretation.
@ApologeticsBenJoiner If god is all powerful(which is impossible in the first place) then he is capable of making a book that is 'can't be mixed up. Here's a couple things that may get you to think if there really is a Christian God.
He gave us free will, yet we must abide by his rulebook or we burn in hell.
A lot of the things in the Bible are considered immoral by most people I.E. Stoning your wife if you find she isn't a virgin. Yet considered moral by god!
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Could God have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil? Perhaps letting you run your own life? Perhaps letting you be evil or good? Why do atheists place so much importance on the freedom to believe what you want, but then their favorite reason to reject God is that He isn't here taking away that freedom. They claim that He should be their omnipotent dictator. Here's the hymns they seem to want "Oh, most marvelous dictator. We bow in your oppressive Tryranny"
You are right, there are a lot of different views out there. Throw in the katabole and now we have another view between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. This view is accepted by a lot of christians today,, although there is no sound proof of that. However because of this certian view,, it places a long period of time between these verses and that allows some christians to blend science and the Bible together. There are tons of views out there,and its mans' opinion but it comes down to what do you believe.
I believe that God is all powerful,, with that power I believe the creation days' as written. As for myself I believe He could have created what was described in Genesis 1 in one day, if He wanted too. When I read the word "pure" that's what I believe. Its because of science that God's word is being pushed back. I used to doubt the word until I started reasearching the science myself,,from the 1700's. Its amazing how it changed since then. Paul faced the same problems in Athens, Book of Acts.
@Creationist6000 The first Genesis narrative has been debated far longer than Genetics or Evolution. A list of the varieties from a wide range of interpreters: Origen 185-254 "only last 3 days were 24 hours" Basil 330-379 "instantaneous" Ambrose 339-397 "6 24hr. days but one day occurred 7 times" Augustine 354-430 "it is impossible to conceive of what the days were" (he gives a wide range of reasons) Anselm 1093 "sequence of events of unspecified length"
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Aquinas 1200's "7 days with the same events repeating." Luther 1535 "6 24 hour days." Calvin 1554 "Impossible to know the length from scripture and must be left up to sciences like astronomy even though that too is limited" The 7th day cannot be literal because it has yet to end as is alluded to in Heb 4:4-6 that the 7th day waits for us to enter it. Furthermore, Gen 2:4 refers to the entirety of the events of Gen 1 as one "day."
Prov. 30:5 says every word of God is pure: If i believe that and then read on day 3 God created the plants and on day 4 God created the sun,, then I can believe that there is not thousands of years between day's 3 and 4, because plants can't live without sunlight for thousands of years. Plus the other clues in each creation day like,, evening,,morning,,day,,and the number for each day. There is no warning in Proverbs 30:5-6, it is a statement in which you believe it or you don't.
@Creationist6000 I'm not really asking what translation uses which word. I'm asking why you used the word. I wanted to know if the "purity" of the words somehow affected your interpretation of Genesis 1 in a way which I do not realize. I just want to understand why you interpret it the way that you do.
I admire what you are doing especially going after the thinking atheist. But it seems that you are more on the lines of a progressive creationist. The gentleman above is correct they are a lot of people that belive in creation and take Genesis as the truth. Read Proverbs 30:5-6
@Creationist6000 My argument was that any interpretation which says Genesis gives us a 6000 year earth, or plants before the sun, is a LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. This type of interpretation does exactly what Prov 30:5-6 warns against. It forces the interpreter's ideas onto the text instead of letting it say what it wants. I gave reasons why this is true instead of just saying "it means this." Anyone is welcome to rebut said reasons.
"Misinterpretation", "context"...lol. It doesn't matter what you say. , You have to admit that you are trying to defend The Bibnle, for crying out loud! How can you have any credibility when you admit to defending The Bible? I suspect you are Christian even. Just admit it.
So, and I hope I'm getting this correct, you are saying that your "faith" is that the Bible isn't an absolute depiction of reality, but more an apocryphal story intended to instil a set of beliefs and emotions. That it contains area of interpretation, as you are doing.
But you must realise that there are a large number of very vocal Christians who believe their religious texts are THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH and cannot be denied.
@ascolti I believe it's all true. I was arguing that the "literal" interpretations are actually very "liberal" and are examples of people forcing their own ideas on the text. I was trying to make a case for what the text is actually saying instead of what we want it to say.
What I find most extraordinary is that you claim that is silent on the evolution of humans. That simply is ridiculous. Common descent is as well established as any fact of nature. To state otherwise amounts to ignorance or dishonesty about the current state of biology. If your religion requires special creation - it's just false.
@Gnomefro Genesis is neither a natural history nor a liberally interpreted metaphor. It is very literally answering questions, jut not our questions. Also, I never said it was silent of the evolution of humans. I am sorry but I should have been more clear. The common descent of anatomically modern humans does have a lot of scientific evidence. Evidence is lacking for behaviourally modern humans. Anthropologists call this the "great leap forward."
@ApologeticsBenJoiner The "great leap forward" is a subject of great debate because of a lack of knowledge about it. All of the sudden the archaeological record explodes with tool use, social gathering, funeral rites, and art. This in a hominid species that was looking like it was on the decline. Theories abound, but the fact of the matter is that all we have is anatomically modern humans for eons and then a huge leap in artifact findings.
Although I didn't actually look at the video you're replying to, from what you're saying it sounds like it tries to make the same point you are: That genesis is in fact not natural history, which many creationists claim. If there hadn't been millions of literalist Christians, no atheists would bother with genesis.
Although you seem to be somewhat ambivalent towards it and try to defend the biblical account as scientific in places.
@OWC2000 Understand what it meant in the context it was written for first. It can mean nothing now that it did not mean then unless you can argue for some supernatural and "hidden" message.
your brain is full of so much bullshit and coupled with your indoctrination since childhood, i believe that you believe all that nonsensical crap coming out of your mouth, i feel sorry for you, you are beyond help.
kryo101 6 days ago
The story of the Creation isn't meant to explain how the Earth was created? I was raised Christian, and most of my friends were, too, and the story of the Creation was never given any other "interpretation." And where did you get the business about the other gods? What's that about? When was that EVER part of the picture? I'm sorry, I tried to listen to you objectively, but I just can't - you're contradicting yourself and your religion every time you open your mouth.
StarchildMagic 1 week ago
@StarchildMagic The issue of other Gods was always in the picture back when Genesis was written. In a sense, this book suffers from its own success. We all come from societies where no one believes in multiple gods because of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The problem is that we assume Genesis was written to us, when it wasn't. The book is about 3500 years old.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 1 week ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner You are wrong in your assumption that no one comes from societies that believe in multiple gods. There are hundreds of currently practiced religions that worship multiple deities all over the world, here are a few;
Hinduism
Buddism
Shintoism
Neopaganism
Ayyavazhi
Taoism
Anishinaabe
By the way I just think it's funny that you think your religion is the right one even though it isn't the oldest, doesn't have the most followers, and makes just as much sense as the rest of them
jnkwarior 4 days ago
Oh I get it, you convinced me that the bible knows the earth isn't 6000 years old but actually 6000 years and a few days old, since there were a few days before the first day. Nooow, how does that compensate for the immense evidence pointing that the earth is in fact 4 billion years old?
kevinmartinez723 2 weeks ago
All you seem to be saying is that the Genesis account is not a scientific account of creation, which is quite true. You just need to tell that to the Creationists, not atheists.
djhalling 2 weeks ago 2
"This video does not take into account the basic rules of interpreting ancient texts."
HAHahhaah....good one. So the bible is NOT inerrant and IS open to interpretation? I LOVE how myth-believers bounce between the bible being the perfect, inerrant, completely verbatim inspired word of god and then (when faced with eating shellfish being placed in the same category as homosexuality, for example) blurble ad nauseum about, "Well, y'all gottsa interpet it righyat or id don' mayek no sents!"
donfishmaster 1 month ago
Okie since you don't misunderstand science you agree with evolution, you agree that earth is not 6000 yrs old? If not then you're ignorant. Now since we also "misunderstand" the bible, please explain to us how the laws concerning slaves or rape are justified. Giving 50 silver pieces to a rape victim you consider fair, or marrying the victim for that matter. How exactly is lot a good man when he offers he virgin daughters to the mob? Please do explain.
linkuei83 1 month ago
This is the definition of: OBFUSCATING
Johnf85 1 month ago
bluh bluh bluh basically ermm...euhhh. bluh bluh and erm.......uhhh....
5367joemac 2 months ago
i don't get what you are trying to do. you first say that it was not perfect en created in the image of their time. That is the fact many athiest try to say, do not read the bible like it is worte for the problems of the day. So you are actualy telling why that is so. But when you get to the adem and eve, and you accept that like if it really happend. It's all a bit confusing if you ask me
lompeluiten 3 months ago
Billybob, why you cut off yo mullet?
MrBigInfidel 3 months ago
snore...hillbilly.
hulkernaut 3 months ago
In my opinion, you are completely right. Ancient texts such as the bible should indeed not be interpreted literally.
Chari0t94 3 months ago
You're a retard...
poloboycda 3 months ago
You have no idea what you talk about.
Atheists criticize Science? Because they don't have evidence of God?
What are you on about?
Scratch that, what are you on?
ProfOmnom 4 months ago
yes, like you said in the first minute, the video "the story of creation" criticizes what many christians believe to be the story of creation. so the rest of your 15 min. video to prove...what?
castelgandalf 4 months ago
16min of "I don't really know about what I am talking about" - Fail, bye
mikootz 4 months ago 23
I'm not watching 16 minutes of unorganized crap! Edit this shit down to 3 minutes and I'll watch your nonsense.
insidexistance 4 months ago
i was wrong.. you are not one step closer to an atheist.. you are just some brainwashed moron who can't think for himself and needs to interpret the obvious bad things and things that don't make sense in the bible according to your own satisfaction..
if there was a lawyer for hitler today defending his actions.. he would definitely sound like you.. by saying that his followers dint interpret his command in the right way when he said : kill the jews..
MrRorschachable 4 months ago
and by saying that humans are born with an understanding of good and bad because adam ate fruit from the tree of knowledge ..
you are implying that animals dont have an understanding of good and bad..
have you ever seen penguins.. how united they are and a penguin is even willing to love someone's child and take care of it out of sheer love.. how would you explain that.. how are animals born with that same instinct too.. but not all animals.. what are you trying to say. ?
MrRorschachable 4 months ago
you are right...you are clearly "The Not Thinking Interpreter"
MrRorschachable 4 months ago 13
haha. it seems like those ancient writers just wanted to sell their books and missed the important information that god probably wanted us to know.. because they thought people back then wouldnt accept god if they coudlnt understand complex things like creation of stars and universe.
now just replace that they dint write it because it wasn't discovered. i must say you are one step closer to being an atheist.. you just cant accept it.. cause you think that atheists are of the devil or something..
MrRorschachable 4 months ago
So basically, he doesn't know how to interpret ancient texts, but you do? Genesis isn't written to explain or answer questions about creation and evolution? Hahaha you apologetics crack me up...
kizzaht 4 months ago
Stop trying to justify what has been disproven, no one will look down on you for sucking up your pride and looking at it from another perspective.
T3hGearos 4 months ago
You don't make much sense, but you're cute and I'd bang ya...
ZelphKinderhook 4 months ago
Most Christians get angry and want to take it literally (especially when it suits them). Don't care about ancient texts myself, if you are that's fine. I get that this is mythology written by people a long time ago most Christians in the US today unfortunately take it literally which is very dangerous.
smellmyfingersify 4 months ago
and you do take into account how to interpret ancient texts? You probably simpathize with them for meeting your religious ideals, but ur a lot of years late, people are supposed to have been stupider then. I can tell it a little bit, in the bible. I can totally see were they are coming from, can you, really?
bakemonoshi 5 months ago
stop muttering and start thinking
oberonson18 5 months ago
"First microbial life wasn't worshiped. The text does go in the same order of events that science tells us" like what? Give an example, you mean you think God caused first microbial life and then it evolved?
HilleInc 5 months ago
@HilleInc Gen 1 skips things that would be included if the purpose was just to tell you the major events of natural prehistory. Rather, Gen 1 goes down a list of ancient deities and tells you when the were made according to the natural history timeline. So the first life mentioned is plants on land. Gen 1 is not saying that this is the first life. Rather Gen 1 is saying that "after that God made the next thing that you think is a God." They worshiped plants. It is the basis of civilization
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner
Yeah, well I think the problem is that TheThinkingAtheist's video is talking to a specific part of the population who has a different interpretation than you.
HilleInc 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So your saying the bible just has awful plot cohesion.
EFUgyrgyr 3 months ago
So genesis was not written to explain how creation was made?
Well, there is alot of Christians who disagree with you, so what empirical proof do you have to show that you understand the Bible the correct way? maybe its even the Atheist who understands it the right way? And if you cant why should we take anything you have to say seriously ?
HilleInc 5 months ago
@HilleInc The evidence is hidden in translation and the passage of time. Genesis 1 goes straight through the list of Gods from a competing story, the Enuma Elish. It goes in the same order and even uses odd words for things that are created in order to make them sound more like the gods in the other story. It adds a few animal gods that people worshiped but weren't in the other story. The point of the text stands out as, "This one God made everything else." This would have been radical then
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner
How can empirical evidence be hidden in translation and passage of time?
HilleInc 5 months ago
@HilleInc A reasonable question! 1)Loss of Context...Babylonian wasn't translated until the 1800's and the city itself was thought mythical until the same century. So the translating of that text and proving it's existence gave revealed the purpose for the Genesis 1 story. 2)Furthermore, the simple fact is that translation into something like English, coupled with no knowledge of the competing religions of the time, makes one lose sight of the purpose of the text.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner It is this loss of purpose for the story that leads to misinterpretations. The text was assumed to simply be a natural history of the earth before humans. People thought it was written to simply tell how God made the earth. So questions like, "What was the first life forms" were blatantly assumed to be answered by the text. But, the text never makes any statement of it's purpose. It uses puns by playing with names of Babylonian Gods.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So the text completely skips the origin of life! That was never it's purpose. What Gen 1 does is take things that were worshiped and tell you when the one God made them. First microbial life wasn't worshiped. The text does go in the same order of events that science tells us. But what it does is completely skip along the natural history down to when the next thing on the ancient list of Gods comes up.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
Where do you draw the line with interpretations? If so much was simply figurative, wouldn't it be possible that even Jesus himself was allegorical? A man representative of what people "should" act like. Creating a "superman" character for people to look up to can be extremely beneficial for a primitive society.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery I tried to give reasons for why the text should be interpreted in this way. It is noteworthy here that I in no way supported an "metaphorical" interpretation. My argument is that we have to understand what the text meant in the context of who it was written to before we can know what it means for us. I made another video about this. "Genesis vs. Evolution"
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner But how do you know that it was made to be interpreted? Can you tell me where in the bible it says NOT to take things like Genesis literally? I would love to know, that would undoubtedly put an end to creationist efforts and many of their followers for good.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery The only part that I don't think we should take literally is the word "day." The rest I take literally. My argument was that the literal meaning is not what everyone thinks it is. For the word "day," in Genesis 2:4 the entirety of the preceding chapter is referred to as one day. Furthermore, the 7th day cannot be literal because it is still going. It is never given the ending the others are. Hebrews 4 even speaks of this as a "sabbath rest of God" that remains.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So.. why would God even allow his definition of "day" be so easily mistranslated? An all powerful God could have easily prevented such an erroneous mistranslation, especially if it lead many to believe the "wrong" thing. Why doesn't He simply intervene on such a dilemma?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Why did God allow this? Perhaps letting us run our own lives? Why do atheists place so much importance on the freedom to believe what you want, but then their favorite reason to reject God is that He isn't here taking away that freedom? They claim that He should be their omnipotent dictator. But since He isn't, He doesn't exist. Here's the hymns they seem to want "Oh, most marvelous dictator. We bow in your oppressive Tyranny."
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Atheists don't "want" a dictator, they just want a reason why a "omniscient God" would allow certain things to happen; things that could have easily been prevented.
Shouldn't God at least have a clear message rather than the need for various interpretations? Or is this only reserved for dictators?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Well, I guess the question then becomes, "How challenging should God make it?" It simply doesn't break into simply easy or hard to interpret. God could have made genesis harder or easier. Why exactly He picked this amount of difficulty is the question.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner But why should there be any room for questions at all? I mean.. If you were to write a book for your children, containing extremely important information, wouldnt you want it to be as clear as possible? It's not effective to allow multiple interpretations for the same thing. But it is because of these interpretations, that there are different branches of Christianity. Who's doing it the "right" way? Will the "incorrect" interpreters be punished for a mistranslated Bible?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery "But why should there be any room for questions at all?"-- They're always there. In the Garden of Eden. Eve takes the commandment not to eat from the tree to, "eat it or touch it." This is typical human behavior and is especially true for children. We always try to find ways to re-interpret it. The Jews have a law about not traveling on the Sabbath. It's so simple, but they tie strings all over the neighborhood on Friday to make it all "one house" so they can go wherever.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner The fact of the matter is that with children you soon realize that the responsibility is ultimately up to the child to keep from twisting the parent's words. Any statement can be twisted. There are correct interpretations, but ultimately God wants people to SEEK the truth. He wants us to make a decision to be honest. He challenges us with this and waits to see what we will do.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner "God wants people to SEEK the truth." Obviously, His wish to have people "seek" his "true" word has gone terribly wrong. There are atheists & skeptics. And not to mention the numerous other religions out there who all seem to claim they're "right". Could God not foresee such a disaster?Why would He permit such infringements on "His plan" to exist?
Also, How is one even able to search for the "real" word of God, when so much of it could be false?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery I thought you didn't want an omnipotent dictator?
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Do I describe a dictatorial god? No. People typically cheer on their god for the things their deity did. I am simply pointing out the things God DIDN'T do...
But don't you see my point? If there was an omnipotent & prefect Christian God, He would have made His existence obvious to us. Instead, so much doubt remains about His true intentions and existence, it suggests that such a God, if existing, is quite inept about the way He wants His "true word" to be spread or known.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery "Obviously, His wish to have people "seek" his "true" word has gone terribly wrong. There are atheists & skeptics. And not to mention the numerous other religions out there who all seem to claim they're "right". Could God not foresee such a disaster?Why would He permit such infringements on "His plan" to exist?" The thing is, that you either don't give people freedom or else allow them to disbelieve.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Yeh but God apparently has allowed belief to become EXTREMELY difficult to follow. The mistranslated part of the bible is an example of this.
Correct me if Im wrong, but according to the Christian faith (and my grandma), rejecting the spirit of Jesus Christ is a sin worthy of hell, right? But how can one reject or deny the existence of something that isnt blatantly obvious to us?
If God was real, His existence should be KNOWN to us. Only then could we decide to accept Him
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Jesus promised us that being a Christian will not be easy. Would you really want it to be easy? Paul says in Romans 1 that it is obvious that there is a God and that people have a problem of guilt over sin. But that's just for starters. Further issues with the Bible could easily be more difficult. "In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." John 16:33
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner It should be easy. But because God has hidden His direct influence on our world, many have gone to other religions or don't even believe in a God. Did God not consider these disastrous consequences? Or does He not exist?
We should be born with the knowledge within us that there is indeed a God. Only then would we be able to make an educated choice by either sinfully denying/resisting His "obvious" existence, or choosing to follow Him. Continued.....
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner instead, He only brought mention of His existence 2k years ago in Jerusalem by His ONLY son. Did he really expect his "true" religion to spread instantaneously and eliminate the "false" ones? No! It took at least 500 years for Christianity to pick up speed. Not to mention how many early Christian churches were doing it the "wrong" way.
But what about all the other cultures that have never even heard of the Christian god? They didnt even have a choice! Must they go to hell?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Yes, but lets examine this:
1. Atheism and skepticism of God exists.
2. The God, whose existence is being questioned, is considered "omniscient" & desires to be worshipped.
If God is omniscient and all powerful, why didn't he prevent any room for skepticism to take place? Why isn't the existence and true word of God as blatantly obvious as the sun or the moon?
The existence of reasonable doubt thus suggests that God is either careless, imprudent or does not exist.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Oh, I didn't realize before I made my last post that you had made this post. I don't connect the fact that there are people who disbelieve with the fact that they have good reasons to doubt. I think there is plenty of room for UNreasonable doubt. If a person is truly honest, he or she will admit that there is a God. I have made two videos arguing for God's existence. They are under the "Philosophy and Christ" playlist on my channel. Feel free to check them out.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner So... wait? You're saying every person who doesn't believe in God (primarily the monotheistic Christian one) is under "unreasonable doubt"? Therefore everyone who has proposed legitimate claims against the Bible is simply in denial? That's a HUGE assumption, and I can tell you right now, I am not apart of that demographic. God is not obvious. That is why it's called "faith". It's belief, not knowledge.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
If god told men to write the bible, why does it have to be interpreted.
MineCraftFish1 5 months ago
@MineCraftFish1 When children are young, parents tell them what they can and cannot do. Sally goes to a party with her friends. They are all using drugs. She doesn't want to be a loser. She feels that she will be a loser who gets no attention by not joining in. She says to herself, "Mom and Dad didn't tell me not to use drugs tonight." She does, gets caught, and punished. What happened here? A human being has a marvelous capacity to get confused and still think he or she is wise.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner What are you trying to say here.. I'm confused...
MineCraftFish1 5 months ago
@MineCraftFish1 There are a variety of reasons that we would expect the Bible to need interpreting. Not the least of which is people. People mix things up. Sometimes it is done on purpose for an agenda. Sometimes it is the result of prior confusion. Either way, the world is full of people who are think they are wise but are really foolish. Intellectual confusion is abundant. This is why we have lawyers. This is why we have Biblical Interpretation.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner If god is all powerful(which is impossible in the first place) then he is capable of making a book that is 'can't be mixed up. Here's a couple things that may get you to think if there really is a Christian God.
He gave us free will, yet we must abide by his rulebook or we burn in hell.
A lot of the things in the Bible are considered immoral by most people I.E. Stoning your wife if you find she isn't a virgin. Yet considered moral by god!
All loving yet created evil.
MineCraftFish1 5 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Could God have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil? Perhaps letting you run your own life? Perhaps letting you be evil or good? Why do atheists place so much importance on the freedom to believe what you want, but then their favorite reason to reject God is that He isn't here taking away that freedom. They claim that He should be their omnipotent dictator. Here's the hymns they seem to want "Oh, most marvelous dictator. We bow in your oppressive Tryranny"
ApologeticsBenJoiner 5 months ago
.white trash.
sf49ersrule 6 months ago
You are right, there are a lot of different views out there. Throw in the katabole and now we have another view between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. This view is accepted by a lot of christians today,, although there is no sound proof of that. However because of this certian view,, it places a long period of time between these verses and that allows some christians to blend science and the Bible together. There are tons of views out there,and its mans' opinion but it comes down to what do you believe.
Creationist6000 6 months ago
Dude! R U on drugs? Like... what?!
MsJK21 6 months ago
I believe that God is all powerful,, with that power I believe the creation days' as written. As for myself I believe He could have created what was described in Genesis 1 in one day, if He wanted too. When I read the word "pure" that's what I believe. Its because of science that God's word is being pushed back. I used to doubt the word until I started reasearching the science myself,,from the 1700's. Its amazing how it changed since then. Paul faced the same problems in Athens, Book of Acts.
Creationist6000 6 months ago
@Creationist6000 The first Genesis narrative has been debated far longer than Genetics or Evolution. A list of the varieties from a wide range of interpreters: Origen 185-254 "only last 3 days were 24 hours" Basil 330-379 "instantaneous" Ambrose 339-397 "6 24hr. days but one day occurred 7 times" Augustine 354-430 "it is impossible to conceive of what the days were" (he gives a wide range of reasons) Anselm 1093 "sequence of events of unspecified length"
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner Aquinas 1200's "7 days with the same events repeating." Luther 1535 "6 24 hour days." Calvin 1554 "Impossible to know the length from scripture and must be left up to sciences like astronomy even though that too is limited" The 7th day cannot be literal because it has yet to end as is alluded to in Heb 4:4-6 that the 7th day waits for us to enter it. Furthermore, Gen 2:4 refers to the entirety of the events of Gen 1 as one "day."
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
Prov. 30:5 says every word of God is pure: If i believe that and then read on day 3 God created the plants and on day 4 God created the sun,, then I can believe that there is not thousands of years between day's 3 and 4, because plants can't live without sunlight for thousands of years. Plus the other clues in each creation day like,, evening,,morning,,day,,and the number for each day. There is no warning in Proverbs 30:5-6, it is a statement in which you believe it or you don't.
Creationist6000 6 months ago
@Creationist6000 I must make sure I understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "pure?"
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner pure is from the KJV,,, flawless is the NIV translation.
Creationist6000 6 months ago
@Creationist6000 I'm not really asking what translation uses which word. I'm asking why you used the word. I wanted to know if the "purity" of the words somehow affected your interpretation of Genesis 1 in a way which I do not realize. I just want to understand why you interpret it the way that you do.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
I admire what you are doing especially going after the thinking atheist. But it seems that you are more on the lines of a progressive creationist. The gentleman above is correct they are a lot of people that belive in creation and take Genesis as the truth. Read Proverbs 30:5-6
Creationist6000 6 months ago
@Creationist6000 My argument was that any interpretation which says Genesis gives us a 6000 year earth, or plants before the sun, is a LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. This type of interpretation does exactly what Prov 30:5-6 warns against. It forces the interpreter's ideas onto the text instead of letting it say what it wants. I gave reasons why this is true instead of just saying "it means this." Anyone is welcome to rebut said reasons.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
"Misinterpretation", "context"...lol. It doesn't matter what you say. , You have to admit that you are trying to defend The Bibnle, for crying out loud! How can you have any credibility when you admit to defending The Bible? I suspect you are Christian even. Just admit it.
trueleroix 6 months ago
dude, you need to get to the point faster
dfisk79 6 months ago
So, and I hope I'm getting this correct, you are saying that your "faith" is that the Bible isn't an absolute depiction of reality, but more an apocryphal story intended to instil a set of beliefs and emotions. That it contains area of interpretation, as you are doing.
But you must realise that there are a large number of very vocal Christians who believe their religious texts are THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH and cannot be denied.
ascolti 6 months ago
@ascolti I believe it's all true. I was arguing that the "literal" interpretations are actually very "liberal" and are examples of people forcing their own ideas on the text. I was trying to make a case for what the text is actually saying instead of what we want it to say.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
What I find most extraordinary is that you claim that is silent on the evolution of humans. That simply is ridiculous. Common descent is as well established as any fact of nature. To state otherwise amounts to ignorance or dishonesty about the current state of biology. If your religion requires special creation - it's just false.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Gnomefro Genesis is neither a natural history nor a liberally interpreted metaphor. It is very literally answering questions, jut not our questions. Also, I never said it was silent of the evolution of humans. I am sorry but I should have been more clear. The common descent of anatomically modern humans does have a lot of scientific evidence. Evidence is lacking for behaviourally modern humans. Anthropologists call this the "great leap forward."
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
@ApologeticsBenJoiner The "great leap forward" is a subject of great debate because of a lack of knowledge about it. All of the sudden the archaeological record explodes with tool use, social gathering, funeral rites, and art. This in a hominid species that was looking like it was on the decline. Theories abound, but the fact of the matter is that all we have is anatomically modern humans for eons and then a huge leap in artifact findings.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago
Although I didn't actually look at the video you're replying to, from what you're saying it sounds like it tries to make the same point you are: That genesis is in fact not natural history, which many creationists claim. If there hadn't been millions of literalist Christians, no atheists would bother with genesis.
Although you seem to be somewhat ambivalent towards it and try to defend the biblical account as scientific in places.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
"the rules for exegeting ancient texts" what rules would this be exactly?
OWC2000 6 months ago
@OWC2000 Understand what it meant in the context it was written for first. It can mean nothing now that it did not mean then unless you can argue for some supernatural and "hidden" message.
ApologeticsBenJoiner 6 months ago