This doesn't prove the genesis flood never happened, Gilgamesh may have been first to record it in writing, but he only wrote down what the ancient hebrews told him about the flood and then stole the story for his Gods.The genesis flood was written more than 1000 years later but maybe it was verbally passed round for many years prior? At least thats what the theist will say.
Agreed ... that's why I argue that the probability that the polytheistic version came first is based not just on the chronology of the records, but the coherency of the storytelling. "Divinity" in the story is full of rash decisions and ill will and regrets: characteristics that don't match Omniscience & Omnipotence & Omnibenevolence, but that match up well the flawed gods of polytheism.
I agree 100%. The craziest thing about christianity for me is the first five books of the bible. This so called one God is making reference to other Gods left right and centre, yet they tell us he is the beginning and the end and the one and only God.
@MrPinkUnicornz this channel makes me so sad..i cant prove it to you im sorry, only God will reveal his son to you and only he will reveal his Father.. science wont do it , faith alone.
I applaud you, sir! The quest for true knowledge, requires the debunking of religious "beliefs". There's a very good reason why Zeus and the Pantheon of Olympus is no longer accepted as truth...it's because the story is RIDICULOUS! As is the continued belief of an invisible man who lives in the sky. People need to get past this tribal barbarism.
> man trying to question God's authority, how righteous are u?
Do you feel you have the right to question what millions of Hindus believe is the Divine Word of the Rig Veda? Would you dare question what millions of Muslims say is the Divine Word of the Koran?
Why are you skeptical of the divinity of the Rig Veda and the Koran?
If you can answer that question, then you have the answer to why I'm skeptical of the Christian claim that the Bible is God's Word.
You should also add some contradictions come from compositing at least two sources together. For example, the Lord says that 2 of each will be saved, but then 2 of each unclean, 7 pairs of clean, when the list of clean animals comes much later.
> You should also add some contradictions come from compositing at least two sources
I cover this subject in my book ("Dialog with a Christian Proselytizer," the basis for most of my videos), but yes, I should have mentioned it here too, as it's extra evidence that the Bible's Flood myth is based on a mix of sources.
I think you've done a thorough & brilliant analysis on these biblical stories.
Now, I have one question for you. I've dealt with this question but do not normally share my views about it...who do you think the "gods" were?
We also had them here in the Americas. My ancestors have stories about them but are much more candid than the bible is, concerning the gods...a bit more candid, anyway.
> I think you've done a thorough & brilliant analysis on these biblical stories.
Thanks!
> ...who do you think the "gods" were?
Projects of the human imagination.
I think nature just "is," and b/c of highly improbable circumstances, intelligent life evolved--life intelligent to make up stories about the supernatural & Creation, Rituals, the Afterlife, etc (that is, religion).
Thanks 4 making this video. You've covered the exact same points I have so many times B4, especially in debating this subject.
I see this story, as u suggest, was copied & changed, from earlier Pantheons belonging to much older religions.
I've studied the Ugaritic Texts & I've concluded that the earliest Hebrews, who were actually Cawnites, were definitely polytheistic in that their Elohim (plural) was made up of many gods. It was when they moved to monotheism that they made so many errors.
> I've concluded that the earliest Hebrews, who were actually Cawnites, were definitely polytheistic in that their Elohim (plural) was made up of many gods.
Agreed--the early parts of the bible are comprehensible only from a polytheistic perspective.
> It was when they moved to monotheism that they made so many errors.
Certainly the monotheism makes for less coherent storytelling!
> I'm sure you read the Greek version of Deucalion and Phyrra, when Zeus flooded the world and they were the only survivors
Yes, but I can't say that the Greek myth influenced the Hebrew, as the Hebrew might be earlier ... I feel I have a much better case saying that the Epic of Gilgamesh (some 2000 BC) was a model for the Noah tale.
@ToddAllenGates the devil in the bible is known as the great lie and a counterfit....ppl claimed christ n horus were the same too...they slander God and his son..shame on you
I know some skeptics make this charge, but I don't know of any evidence that supports this claim: I haven't come across ancient Egyptian texts that include passages that have striking similarities between Christ and Horus.
The similarities between the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh vs. the bible *are* striking, however. And Gilgamesh clearly predates the Bible.
> shame on you
For what? I'm just discussing comparative mythology.
Read the book TALMUD JMMANUEL and be free from all the lies of all earth cult religions cause all are false , learn the truth The God of Earth were Humans book OM 52:8, learn the true teachings of all earth prophets about spirituality not worshiping figuers gods or idols except Creation. Wake up u late, stop been a spiritual slave your spirit is part of Creation so Honor Creation above all u your self is the master of your destiny.
> For the writer Yahweh's behaviors really were not contradictions.
Agreed, but Jews and Christians today don't read the bible as a collection of contributions from different authors with different ideas about god--they read it as one book about one Omnipotent God.
So yes, the author who saw as god as neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent wasn't putting together a contradiction-filled story -- although I doubt that's a defense that would comfort many believers!
Nice video Mr. Gates. Personally, given the omniscience of the Judeo-Christian deity, Yahweh supposedly knowing that all this would happen from the start, it feels like a petulent child throwing away his toys because they don't do what he wants them to.
Considering the various ways their god intervenes in later books (Jesus, even in Moses' case, although since Yahweh also prohibited Pharoah from releasing them...), drowning them seems so utterly unneccesary.
On the 7th day the flood ended. No more noise was heard, man and animal had been annihilated. Because there was no noise _all_ the gods rested on this 7th day, which was recast as the Hebrew Shabbat or Sabbath via a "new twist": instead of gods resting on a 7th day after destroying the earth one god rests after creating the earth. The Hebrews are refuting Mesopotamian concepts via inversions of myths. Enlil is berated by Enki and Ishtar for drowning innocent people! A chastened Enlil repents!
> The Hebrews are refuting the Mesopotamian concepts via inversion of myths ...
The Mesopotamian myths had the distasteful aspect of the gods (i.e. "nature") not caring about man -- but in that way, the Mesopotamian stories were, I'm almost tempted to say, more accurate! Or at least, the storytelling hung together better: no need to twist reality into saying that a loving righteous god is in control of the tides and tsunamis.
Mans' noise disturbed the god Enlil who could not rest by day nor sleep by night. Man was created to replace the noisey Igigi gods who for 40 years worked day and night without rest in Enlil's garden at Nippur. They rebelled, man was made to replace them. The Igigi's noise was transferred to man. Man's noise was that of the Igigi: Objecting that they had no rest from toil in Enlil's garden in edin/eden! Overworked man's noise was ended by a flood which brought silence and rest for Enlil.
Objecting to the Mesopotamian notion that immoral, sinful, unrighteous gods attempted to annihilate man with a flood over a little noise, the Hebrews recast all this: God is righteous, man is evil, man deserved annihilation. Man is a sinner because his gods were sinners and immoral, before man's creation they murdered each other, had incest with mothers & daughters, and were fornicators. Man made in the immoral, sinful gods' image cannot be any better.
A good analysis on Gates' part. The Mesopotamian account of the flood is a tongue-in-cheek comedy-farce ridiculing the gods for their stupidity and short-sightedness, failing to realize if man is destroyed who will grow the gods' food in the gods' city-gardens of the Sumerian edin and feed them? They will starve without man. They created man to bear in their place the back-breaking toil in edin's gardens. They will bear again this toil! How stupid of them! Man is innocent, gods are unrighteous!
The only explanation for such a story I can see is that we want, deep down, for their to be a powerful God that loves us, but then nature turns out to be cruel and indifferent and so some story tellers try to find a way to fit a loving God into the framework of the world we see.
We'd rather blame ourselves (or others) than to give up on the dream of a loving God.
By the way, I'm trying to put the general form of your method to work on youtube:
> ... nature turns out to be cruel and indifferent and so some story tellers try to find a way to fit a loving God into the framework of the world we see.
Well said!
> By the way, I'm trying to put the general form of your method to work on youtube:
It always amazes me that not only does God cause so much suffering but that Noah, the most righteous decent man alive, seems to have no qualms about shutting his doors on his boat and allowing everyone else to drown.
> [Noah] seems to have no qualms about shutting his doors on his boat and allowing everyone else to drown
It's like those who were lucky enough to get lifeboats when the Titanic sank, and had to paddle quickly away from their fellow passengers drowning (and screaming) in the water. There's only so much room on the boat, and hey, you gotta look out for #1!
While I am making those videos, I was wondering, do you still hold that omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible with God, or do you just think they are unlikely given your particular understanding of God.
> do you still hold that omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible with God
I don't see any reason, at least theoretically, why omnipotence and omniscience would be logically incompatible with the notion of a Deity. But I *do* believe that it's highly improbable that omnipotence and omniscience played any role in the text of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Were that the case, I would expect such a book to blow every other book (be it literature, science, philosophy, etc.) away: the works of Shakespeare, Homer, Einstein, Homer, Aesop and so on should be *nothing* in comparison.
The Bible does indeed include many passages that are beautiful, compassionate, exciting, and wise—but so do many secular books, and many of these secular books surpass the Bible in each area.
And when it comes to scientific knowledge, the Bible is indistinguishable from other books written in its primitive time period. If a supernatural force that created everything in the universe--from the Milky Way to the mistletoe--inspired the bible, I would expect to see some of that brilliance reflected in the text.
I also think the evidence backs up the conclusion that it's highly improbable that omnipotence and omniscience played any role in the creation of our known universe. But that's a subject that's best addressed by other YouTubers, such as AronRa, Thunderf00t, and potholer54.
Here is a possibility not mentioned in your video.
Noah's flood is said to have occurred circa 2349 BCE.
Parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh are dated as early as circa 2000 BCE.
Noah'f flood is recorded in the Bible in the 1450's BCE.
The epic of Gilg. could be an account of the same flood story yet perverted by oral tradition (which there is evidence of). For one example, their ark is a perfect box (total fail as a boat) where the biblical ark was like a real ship in design.
I recognize that both stories could have been writing about the same large Near East flood. As for the Gilgamesh version, I wouldn't say it was "perverted by oral tradition," but that it was simply a creative story teller's supernatural version of a naturalistic event—and I would say that the tale of Noah falls under the same category.
Ancient people observed the phenomena of nature—thunder & lightening, the changing seasons, the apparent orbit of the sun, the rain that sometimes falls too lightly or too heavily—and made up stories about the gods' anger or love or care or refusal to care. The best stories were passed on and worked their way into the world's religions. Even if you don't think this is true about the bible, my guess is that you *do* agree this is true about the ancient Greeks, Mayans, Vikings, etc.
Back to the tale of Noah: to take this tale literally—including the belief that circa 2349 BC, the world's animal population had only one pair of every species, and there was only one ethnic group of humans—means you have to shut your mind off to the mounds of contradictory evidence from archeology, geology, and biology. (Although I know that not all Christians interpret this tale literally.)
I am not as concerned about the literal vs figurative translation. What I was addressing was "who is the copycat". However, I do wanna clear up some of the things you just said. Literal Christians don't think he took one pair of every "species" . The word they use is one "kind". So they wouldn't bring multiple species of the same kind of animal. Ie you would bring two individual dogs instead of many species of dog, and let them evolve back into chihuahuah and great danes..
Even from a purely secular point of view, one could argue that the ancient Hebrews didn't yet think of their God as omniscient or necessarily benign, so there's nothing inherently illogical about them inventing a story about a god who created humans but regretted how they turned out, so He decided to try again via the crude method of drowning everything (despite the large amount of kitten [etc.] collateral damage),
but then regretted all the damage done. And one could then argue that the Sumerians improved the tale by making up multiple gods that were even less powerful & wise & kindly—and that there was dissent among the gods when it came to how to treat humans—thus making the story of a flawed creation and then regret over careless destruction more internally consistent.
I feel that the chronology of the records—that the Sumerian version predates the biblical version by some 500 to 1,000 years (depending on which biblical scholar you listen to)—is fairly good evidence that the Bible was influenced by Gilgamesh rather than vice versa. But "fairly good" is all I can say ... I don't "know" that I'm right. If somehow evidence could turn up that proved that the Sumerians copied from the Hebrews, I would be surprised, but not shocked.
> Literal Christians don't think he took one pair of every "species" . The word they use is one "kind". So they wouldn't bring multiple species of the same kind of animal. If you would bring two individual dogs instead of many species of dog, and let them evolve back into chihuahuah and great danes..
Well, even if "Noah" took one pair (Genesis 6:19-20) or even seven pairs (Genesis 7:2-3) of every "kind" instead of every "species,"
that's still utterly contradictory to archeology, geology, and biology. And written history as well: Egyptian written records go back to almost 3000 BC, and there's no "break point" in which all the Egyptians were destroyed by a flood. The Djoser Step Pyramid (Saqqara, Egypt) dates back to c. 2630 BC and shows no evidence of ever being submerged.
Look at the fossil records found throughout Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe over the last several hundred million years. We can find evidence of periodic mass extinctions (the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago; the Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago, etc.), but zero evidence of a mass extinction c. 2349 BC.
I hope I'm not coming across as being rude or bombastic or insulting in any way,
But as I see it, the cost that biblical literalists have to pay for clinging to their belief that "God stands behind the tale of Noah" is that they're forced to close their minds to the overwhelming evidence from the modern world (every encyclopedia, science journal, legitimate museum, etc.).
Several of my ex-Christian friends have told me that the resulting cognitive dissonance was a heavy price to pay.
I wasn't really saying I think the Epic of Gilgamesh copied from the Bible (although I may not have made that clear). What I was advocating was the possibility that if there was an actual flood, the epic can be describing a literal event (although it becomes distorted through oral tradition) where the Bible accounts the same story, yet does so more realistically. Not that the Bible copied, but accounts for a real flood, which the Sumerians were also aware of.
> What I was advocating was the possibility that if there was an actual flood, the epic can be describing a literal event (although it becomes distorted through oral tradition) where the Bible accounts the same story, yet does so more realistically.
Well, I agree that both stories could have been tales about a real flood. Only I see neither as realistic (for the reasons cited in my prior comments), but both as mythical.
(correct me if I am wrong) You seem to have the idea that omniscience and regret are not logically compatible.
I think this is a flawed idea.
You can be fully aware that something is going to happen and still have regret when the event comes to pass.
To define terms regret = "to feel sorrow or remorse for"
If you dog gets sick and you know you will have to put him down. When you put him down, you can feel regret and sorrow for the action, even though you knew it was going to happen.
> If your dog gets sick and you know you will have to put him down. . . . you can feel regret ... for the action, even though you knew it was going to happen.
True, but I'm not omnipotent. When my beloved retriever "Jetta" got bone cancer in her legs, I *knew* she was facing an early and painful death and felt sorrow at putting her down—but if I had been omnipotent, I could have cured her, or better yet, I could have decided to not include cancer as part of my Divine Plan.
Or even if I decided that in weighing all matters, creatures had to die, I surely wouldn't have killed Jetta via the hobbling means of bone cancer. My thought is that it would indeed be contradictory to have All-Mighty and All-Knowing Powers but feel regret at things like the way my dog was dying. (It's *kind of* like a fireman with a fully connected hose feeling "regret" while standing by idly as a small fire spreads throughout a house. Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.)
Interesting. You made a hybrid formation of the problem of evil. (I'm making 2 vids on that topic soon you should check em out)
So you are basically saying that God being all powerful and all knowing cannot have events happen which He finds disappointing or views as negative. After all, he CAN stop them being omnipotent right?
Keep in mind omnipotence does not include the ability to do what is logically contradictory.
The *cure* for these peoples problem was to stop them from sinning.
> You made a hybrid formation of the problem of evil. (I'm making 2 vids on that topic soon you should check em out)
Okay. I just subbed to you. Also, I have my own video series on supernatural explanations for suffering (called "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic," and I'd be interested in seeing if you cover what I feel are the three categories of suffering:
1. Suffering that people bring upon themselves (e.g. the spendthrift who ends up bankrupt, the drunk driver who kills himself in a car crash)
2. Suffering that people bring upon innocent people (e.g. the drunk driver who plows into a crowded schoolyard, the kindergarten class mowed down by a gunman)
3. Suffering inherent in nature (malaria, birth defects, earthquakes, nature's arrangement of prey vs. predator, etc.)
It seems to me that all too often, theists focus on the easiest category—the suffering that people bring upon themselves—and skip over the more difficult categories.
> omnipotence does not include the ability to do what is logically contradictory.
I agree. (I promise not to make any ridiculous semantic arguments about God's inability to create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it!)
> The *cure* for these peoples problem was to stop them from sinning.
If that was God's intent, then a quick read of the rest of Genesis reveals that the flood was a completely wasted effort (the "cleansing" didn't seem to make a difference in Sodom & Gomorrah).
To me, a more coherent explanation of stories like that of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah is that when natural disasters strike, people invent stories about the "divine wrath" of the supernatural world.
Again, although you don't think this applies to the bible, my guess is that you *do* agree that this applies to tales of Divine Wrath in the religious tales of the ancient Greeks, Mayans, Japanese, etc.
> 2. It is logically impossible to create forced free will.
> 3. God even though omnipotent cannot do the logically impossible
> 4. Free will allows the ability to sin and cause God sorrow.
Well put!
But although the "free will" explanation *can indeed* logically explain MANY instances of suffering—and even God's sorrow at suffering—it runs into problems in two areas.
PROBLEM #1 is why the Free Will of the violent so often takes precedence over the Free Will of the innocent victims. Take the example of the Scottish gunman Thomas Hamilton, who in 1996 fired 109 rounds into a kindergarten classroom, splattering the walls with the blood of its sixteen children.
The "suffering must exist for the Greater Good of Free Will" explanation has it that interference from God would have inhibited Hamilton's Free Will. But why was Hamilton's Free Will a higher priority than the Free Will of the children? And of course this extends to all the millions of innocent war victims there have been throughout history.
The only explanation that I've heard from theists on this one is that "well, that sort of apparent injustice all gets corrected in the next life: those children went straight to heaven, so don't worry about them."
Such an "explanation," however, rests on the wish-filled and evidence-starved premise of "heaven" having a basis in reality.
PROBLEM #2 with the "suffering must exist for the Greater Good of Free Will" explanation is that it doesn't hold up when applied to suffering that has nothing to do with human Free Will, such as natural disasters.
Did human Free Will play a role in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that struck eleven countries, killing over 225,000?
Similarly, much of the suffering of animals in the wild—such as famine, and disease, and the whole predator versus prey set-up—exists independently of human behavior or human misbehavior. Can "human freedom to turn away from God" explain why infant sandtiger sharks will devour their siblings while still in utero?
My experience with theists who use the "Free Will" explanation for suffering tend to reply by seeking refuge in alternative explanations for suffering:
- we live in an evil and fallen world,
- Satan rules the earth for the time being,
- God sends suffering for our benefit
- God's kingdom will soon return and make everything all right
- that it's useless to try to understand, because the infinite mind of God cannot be comprehended by the finite mind of man.
As I address in my "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic" series, I find that all of these alternative arguments, however, are similarly flawed and unconvincing.
Your objections that you raise are good ones, but do not have any impact on whether ominpotence, omniscience, and regret are logically compatible (although I will address your objections in a sec) For omniP, omniS and regret to be logically impossible, it is impossible to have any situation which they are compatible (2nd law of logic). The free will defense shows one such possibility, therefore those three cannot be logically impossible.
what you have now presented is the "evidential problem of evil". It concedes that the omni's and suffering are logically compatible, but says it is unlikely God would allow such an extent of suffering.
This is a better argument, and will most assuredly require a video to make myself clear (in the process of making one now).
But to clear up one thing in text first.
I define free will as the ability to choose between good and evil. The kids and the murderer thus has the same amount of free will
I also don't think God allowing death is evil, but I will defend that point properly in my video.
Also, it is very true that moral and natural evil exist and are different. These concepts will not go without being addressed, but I will do it in video form.
You have done your research on the theistic arguments for free will. I will bring up 8 points on the topic (3 of them similar to yours)
(6 of 8: I don't think non-human animal behavior has a moral implication)
I know "the problem of evil" is the common phrase, but I see "the problem of suffering" as the larger issue---and the less confusing one. Because is it "evil" for an antelope to suffer the terror of being torn apart and eaten alive by a pack of hyenas? I would agree that it's not evil—but it IS suffering.
If we limit the discussion to "why is there evil?", then crucial issues like "why are many creatures' survival dependent on causing physical pain to others?" (i.e, ripping their throats out / eating them alive) disappear, because the too-convenient answer is "Well, that's not evil, so we don't have to concern ourselves with that."
Still, if we really had an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign Master Designer behind the creation of the universe, such a Creator could have created it in anyway S/He wanted.
Let's agree that Free Will would make a certain amount of human suffering inevitable, because Free Will means people are necessarily free to hurt themselves and to hurt others.
But why would such a Creator's Plan include tornadoes, tsunamis and malaria? And mosquitoes to spread the malaria?
> the "evidential problem of evil" concedes that the omni's and suffering are compatible, but says it is unlikely God would allow such an extent of suffering. This is a better argument, and will require a video to make myself clear.
Looking forward to it!
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I hope you will address not only "evil," but all suffering, including that which has nothing to do with human free will, or humans at all (earthquakes etc.).
I agree, the polytheistic "Epic of Gilgamesh" story makes much more sense. Yahweh seems bipolar because he is some sort of strange combination of Enlil, Enki, and all the others from this story. The Babylonian/Sumerian creation story makes more sense too, and explains why God is plural in Genesis.
> "Epic of Gilgamesh" sounds like an interesting story.
It is - just as one might expect from a work of fiction that's still around after 4,000 years!
Note also that Gilgamesh's meeting with the "Noah" character-- Utnapishtim-- is only a small part of the tale. As for English translations, I liked the "Penguin Classics" version that I read ... for more info, see Wikipedia's entry on it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Think about what you read. God said I will destroy all I have made on the earth. And what you don't see today on the earth is what God destroyed. For God made so much on the earth and the others with God made things as well as God. And this is what you see today on the earth what other made on the earth. For if you read the Bible you will see that God made man and also others made man and this is told in the first chapter in the Bible
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ch1V26: "God said, Let us make man out of our image and likeness" so you see God made 1 man out of his image and likeness and the others with God made out of the image and likeness by other with God that 6th day. And you also see words like after their kind and after his kind. So you see God took off the earth what he made and that is things we don't see today however what others had made are still here today after the flood. And that is us.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So you see the man that God made is no longer here. And the animals that God made is no longer here. And you know what researchers find today animals bones that are not here today like the dinosaurs and the dinosaurs are part of God creations however they died in the flood. Read first and then read again and if you don't understand then ask questions.
The god of the old testament is clearly not the philosopher's "tripple-O" god (onmi...).
I am in favor of undermining silly beliefs in supernatural beings, only because the people believe this sort of thing tend to be a tad nasty in their weak revenge culture...
What I think might be cool is to go into the psychological components of the old testament. Monotheism is a bit of a psychological trap BECAUSE the god of the old testament is so much like human nature (capricious etc...)
The OT god is the psychological repository of all of our rejected qualities. It makes these qualities "good" again by postulating some divine creature (who will then grant us the eternal life we believe we are entitled to).
Figuring out the powerful trap that is set for us in the OT (how it contains the truth of our nasty natures and the truth of our deepest desire to escape death) is an excellent weapon for freeing oneself of the sillier literal-minded debates.
> What I think might be cool is to go into the psychological components . . .
In Jack Miles's book "GOD: A Biography," he discusses how the character of Jehovah has in turn influenced the Western mindset of what qualities make up "righteousness" (etc.), even for people who no longer believe in such a god. Miles writes: "Many in the West no longer believe in God, but lost belief, like a lost fortune, has effects that linger."
I haven't done much on this channel since December 2007, because I've been working on the 2008 revision to my book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" (the book that all my videos are based on). But the revision should be complete & available online later this month (Sep 2008)--so lots more videos coming up, starting in a few weeks.
Oldest existing books go back to the 200s BC. As for when the earliest books were composed, the evidence doesn't come from dating the manuscripts, but from linguistics and references to historical events . . . the general consensus among secular sources is "it's hard to know for sure."
I've read several sources that say the "Prophet" books (Judges, Samuel, etc.) are the oldest, written in 600s & 500s BC, and that the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) were latter-written "prequels." Not all scholars agree. The oldest estimate I've heard from secular sources is that the Torah was re-written in 400s BC, based on material that goes back to 1000 BC.
Roughly how many different flood myths were written prior to and similar to Noah's flood? Several dozen wasn't there. Are there other ancient myths besides floods that parallel the bible? Even if the movie Zeitgeist is full of lies there are still suspicious parallels between ancient mythology and christianity. Right? Were the parallel myths inspired by the devil like Justin Martyr hypothesized?
> Are there other ancient myths besides floods that parallel the bible?
I discuss more of these in my video series numbered 5.1 - 5.4, and will continue to do so in the upcoming 5.5, 5.6 etc. (They all start with the #5 because these are all extensions of my Video 5 of 7 in my "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizer" series.)
man, this is some great commentary. i had heard of the epic of gilgamesh and that it is oddly similar to noah's ark but i never got around to reading either, and i have been looking for a thorough explanation like this. thanks!
yes,the truth can hurt.The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history,mythology, and art even to be entertained as the beliefs, rituals,and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of crosspollination among them. Whatever their imagined source,the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia
could create man, regret man's choice knowing full well man would make it, and provide a solution for man's sin all in one instant (John 1/ 2 Corinth. 5:21/ Titus 1:1-3 discuss Christ's eternal existence to be man's vicarious sacrifice, for the glory of God). That's not being "inconsistent." That's being absolutely brilliant! I applaud you for questioning ambiguous passages of Scripture - we too often accept things at face value - but some things just cannot be understood clearly, ever.
> I applaud you for questioning ambiguous passages of Scripture
Thanks!
> That God could "regret" an outcome he obviously foresaw is not something I want to pretend I understand. However, that's what Scripture says, and so I accept it.
If I too were convinced that a Supreme Creator of the Universe really said this, I would accept it too!
> some things just cannot be understood clearly, ever.
Again, if I had evidence that the author of any particular so-called sacred text *really was* the Supreme Creator of the Universe, I would readily accept the "I'm too finite to comprehend the Infinite" argument.
But while this is an argument that most theists will accept for their *own* religion . . . few will see that same argument as valid when applied to the *other* 99,999 [give or take] religions that humans have come up with ever since mankind started inventing religions. (And few theists will disagree with the notion that mankind *does* indeed invent religions based on nothing more than their own imaginations---all religions, of course, except their own!)
How well would the "some things just cannot be understood clearly, ever" argument hold up when it comes to justifying the caste system? Stoning to death those who apostasize from Islam? In these instances and thousands of others, the fact that "it doesn't make sense that God / the gods would say this" is easily explained---man and man alone created *all* these ideas, and all religions. (Which is not, I admit, an argument against "God"--only against "revealed religion.")
Your video proved interesting, but I think it loses sight of one thing in particular. If God IS omnipotent, and IS omniscient, you must take into account that he knew man would eventually sin. It is not a contradiction to say that because God "liked" his creation in chapter one and "disliked" it in chapter six he must be inconsistent. God created man with the freedom to choose, and man chose to go his own way. Was it God's fault? No. Man sinned. Could God regret he made man? sure. I would
> If God IS omnipotent, and IS omniscient, you must take into account that he knew man would eventually sin.
*If* there's an omnipotent and omniscient Creator, then yes, I agree that part of the package of being omnipotent & omniscient is that He would have known man would eventually sin.
For how could an Omniscient Being *not* know anything?
It's entirely conceivable that parents could regret having a child if that child turns out to be something like a serial killer or a mass murderer. But parents of course *don't know* how their kids will turn out.
And if by some magical genetic testing, we could find out whether or not any children we bear will turn out to be murderers, I suspect those whose tests turn out to be "positive" would choose to remain childless.
Yet suppose a "future murderer-bearing" couple chose to have a child anyway, even knowing full well what the future would bring? Would the inevitable tragedy later struck, wouldn't it seem odd that they then "regret" bringing a child into the world? After all, they full knew what was coming, but for whatever reason, they decided the pros outweighed the cons.
So in a similar manner, the tale of Noah's Ark---in which an omnipotent and omniscient Creator makes things that he later "regrets" (even though he fully knew what was coming)---strikes me as a story that doesn't hold together well. This is why, from the point of pure storytelling, I feel the Gilgamesh myth holds together better.
The gods in the Gilgamesh tale aren't omniscient or omnipotent and certainly not benevolent, so there's nothing inconsistent about them creating humans, and then deciding that humans are mostly a nuisance and should all be drowned (and as these gods aren't omnipotent or benevolent, all the animal collateral damage doesn't introduce any inconsistencies either).
That God could "regret" an outcome he obviously foresaw is not something I want to pretend I understand. However, that's what Scripture says, and so I accept it. God exists outside of time - time was the first of creation(Gen. 1:3-5) - leaving many to believe he doesn't "see" what happens on earth in segments of time at all; God observes all of history at once - past, present, and future. Hard to understand from our time-encompassed minds! All that to say that God, being timeless, (part 1)
Sorry, one last comment I forgot. God did send Noah to preach to those people to save any who wanted to be saved but they didn't want it, so it's not God's fault they got killed. Plus God must be kindhearted if he felt sorry for the animals that ended up dying and he didn't want to do through that pain again, so. Like you said, it's how you look at it. "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR PERSPECTIVE! It's great feedback for me for what's out there.
So that's the BIG PICTURE. God got sick and tired of Satan and decided to kill EVERYBODY including Jesus Christ to cleanse the heavens. It was painful, but he brings back his favorites and leaves Satan dead. Effective and no arguments.The good angels would gladly volunteer to die for a short time and come back just to prove the legal point. It's God being GOD: Okay, everybody dies tomorrow and I'll see who can bring themselves back to life! Satan's complaining days are running out.God IS god.
Satan is very legalistic and pious. Thus God deals with Satan on that level. Meaning, point blank: Since God made the universe and created life and all things belong to him, if he wants to destroy it all, isn't that up to him? So that's the end of Satan without an argument. God gets rid of Satan by killing everybody in heaven and earth, simply by limiting the lifespan, like an animals or a plant. No foul. No argument. Of course, he resurrects his favorites and elaves the rest dead.
You also have to think of things from God's point of view. Basically, Satan killed all of mankind instantly once Adam sinned. They were lost. So in God's eyes, they are dead already. God went to great expense to save mankind through Christ's ransom sacrifice. But if somone doesn't want to live and chooses death, God has no problem accommodating that, because SATAN has already killed them. So from Eden until Judgment Day, is just a necessary, painful process we're going through.
As far as Gilgamesh and the flood goes, you are in a circular argument. If the Bible is true then Gilgameh got his story based on the real event of the flood from Noah. So you can't claim the Biblical version came from Babylon. The original source would be NOAH. So you can't authentically claim the Sumerian story predates that of the Bible. The Bible goes back to Eden. Gilgamesh simply confirms the Biblical story told separately by the Jews. Two versions of teh same event... Thanks Todd!!
As far as the flood, I hate to be crude, but they were all going to die anyway, right? God gives LIFE as a gift, so if it's just 5 days or 80 years, isn't that up to HIM? Doesn't he have a right to end life? Have you ever killed a roach? squashed a spider? Do you feel like a murderer to taking life? Why don't you mourn over all the insects killed? Don't you eat fried chicken? Why did you kill that cute chicken? Cows have feelings too, right? EMOTIONALISM. Well done though!!!
You make many good points, but if you see the BIG PICTURE then God has a lot of options and he chooses to exploit the temporary situation for symbolic purposes, because in the end it just won't matter at all. Some don't like God's decisions and rebel. That's one thing. Whether this is all TRUE or not is different. I don't mind you finding fault with God as you understand him, if you wish. But don't question the vereacity of the account as part of that.
Your video points out what appear to be contradictions within the Noah's Ark story. Well said! I'm also aware of the 'Tales of Gilgamesh' which have similar stories of 'the deluge', etc. The key thing you fail to recognize is that Almighty God isn't accountable to you [or anyone else] for what He deems important to describe to us about choices He has made throughout mankind's history.. He is God, we are not! We have no right to question His methods / thoughts, though it's often tempting.
> Your video points out what appear to be contradictions within the Noah's Ark story. Well said!
Thank you!
> The key thing you fail to recognize is that Almighty God isn't accountable to you [or anyone else] for what He deems important to describe to us about choices He has made throughout mankind's history... We have no right to question His methods / thoughts. .
But how do we know which "sacred text" really captures God's methods and thoughts?
Maybe it's the Koran, and what we "have no right to question" is Allah's prohibition of pork and alcohol. Maybe it's the Rig Veda, and what we "have no right to question" is the caste system. (And if the Koran or Rig Veda is God's Word, then it *is* okay to question the Judeo-Christian Bible.)
Once we take the position that "finite man has no right to question the Infinite," what means do we have to tell which of our multiple religious options is genuinely divine?
The standard answers for defending one's religion are "faith" and "my holy book contains miracles / accurate prophecies" and "First Cause / Design is proof of my god" and "my religion has turned my life around" and "my holy book says it's The One" . . . but these answers can point us to multiple religions, or in other words, they're proof of none in particular.
In my personal experience, I asked the Lord to reveal himself to me and He did. I asked for something that only He could provide, and He did. Try it yourself, in sincerity, but alone! God loves a sincere challenge from a sincere heart!
> In my personal experience, I asked the Lord to reveal himself to me and He did. I asked for something that only He could provide, and He did. Try it yourself, in sincerity, but alone! God loves a sincere challenge from a sincere heart!
Oops, I overlooked this comment of yours when composing my above response.
So as for the "personal spiritual experience / ask the Lord to reveal Himself and He will" method of "knowing" God's Will,
... I can only respond that believers from a variety of religions all claim that this is "proof" that *their* religion alone is straight from God: Bahaists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, etc. And if this same "spiritual experience" argument can be used by all (and who's to say which spiritual experience is genuine and whose is delusional?), the best we can say about it is that it's an unreliable means of "knowing" anything.
Excellent point! It's a matter of faith, as to which translation of which 'holy scriptures' one chooses to believe in. In general, Christians have taken the King James Version of the Holy Bible to be the first serious attempt to xlate the Vulgate and Greek (Aramaic & Latin vers. of the Old Test.) plus Greek versions of the New Test. into a single cohesive version of "God's Word". Obviously, Islam states the Koran is their Holy Script too. Read both & tell me which God you'd want to believe!
That is, as long as we're working with the three assumptions that:
(1) there IS a god, and
(2) this God did indeed make some kind of communication effort, and
(3) in trying to make sense of our THOUSANDS of religious options, we conclude that one religion is truly authorized from God and the rest come from nowhere but the human imagination.
the Baha'i, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jainist, the Scientologist, the Sikh, the Taoist, the Zoroastrian and many more, including thousands of unwritten versions from the oral traditions of pre-literate religions.
As far as which version we should follow, I feel the question is not "which version is the most attractive to me?", but "which religion contains information that could not have been created by man alone, but shows evidence of being written by an Omniscient Wisdom?"
I have a 7-part video series dedicated to this issue called "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." Focusing on the above questions in particular are videos 3, 4, and 5.
Cool video! To think I once believed this stuff amazes me. I remember my father (a believer) telling me about the differing numbers of animals and somehow rationalising it, it can't remember how. Believers rationalise contradictions with all kinds of excuses and take everything else literally. They have it both ways. Delusion is a powerful thing. If it serves a person to believe, a delusion can withstand anything!
I hope the flood doesn't hgappen again, because I'm drunk, and can't swim. I don't have my floaties. I have no inner tube. I have no life. I hope if there is a flood, it doesn't mix with our wicked sewage, and I don't get an infection.
I also find it interesting that the Greeks had a similar flood myth. Zeus flooded the world because of man's wickedness.
On a separate note, I think there actually was a flood in Mesopotamia that originated the flood myth, so it may be based of historical events (although it was not at all like the biblical account)
> That's awesome how The Epic of Gilgamesh confirms the biblical account of the flood.
Or maybe the Hebrew version of this story is confirming the truth of the Sumerian account of *their* gods & goddesses (the water-god Ea, the goddess Beletili, etc.). Well, I can't disprove it ...
Sure, maybe. But I would expect you to show trajectory in that case. Without that, a common motif is more likely to represent historical events. But I guess that depends on your point of view.
"That's awesome how The Epic of Gilgamesh confirms the biblical account of the flood."
It's awesome that the Biblical account confirms the Epic of Gilgamesh: you got your chronology backwards. The Hebrews got the myth from the Babylonians.
> . . . though neither version of the global flood story in Genesis . . .
To anyone puzzled by Desertphile's comment: According to many biblical scholars, the story of Noah and the Ark is a combination of two separate flood myths, one by an author often referred to as "J" and the other as "P." This explains the many contradictions inherent within the Bible itself:
. . . some passages say Noah brings 2 of every animal, other passages say 2 of unclean animals but 7 of the clean; some passages say the rain lasted 40 days; some say 150, etc. An excellent online source for details on this explanation can be found by searching for Henry E. Neufeld's "The Two Flood Stories: A Comparison of the J and P Accounts."
> . . . neither version of the global flood story in Genesis are monotheistic.
The polytheism found in Genesis & the Bible's other early books is a whole other subject! I didn't want to bring up too many things at once . . . but yes, I agree with you.
"Myths of the Flood & the Ark: a tale originally involving lots of gods, but edited down to involving only Jehovah in the Hebrew Bible's version, and currently interpreted as a monotheistic tale"
. . . but YouTube only allows 60 characters in a title.
Also, off-topic of the Ark story but I think as far as biblical examples of God's inexplicable shortsightedness go, the "forbidden fruit" is probably the first. Why would God make such a tree knowing that humans would eat from it and still be surprised? How could God ever be surprised at anything? Why wouldn't he skip the fruit-based-delivery-system and just give us morality from the start. The more you try to grasp at it, the more it unravels. It all just seems so silly.
This doesn't prove the genesis flood never happened, Gilgamesh may have been first to record it in writing, but he only wrote down what the ancient hebrews told him about the flood and then stole the story for his Gods.The genesis flood was written more than 1000 years later but maybe it was verbally passed round for many years prior? At least thats what the theist will say.
MrPinkUnicornz 1 month ago
@MrPinkUnicornz
> At least thats what the theist will say.
Agreed ... that's why I argue that the probability that the polytheistic version came first is based not just on the chronology of the records, but the coherency of the storytelling. "Divinity" in the story is full of rash decisions and ill will and regrets: characteristics that don't match Omniscience & Omnipotence & Omnibenevolence, but that match up well the flawed gods of polytheism.
ToddAllenGates 1 month ago
I agree 100%. The craziest thing about christianity for me is the first five books of the bible. This so called one God is making reference to other Gods left right and centre, yet they tell us he is the beginning and the end and the one and only God.
MrPinkUnicornz 1 month ago
@MrPinkUnicornz
> This so called one God is making reference to other Gods left right and centre,
Yes -- His "#1 Commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me": something that makes sense *only* within the context of polytheism.
> yet they tell us he is the beginning and the end and the one and only God.
That's b/c they rely on the Sunday School / Reader's Digest version of the bible--the one that skips over or "cleans up" the contradictions.
ToddAllenGates 1 month ago
@MrPinkUnicornz this channel makes me so sad..i cant prove it to you im sorry, only God will reveal his son to you and only he will reveal his Father.. science wont do it , faith alone.
Jesusisthetreeoflife 1 week ago
I applaud you, sir! The quest for true knowledge, requires the debunking of religious "beliefs". There's a very good reason why Zeus and the Pantheon of Olympus is no longer accepted as truth...it's because the story is RIDICULOUS! As is the continued belief of an invisible man who lives in the sky. People need to get past this tribal barbarism.
wwhisko 8 months ago
@wwhisko
> I applaud you, sir!
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
man trying to question God's authority, how righteous are u?
1Waddup 11 months ago
@1Waddup
> man trying to question God's authority, how righteous are u?
Do you feel you have the right to question what millions of Hindus believe is the Divine Word of the Rig Veda? Would you dare question what millions of Muslims say is the Divine Word of the Koran?
Why are you skeptical of the divinity of the Rig Veda and the Koran?
If you can answer that question, then you have the answer to why I'm skeptical of the Christian claim that the Bible is God's Word.
ToddAllenGates 11 months ago
@ToddAllenGates foolish reponse, u aint worth the respomse
islam is satan
1Waddup 11 months ago
You should also add some contradictions come from compositing at least two sources together. For example, the Lord says that 2 of each will be saved, but then 2 of each unclean, 7 pairs of clean, when the list of clean animals comes much later.
InternetDarkLord 1 year ago
@InternetDarkLord
> You should also add some contradictions come from compositing at least two sources
I cover this subject in my book ("Dialog with a Christian Proselytizer," the basis for most of my videos), but yes, I should have mentioned it here too, as it's extra evidence that the Bible's Flood myth is based on a mix of sources.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I think you've done a thorough & brilliant analysis on these biblical stories.
Now, I have one question for you. I've dealt with this question but do not normally share my views about it...who do you think the "gods" were?
We also had them here in the Americas. My ancestors have stories about them but are much more candid than the bible is, concerning the gods...a bit more candid, anyway.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux
> I think you've done a thorough & brilliant analysis on these biblical stories.
Thanks!
> ...who do you think the "gods" were?
Projects of the human imagination.
I think nature just "is," and b/c of highly improbable circumstances, intelligent life evolved--life intelligent to make up stories about the supernatural & Creation, Rituals, the Afterlife, etc (that is, religion).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Thanks 4 making this video. You've covered the exact same points I have so many times B4, especially in debating this subject.
I see this story, as u suggest, was copied & changed, from earlier Pantheons belonging to much older religions.
I've studied the Ugaritic Texts & I've concluded that the earliest Hebrews, who were actually Cawnites, were definitely polytheistic in that their Elohim (plural) was made up of many gods. It was when they moved to monotheism that they made so many errors.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux
> I've concluded that the earliest Hebrews, who were actually Cawnites, were definitely polytheistic in that their Elohim (plural) was made up of many gods.
Agreed--the early parts of the bible are comprehensible only from a polytheistic perspective.
> It was when they moved to monotheism that they made so many errors.
Certainly the monotheism makes for less coherent storytelling!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Thanks, Im sure you read the Greek version of Deucalion and Phyrra, when Zeus flooded the world and they were the only survivors.
MercuryRis 1 year ago
@MercuryRis
> Thanks
You're welcome!
> I'm sure you read the Greek version of Deucalion and Phyrra, when Zeus flooded the world and they were the only survivors
Yes, but I can't say that the Greek myth influenced the Hebrew, as the Hebrew might be earlier ... I feel I have a much better case saying that the Epic of Gilgamesh (some 2000 BC) was a model for the Noah tale.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates the devil in the bible is known as the great lie and a counterfit....ppl claimed christ n horus were the same too...they slander God and his son..shame on you
billy5939 10 months ago
@billy5939
> ppl claimed christ n horus were the same too
I know some skeptics make this charge, but I don't know of any evidence that supports this claim: I haven't come across ancient Egyptian texts that include passages that have striking similarities between Christ and Horus.
The similarities between the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh vs. the bible *are* striking, however. And Gilgamesh clearly predates the Bible.
> shame on you
For what? I'm just discussing comparative mythology.
ToddAllenGates 9 months ago
Read the book TALMUD JMMANUEL and be free from all the lies of all earth cult religions cause all are false , learn the truth The God of Earth were Humans book OM 52:8, learn the true teachings of all earth prophets about spirituality not worshiping figuers gods or idols except Creation. Wake up u late, stop been a spiritual slave your spirit is part of Creation so Honor Creation above all u your self is the master of your destiny.
distortedhumans 2 years ago
Good video as usual.
hotkonto 2 years ago
> Good video as usual
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Keep in mind that Yahweh in Genesis is not the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent. God of later Jewish and Christian theology.
The writer of Genesis saw Yahweh in the mode of other ancient near-eastern deities.
For the writer Yahweh's behaviors really were not contradictions.
cwieand 2 years ago
> For the writer Yahweh's behaviors really were not contradictions.
Agreed, but Jews and Christians today don't read the bible as a collection of contributions from different authors with different ideas about god--they read it as one book about one Omnipotent God.
So yes, the author who saw as god as neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent wasn't putting together a contradiction-filled story -- although I doubt that's a defense that would comfort many believers!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Nice video Mr. Gates. Personally, given the omniscience of the Judeo-Christian deity, Yahweh supposedly knowing that all this would happen from the start, it feels like a petulent child throwing away his toys because they don't do what he wants them to.
Considering the various ways their god intervenes in later books (Jesus, even in Moses' case, although since Yahweh also prohibited Pharoah from releasing them...), drowning them seems so utterly unneccesary.
SirLawliet 2 years ago
> a petulent child throwing away his toys because they don't do what he wants them to.
Good analogy!
> Considering the various ways their god intervenes ... drowning them seems so utterly unneccesary.
Maybe the pre-flood population was so bad that they were beyond hope--even for an omnipotent god!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
On the 7th day the flood ended. No more noise was heard, man and animal had been annihilated. Because there was no noise _all_ the gods rested on this 7th day, which was recast as the Hebrew Shabbat or Sabbath via a "new twist": instead of gods resting on a 7th day after destroying the earth one god rests after creating the earth. The Hebrews are refuting Mesopotamian concepts via inversions of myths. Enlil is berated by Enki and Ishtar for drowning innocent people! A chastened Enlil repents!
sapiensape 2 years ago 2
> The Hebrews are refuting the Mesopotamian concepts via inversion of myths ...
The Mesopotamian myths had the distasteful aspect of the gods (i.e. "nature") not caring about man -- but in that way, the Mesopotamian stories were, I'm almost tempted to say, more accurate! Or at least, the storytelling hung together better: no need to twist reality into saying that a loving righteous god is in control of the tides and tsunamis.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Mans' noise disturbed the god Enlil who could not rest by day nor sleep by night. Man was created to replace the noisey Igigi gods who for 40 years worked day and night without rest in Enlil's garden at Nippur. They rebelled, man was made to replace them. The Igigi's noise was transferred to man. Man's noise was that of the Igigi: Objecting that they had no rest from toil in Enlil's garden in edin/eden! Overworked man's noise was ended by a flood which brought silence and rest for Enlil.
sapiensape 2 years ago
Objecting to the Mesopotamian notion that immoral, sinful, unrighteous gods attempted to annihilate man with a flood over a little noise, the Hebrews recast all this: God is righteous, man is evil, man deserved annihilation. Man is a sinner because his gods were sinners and immoral, before man's creation they murdered each other, had incest with mothers & daughters, and were fornicators. Man made in the immoral, sinful gods' image cannot be any better.
sapiensape 2 years ago
A good analysis on Gates' part. The Mesopotamian account of the flood is a tongue-in-cheek comedy-farce ridiculing the gods for their stupidity and short-sightedness, failing to realize if man is destroyed who will grow the gods' food in the gods' city-gardens of the Sumerian edin and feed them? They will starve without man. They created man to bear in their place the back-breaking toil in edin's gardens. They will bear again this toil! How stupid of them! Man is innocent, gods are unrighteous!
sapiensape 2 years ago
The only explanation for such a story I can see is that we want, deep down, for their to be a powerful God that loves us, but then nature turns out to be cruel and indifferent and so some story tellers try to find a way to fit a loving God into the framework of the world we see.
We'd rather blame ourselves (or others) than to give up on the dream of a loving God.
By the way, I'm trying to put the general form of your method to work on youtube:
/watch?v=oijBG1S2Uc4
zarkoff45 2 years ago 2
> ... nature turns out to be cruel and indifferent and so some story tellers try to find a way to fit a loving God into the framework of the world we see.
Well said!
> By the way, I'm trying to put the general form of your method to work on youtube:
/watch?v=oijBG1S2Uc4
I'm honored—I'll check it out: thanks!
ToddGates 2 years ago
Did you know that in the bible, Satan kills 4 people and God kills about 2 billion....so how is realy the bad guy.....?
NuclearMouse94 2 years ago
> Did you know that in the bible, Satan kills 4 people and God kills about 2 billion....so who is really the bad guy.....?
I guess the four victims of Satan's were good guys ... and the two billion victims of God's were bad enough to deserve the slaughter?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
If you f**king omnipetent you shouldn't have to kill 2 billion people to get you will !
NuclearMouse94 2 years ago
bravo!
smashbeans 2 years ago
"Excuse me? Excuse me? But, what does GOD need with a starship?" - James T. Kirk
FansFiltration 2 years ago
Great video!
It always amazes me that not only does God cause so much suffering but that Noah, the most righteous decent man alive, seems to have no qualms about shutting his doors on his boat and allowing everyone else to drown.
noelplum99 2 years ago
> [Noah] seems to have no qualms about shutting his doors on his boat and allowing everyone else to drown
It's like those who were lucky enough to get lifeboats when the Titanic sank, and had to paddle quickly away from their fellow passengers drowning (and screaming) in the water. There's only so much room on the boat, and hey, you gotta look out for #1!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
While I am making those videos, I was wondering, do you still hold that omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible with God, or do you just think they are unlikely given your particular understanding of God.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 4:
> do you still hold that omnipotence and omniscience are logically incompatible with God
I don't see any reason, at least theoretically, why omnipotence and omniscience would be logically incompatible with the notion of a Deity. But I *do* believe that it's highly improbable that omnipotence and omniscience played any role in the text of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 4:
Were that the case, I would expect such a book to blow every other book (be it literature, science, philosophy, etc.) away: the works of Shakespeare, Homer, Einstein, Homer, Aesop and so on should be *nothing* in comparison.
The Bible does indeed include many passages that are beautiful, compassionate, exciting, and wise—but so do many secular books, and many of these secular books surpass the Bible in each area.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 4:
And when it comes to scientific knowledge, the Bible is indistinguishable from other books written in its primitive time period. If a supernatural force that created everything in the universe--from the Milky Way to the mistletoe--inspired the bible, I would expect to see some of that brilliance reflected in the text.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 4:
I also think the evidence backs up the conclusion that it's highly improbable that omnipotence and omniscience played any role in the creation of our known universe. But that's a subject that's best addressed by other YouTubers, such as AronRa, Thunderf00t, and potholer54.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Here is a possibility not mentioned in your video.
Noah's flood is said to have occurred circa 2349 BCE.
Parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh are dated as early as circa 2000 BCE.
Noah'f flood is recorded in the Bible in the 1450's BCE.
The epic of Gilg. could be an account of the same flood story yet perverted by oral tradition (which there is evidence of). For one example, their ark is a perfect box (total fail as a boat) where the biblical ark was like a real ship in design.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 3:
Hi Epydemic2020,
I recognize that both stories could have been writing about the same large Near East flood. As for the Gilgamesh version, I wouldn't say it was "perverted by oral tradition," but that it was simply a creative story teller's supernatural version of a naturalistic event—and I would say that the tale of Noah falls under the same category.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
Ancient people observed the phenomena of nature—thunder & lightening, the changing seasons, the apparent orbit of the sun, the rain that sometimes falls too lightly or too heavily—and made up stories about the gods' anger or love or care or refusal to care. The best stories were passed on and worked their way into the world's religions. Even if you don't think this is true about the bible, my guess is that you *do* agree this is true about the ancient Greeks, Mayans, Vikings, etc.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
Back to the tale of Noah: to take this tale literally—including the belief that circa 2349 BC, the world's animal population had only one pair of every species, and there was only one ethnic group of humans—means you have to shut your mind off to the mounds of contradictory evidence from archeology, geology, and biology. (Although I know that not all Christians interpret this tale literally.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I am not as concerned about the literal vs figurative translation. What I was addressing was "who is the copycat". However, I do wanna clear up some of the things you just said. Literal Christians don't think he took one pair of every "species" . The word they use is one "kind". So they wouldn't bring multiple species of the same kind of animal. Ie you would bring two individual dogs instead of many species of dog, and let them evolve back into chihuahuah and great danes..
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 8:
> What I was addressing was "who is the copycat".
Hi again Epydemic2020,
I acknowledge that when it comes to tales that were passed down orally, it's difficult to "know" which came first.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 8:
Even from a purely secular point of view, one could argue that the ancient Hebrews didn't yet think of their God as omniscient or necessarily benign, so there's nothing inherently illogical about them inventing a story about a god who created humans but regretted how they turned out, so He decided to try again via the crude method of drowning everything (despite the large amount of kitten [etc.] collateral damage),
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 8:
but then regretted all the damage done. And one could then argue that the Sumerians improved the tale by making up multiple gods that were even less powerful & wise & kindly—and that there was dissent among the gods when it came to how to treat humans—thus making the story of a flawed creation and then regret over careless destruction more internally consistent.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 8:
I feel that the chronology of the records—that the Sumerian version predates the biblical version by some 500 to 1,000 years (depending on which biblical scholar you listen to)—is fairly good evidence that the Bible was influenced by Gilgamesh rather than vice versa. But "fairly good" is all I can say ... I don't "know" that I'm right. If somehow evidence could turn up that proved that the Sumerians copied from the Hebrews, I would be surprised, but not shocked.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 8:
> Literal Christians don't think he took one pair of every "species" . The word they use is one "kind". So they wouldn't bring multiple species of the same kind of animal. If you would bring two individual dogs instead of many species of dog, and let them evolve back into chihuahuah and great danes..
Well, even if "Noah" took one pair (Genesis 6:19-20) or even seven pairs (Genesis 7:2-3) of every "kind" instead of every "species,"
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 8:
that's still utterly contradictory to archeology, geology, and biology. And written history as well: Egyptian written records go back to almost 3000 BC, and there's no "break point" in which all the Egyptians were destroyed by a flood. The Djoser Step Pyramid (Saqqara, Egypt) dates back to c. 2630 BC and shows no evidence of ever being submerged.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
7 of 8:
Look at the fossil records found throughout Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe over the last several hundred million years. We can find evidence of periodic mass extinctions (the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago; the Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago, etc.), but zero evidence of a mass extinction c. 2349 BC.
I hope I'm not coming across as being rude or bombastic or insulting in any way,
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
8 of 8:
because I *do* appreciate your feedback.
But as I see it, the cost that biblical literalists have to pay for clinging to their belief that "God stands behind the tale of Noah" is that they're forced to close their minds to the overwhelming evidence from the modern world (every encyclopedia, science journal, legitimate museum, etc.).
Several of my ex-Christian friends have told me that the resulting cognitive dissonance was a heavy price to pay.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
@ Todd (4 of 8:)
I wasn't really saying I think the Epic of Gilgamesh copied from the Bible (although I may not have made that clear). What I was advocating was the possibility that if there was an actual flood, the epic can be describing a literal event (although it becomes distorted through oral tradition) where the Bible accounts the same story, yet does so more realistically. Not that the Bible copied, but accounts for a real flood, which the Sumerians were also aware of.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
> What I was advocating was the possibility that if there was an actual flood, the epic can be describing a literal event (although it becomes distorted through oral tradition) where the Bible accounts the same story, yet does so more realistically.
Well, I agree that both stories could have been tales about a real flood. Only I see neither as realistic (for the reasons cited in my prior comments), but both as mythical.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
(correct me if I am wrong) You seem to have the idea that omniscience and regret are not logically compatible.
I think this is a flawed idea.
You can be fully aware that something is going to happen and still have regret when the event comes to pass.
To define terms regret = "to feel sorrow or remorse for"
If you dog gets sick and you know you will have to put him down. When you put him down, you can feel regret and sorrow for the action, even though you knew it was going to happen.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 3:
> You seem to have the idea that omniscience and regret are not logically compatible. I think this is a flawed idea.
I agree that it's possible for a person to feel sorrow for something s/he "knows" is going to happen.
But I would also think that:
Omniscience
+
Omnipotence
---*is* logically incompatible with regret.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
> If your dog gets sick and you know you will have to put him down. . . . you can feel regret ... for the action, even though you knew it was going to happen.
True, but I'm not omnipotent. When my beloved retriever "Jetta" got bone cancer in her legs, I *knew* she was facing an early and painful death and felt sorrow at putting her down—but if I had been omnipotent, I could have cured her, or better yet, I could have decided to not include cancer as part of my Divine Plan.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
Or even if I decided that in weighing all matters, creatures had to die, I surely wouldn't have killed Jetta via the hobbling means of bone cancer. My thought is that it would indeed be contradictory to have All-Mighty and All-Knowing Powers but feel regret at things like the way my dog was dying. (It's *kind of* like a fireman with a fully connected hose feeling "regret" while standing by idly as a small fire spreads throughout a house. Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Interesting. You made a hybrid formation of the problem of evil. (I'm making 2 vids on that topic soon you should check em out)
So you are basically saying that God being all powerful and all knowing cannot have events happen which He finds disappointing or views as negative. After all, he CAN stop them being omnipotent right?
Keep in mind omnipotence does not include the ability to do what is logically contradictory.
The *cure* for these peoples problem was to stop them from sinning.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 5:
> You made a hybrid formation of the problem of evil. (I'm making 2 vids on that topic soon you should check em out)
Okay. I just subbed to you. Also, I have my own video series on supernatural explanations for suffering (called "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic," and I'd be interested in seeing if you cover what I feel are the three categories of suffering:
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 5:
1. Suffering that people bring upon themselves (e.g. the spendthrift who ends up bankrupt, the drunk driver who kills himself in a car crash)
2. Suffering that people bring upon innocent people (e.g. the drunk driver who plows into a crowded schoolyard, the kindergarten class mowed down by a gunman)
3. Suffering inherent in nature (malaria, birth defects, earthquakes, nature's arrangement of prey vs. predator, etc.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 5:
It seems to me that all too often, theists focus on the easiest category—the suffering that people bring upon themselves—and skip over the more difficult categories.
> omnipotence does not include the ability to do what is logically contradictory.
I agree. (I promise not to make any ridiculous semantic arguments about God's inability to create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it!)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 5:
> The *cure* for these peoples problem was to stop them from sinning.
If that was God's intent, then a quick read of the rest of Genesis reveals that the flood was a completely wasted effort (the "cleansing" didn't seem to make a difference in Sodom & Gomorrah).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 5:
To me, a more coherent explanation of stories like that of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah is that when natural disasters strike, people invent stories about the "divine wrath" of the supernatural world.
Again, although you don't think this applies to the bible, my guess is that you *do* agree that this applies to tales of Divine Wrath in the religious tales of the ancient Greeks, Mayans, Japanese, etc.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Now, 1. God allow free will
(I think He is justified in allowing free will because free will allows for the greatest form of love. Its better to choose love than be a robot)
2. It is logically impossible to create forced free will.
3. God even though omnipotent cannot do the logically impossible
4. Free will allows the ability to sin and cause God sorrow.
Therefore omniscience, omnipotence, and regret are logically compatible.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 8:
>1. God allows free will
> 2. It is logically impossible to create forced free will.
> 3. God even though omnipotent cannot do the logically impossible
> 4. Free will allows the ability to sin and cause God sorrow.
Well put!
But although the "free will" explanation *can indeed* logically explain MANY instances of suffering—and even God's sorrow at suffering—it runs into problems in two areas.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 8:
PROBLEM #1 is why the Free Will of the violent so often takes precedence over the Free Will of the innocent victims. Take the example of the Scottish gunman Thomas Hamilton, who in 1996 fired 109 rounds into a kindergarten classroom, splattering the walls with the blood of its sixteen children.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 8:
The "suffering must exist for the Greater Good of Free Will" explanation has it that interference from God would have inhibited Hamilton's Free Will. But why was Hamilton's Free Will a higher priority than the Free Will of the children? And of course this extends to all the millions of innocent war victims there have been throughout history.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 8:
The only explanation that I've heard from theists on this one is that "well, that sort of apparent injustice all gets corrected in the next life: those children went straight to heaven, so don't worry about them."
Such an "explanation," however, rests on the wish-filled and evidence-starved premise of "heaven" having a basis in reality.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 8:
PROBLEM #2 with the "suffering must exist for the Greater Good of Free Will" explanation is that it doesn't hold up when applied to suffering that has nothing to do with human Free Will, such as natural disasters.
Did human Free Will play a role in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that struck eleven countries, killing over 225,000?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 8:
Similarly, much of the suffering of animals in the wild—such as famine, and disease, and the whole predator versus prey set-up—exists independently of human behavior or human misbehavior. Can "human freedom to turn away from God" explain why infant sandtiger sharks will devour their siblings while still in utero?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
7 of 8:
My experience with theists who use the "Free Will" explanation for suffering tend to reply by seeking refuge in alternative explanations for suffering:
- we live in an evil and fallen world,
- Satan rules the earth for the time being,
- God sends suffering for our benefit
- God's kingdom will soon return and make everything all right
- that it's useless to try to understand, because the infinite mind of God cannot be comprehended by the finite mind of man.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
8 of 8:
As I address in my "The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic" series, I find that all of these alternative arguments, however, are similarly flawed and unconvincing.
But I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
To address the logical problem of evil:
Your objections that you raise are good ones, but do not have any impact on whether ominpotence, omniscience, and regret are logically compatible (although I will address your objections in a sec) For omniP, omniS and regret to be logically impossible, it is impossible to have any situation which they are compatible (2nd law of logic). The free will defense shows one such possibility, therefore those three cannot be logically impossible.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
what you have now presented is the "evidential problem of evil". It concedes that the omni's and suffering are logically compatible, but says it is unlikely God would allow such an extent of suffering.
This is a better argument, and will most assuredly require a video to make myself clear (in the process of making one now).
But to clear up one thing in text first.
I define free will as the ability to choose between good and evil. The kids and the murderer thus has the same amount of free will
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I also don't think God allowing death is evil, but I will defend that point properly in my video.
Also, it is very true that moral and natural evil exist and are different. These concepts will not go without being addressed, but I will do it in video form.
You have done your research on the theistic arguments for free will. I will bring up 8 points on the topic (3 of them similar to yours)
(6 of 8: I don't think non-human animal behavior has a moral implication)
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
1 of 4:
> To address the logical problem of evil
I know "the problem of evil" is the common phrase, but I see "the problem of suffering" as the larger issue---and the less confusing one. Because is it "evil" for an antelope to suffer the terror of being torn apart and eaten alive by a pack of hyenas? I would agree that it's not evil—but it IS suffering.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 4:
If we limit the discussion to "why is there evil?", then crucial issues like "why are many creatures' survival dependent on causing physical pain to others?" (i.e, ripping their throats out / eating them alive) disappear, because the too-convenient answer is "Well, that's not evil, so we don't have to concern ourselves with that."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 4:
Still, if we really had an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign Master Designer behind the creation of the universe, such a Creator could have created it in anyway S/He wanted.
Let's agree that Free Will would make a certain amount of human suffering inevitable, because Free Will means people are necessarily free to hurt themselves and to hurt others.
But why would such a Creator's Plan include tornadoes, tsunamis and malaria? And mosquitoes to spread the malaria?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 4:
> the "evidential problem of evil" concedes that the omni's and suffering are compatible, but says it is unlikely God would allow such an extent of suffering. This is a better argument, and will require a video to make myself clear.
Looking forward to it!
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I hope you will address not only "evil," but all suffering, including that which has nothing to do with human free will, or humans at all (earthquakes etc.).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I agree, the polytheistic "Epic of Gilgamesh" story makes much more sense. Yahweh seems bipolar because he is some sort of strange combination of Enlil, Enki, and all the others from this story. The Babylonian/Sumerian creation story makes more sense too, and explains why God is plural in Genesis.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
> I agree, the polytheistic "Epic of Gilgamesh" story makes much more sense.
Thanks!
> Yahweh seems bipolar
True -- that would also explain matters!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
"Epic of Gilgamesh" sounds like an interesting story.
ndjarnag 2 years ago
> "Epic of Gilgamesh" sounds like an interesting story.
It is - just as one might expect from a work of fiction that's still around after 4,000 years!
Note also that Gilgamesh's meeting with the "Noah" character-- Utnapishtim-- is only a small part of the tale. As for English translations, I liked the "Penguin Classics" version that I read ... for more info, see Wikipedia's entry on it.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
u have a lazy eye haha
pnizzle123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Think about what you read. God said I will destroy all I have made on the earth. And what you don't see today on the earth is what God destroyed. For God made so much on the earth and the others with God made things as well as God. And this is what you see today on the earth what other made on the earth. For if you read the Bible you will see that God made man and also others made man and this is told in the first chapter in the Bible
BlevinsBI 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ch1V26: "God said, Let us make man out of our image and likeness" so you see God made 1 man out of his image and likeness and the others with God made out of the image and likeness by other with God that 6th day. And you also see words like after their kind and after his kind. So you see God took off the earth what he made and that is things we don't see today however what others had made are still here today after the flood. And that is us.
BlevinsBI 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you see the man that God made is no longer here. And the animals that God made is no longer here. And you know what researchers find today animals bones that are not here today like the dinosaurs and the dinosaurs are part of God creations however they died in the flood. Read first and then read again and if you don't understand then ask questions.
BlevinsBI 3 years ago
Dude, YOU are a fucking first class IDIOT.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
The god of the old testament is clearly not the philosopher's "tripple-O" god (onmi...).
I am in favor of undermining silly beliefs in supernatural beings, only because the people believe this sort of thing tend to be a tad nasty in their weak revenge culture...
What I think might be cool is to go into the psychological components of the old testament. Monotheism is a bit of a psychological trap BECAUSE the god of the old testament is so much like human nature (capricious etc...)
good vid
homerthompsonman 3 years ago 2
...to explain a bit more...
The OT god is the psychological repository of all of our rejected qualities. It makes these qualities "good" again by postulating some divine creature (who will then grant us the eternal life we believe we are entitled to).
Figuring out the powerful trap that is set for us in the OT (how it contains the truth of our nasty natures and the truth of our deepest desire to escape death) is an excellent weapon for freeing oneself of the sillier literal-minded debates.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
> good vid
Thanks!
> What I think might be cool is to go into the psychological components . . .
In Jack Miles's book "GOD: A Biography," he discusses how the character of Jehovah has in turn influenced the Western mindset of what qualities make up "righteousness" (etc.), even for people who no longer believe in such a god. Miles writes: "Many in the West no longer believe in God, but lost belief, like a lost fortune, has effects that linger."
ToddAllenGates2 3 years ago
Great video - keep it up/
Cuffsmaster 3 years ago
> Great video
Thanks!
> keep it up
I haven't done much on this channel since December 2007, because I've been working on the 2008 revision to my book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" (the book that all my videos are based on). But the revision should be complete & available online later this month (Sep 2008)--so lots more videos coming up, starting in a few weeks.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
well said.btw. what's the age of the oldest known bible or torah ?
talicohen 3 years ago
1 of 2:
> well said
Thanks!
> what's the age of the oldest known bible?
Oldest existing books go back to the 200s BC. As for when the earliest books were composed, the evidence doesn't come from dating the manuscripts, but from linguistics and references to historical events . . . the general consensus among secular sources is "it's hard to know for sure."
ToddAllenGates2 3 years ago
2 of 2:
I've read several sources that say the "Prophet" books (Judges, Samuel, etc.) are the oldest, written in 600s & 500s BC, and that the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) were latter-written "prequels." Not all scholars agree. The oldest estimate I've heard from secular sources is that the Torah was re-written in 400s BC, based on material that goes back to 1000 BC.
ToddAllenGates2 3 years ago
Roughly how many different flood myths were written prior to and similar to Noah's flood? Several dozen wasn't there. Are there other ancient myths besides floods that parallel the bible? Even if the movie Zeitgeist is full of lies there are still suspicious parallels between ancient mythology and christianity. Right? Were the parallel myths inspired by the devil like Justin Martyr hypothesized?
jityr2 3 years ago
> Are there other ancient myths besides floods that parallel the bible?
I discuss more of these in my video series numbered 5.1 - 5.4, and will continue to do so in the upcoming 5.5, 5.6 etc. (They all start with the #5 because these are all extensions of my Video 5 of 7 in my "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizer" series.)
- Todd
ToddAllenGates2 3 years ago
man, this is some great commentary. i had heard of the epic of gilgamesh and that it is oddly similar to noah's ark but i never got around to reading either, and i have been looking for a thorough explanation like this. thanks!
sulimon510 3 years ago
> man, this is some great commentary.
Thanks!
> i had heard of the epic of gilgamesh and that it is oddly similar to noah's ark
I was amazed back when I first read Gilgamesh--if there had been plagiarism laws back then, God would have gotten hit hard.
(FYI: The Epic of Gilgamesh is a long story--the tale of the Flood & the Ark is a relatively small section of it.)
ToddAllenGates2 3 years ago
good points. it makes me sad though.
daveheet 3 years ago
Thanks, daveheet ... but why does it make you sad?
ToddGates 3 years ago
yes,the truth can hurt.The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history,mythology, and art even to be entertained as the beliefs, rituals,and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of crosspollination among them. Whatever their imagined source,the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia
ago
talicohen 3 years ago
could create man, regret man's choice knowing full well man would make it, and provide a solution for man's sin all in one instant (John 1/ 2 Corinth. 5:21/ Titus 1:1-3 discuss Christ's eternal existence to be man's vicarious sacrifice, for the glory of God). That's not being "inconsistent." That's being absolutely brilliant! I applaud you for questioning ambiguous passages of Scripture - we too often accept things at face value - but some things just cannot be understood clearly, ever.
ghanaguy20 3 years ago
1 of 4:
First, my apologies for not responding sooner.
> I applaud you for questioning ambiguous passages of Scripture
Thanks!
> That God could "regret" an outcome he obviously foresaw is not something I want to pretend I understand. However, that's what Scripture says, and so I accept it.
If I too were convinced that a Supreme Creator of the Universe really said this, I would accept it too!
ToddGates 3 years ago 2
2 of 4:
> some things just cannot be understood clearly, ever.
Again, if I had evidence that the author of any particular so-called sacred text *really was* the Supreme Creator of the Universe, I would readily accept the "I'm too finite to comprehend the Infinite" argument.
ToddGates 3 years ago 2
3 of 4:
But while this is an argument that most theists will accept for their *own* religion . . . few will see that same argument as valid when applied to the *other* 99,999 [give or take] religions that humans have come up with ever since mankind started inventing religions. (And few theists will disagree with the notion that mankind *does* indeed invent religions based on nothing more than their own imaginations---all religions, of course, except their own!)
ToddGates 3 years ago 2
4 of 4:
How well would the "some things just cannot be understood clearly, ever" argument hold up when it comes to justifying the caste system? Stoning to death those who apostasize from Islam? In these instances and thousands of others, the fact that "it doesn't make sense that God / the gods would say this" is easily explained---man and man alone created *all* these ideas, and all religions. (Which is not, I admit, an argument against "God"--only against "revealed religion.")
ToddGates 3 years ago 2
Your video proved interesting, but I think it loses sight of one thing in particular. If God IS omnipotent, and IS omniscient, you must take into account that he knew man would eventually sin. It is not a contradiction to say that because God "liked" his creation in chapter one and "disliked" it in chapter six he must be inconsistent. God created man with the freedom to choose, and man chose to go his own way. Was it God's fault? No. Man sinned. Could God regret he made man? sure. I would
ghanaguy20 3 years ago
1 of 5:
> Your video proved interesting,
Thank you!
> If God IS omnipotent, and IS omniscient, you must take into account that he knew man would eventually sin.
*If* there's an omnipotent and omniscient Creator, then yes, I agree that part of the package of being omnipotent & omniscient is that He would have known man would eventually sin.
For how could an Omniscient Being *not* know anything?
ToddGates 3 years ago
2 of 5:
> Could God regret he made man? sure. I would
It's entirely conceivable that parents could regret having a child if that child turns out to be something like a serial killer or a mass murderer. But parents of course *don't know* how their kids will turn out.
And if by some magical genetic testing, we could find out whether or not any children we bear will turn out to be murderers, I suspect those whose tests turn out to be "positive" would choose to remain childless.
ToddGates 3 years ago
3 of 5:
Yet suppose a "future murderer-bearing" couple chose to have a child anyway, even knowing full well what the future would bring? Would the inevitable tragedy later struck, wouldn't it seem odd that they then "regret" bringing a child into the world? After all, they full knew what was coming, but for whatever reason, they decided the pros outweighed the cons.
ToddGates 3 years ago
4 of 5:
So in a similar manner, the tale of Noah's Ark---in which an omnipotent and omniscient Creator makes things that he later "regrets" (even though he fully knew what was coming)---strikes me as a story that doesn't hold together well. This is why, from the point of pure storytelling, I feel the Gilgamesh myth holds together better.
ToddGates 3 years ago
5 of 5:
The gods in the Gilgamesh tale aren't omniscient or omnipotent and certainly not benevolent, so there's nothing inconsistent about them creating humans, and then deciding that humans are mostly a nuisance and should all be drowned (and as these gods aren't omnipotent or benevolent, all the animal collateral damage doesn't introduce any inconsistencies either).
ToddGates 3 years ago
That God could "regret" an outcome he obviously foresaw is not something I want to pretend I understand. However, that's what Scripture says, and so I accept it. God exists outside of time - time was the first of creation(Gen. 1:3-5) - leaving many to believe he doesn't "see" what happens on earth in segments of time at all; God observes all of history at once - past, present, and future. Hard to understand from our time-encompassed minds! All that to say that God, being timeless, (part 1)
ghanaguy20 3 years ago
Sorry, one last comment I forgot. God did send Noah to preach to those people to save any who wanted to be saved but they didn't want it, so it's not God's fault they got killed. Plus God must be kindhearted if he felt sorry for the animals that ended up dying and he didn't want to do through that pain again, so. Like you said, it's how you look at it. "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR PERSPECTIVE! It's great feedback for me for what's out there.
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
> THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR PERSPECTIVE!
Thanks for sharing yours---much appreciated!
- Todd
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
So that's the BIG PICTURE. God got sick and tired of Satan and decided to kill EVERYBODY including Jesus Christ to cleanse the heavens. It was painful, but he brings back his favorites and leaves Satan dead. Effective and no arguments.The good angels would gladly volunteer to die for a short time and come back just to prove the legal point. It's God being GOD: Okay, everybody dies tomorrow and I'll see who can bring themselves back to life! Satan's complaining days are running out.God IS god.
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
Satan is very legalistic and pious. Thus God deals with Satan on that level. Meaning, point blank: Since God made the universe and created life and all things belong to him, if he wants to destroy it all, isn't that up to him? So that's the end of Satan without an argument. God gets rid of Satan by killing everybody in heaven and earth, simply by limiting the lifespan, like an animals or a plant. No foul. No argument. Of course, he resurrects his favorites and elaves the rest dead.
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
You also have to think of things from God's point of view. Basically, Satan killed all of mankind instantly once Adam sinned. They were lost. So in God's eyes, they are dead already. God went to great expense to save mankind through Christ's ransom sacrifice. But if somone doesn't want to live and chooses death, God has no problem accommodating that, because SATAN has already killed them. So from Eden until Judgment Day, is just a necessary, painful process we're going through.
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
As far as Gilgamesh and the flood goes, you are in a circular argument. If the Bible is true then Gilgameh got his story based on the real event of the flood from Noah. So you can't claim the Biblical version came from Babylon. The original source would be NOAH. So you can't authentically claim the Sumerian story predates that of the Bible. The Bible goes back to Eden. Gilgamesh simply confirms the Biblical story told separately by the Jews. Two versions of teh same event... Thanks Todd!!
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
As far as the flood, I hate to be crude, but they were all going to die anyway, right? God gives LIFE as a gift, so if it's just 5 days or 80 years, isn't that up to HIM? Doesn't he have a right to end life? Have you ever killed a roach? squashed a spider? Do you feel like a murderer to taking life? Why don't you mourn over all the insects killed? Don't you eat fried chicken? Why did you kill that cute chicken? Cows have feelings too, right? EMOTIONALISM. Well done though!!!
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
You make many good points, but if you see the BIG PICTURE then God has a lot of options and he chooses to exploit the temporary situation for symbolic purposes, because in the end it just won't matter at all. Some don't like God's decisions and rebel. That's one thing. Whether this is all TRUE or not is different. I don't mind you finding fault with God as you understand him, if you wish. But don't question the vereacity of the account as part of that.
Larsguy1992 3 years ago
Your video points out what appear to be contradictions within the Noah's Ark story. Well said! I'm also aware of the 'Tales of Gilgamesh' which have similar stories of 'the deluge', etc. The key thing you fail to recognize is that Almighty God isn't accountable to you [or anyone else] for what He deems important to describe to us about choices He has made throughout mankind's history.. He is God, we are not! We have no right to question His methods / thoughts, though it's often tempting.
srchg4truth 3 years ago
1 of 3:
> Your video points out what appear to be contradictions within the Noah's Ark story. Well said!
Thank you!
> The key thing you fail to recognize is that Almighty God isn't accountable to you [or anyone else] for what He deems important to describe to us about choices He has made throughout mankind's history... We have no right to question His methods / thoughts. .
But how do we know which "sacred text" really captures God's methods and thoughts?
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
2 of 3:
Maybe it's the Koran, and what we "have no right to question" is Allah's prohibition of pork and alcohol. Maybe it's the Rig Veda, and what we "have no right to question" is the caste system. (And if the Koran or Rig Veda is God's Word, then it *is* okay to question the Judeo-Christian Bible.)
Once we take the position that "finite man has no right to question the Infinite," what means do we have to tell which of our multiple religious options is genuinely divine?
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
3 of 3:
The standard answers for defending one's religion are "faith" and "my holy book contains miracles / accurate prophecies" and "First Cause / Design is proof of my god" and "my religion has turned my life around" and "my holy book says it's The One" . . . but these answers can point us to multiple religions, or in other words, they're proof of none in particular.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
In my personal experience, I asked the Lord to reveal himself to me and He did. I asked for something that only He could provide, and He did. Try it yourself, in sincerity, but alone! God loves a sincere challenge from a sincere heart!
srchg4truth 3 years ago
1 of 2:
> In my personal experience, I asked the Lord to reveal himself to me and He did. I asked for something that only He could provide, and He did. Try it yourself, in sincerity, but alone! God loves a sincere challenge from a sincere heart!
Oops, I overlooked this comment of yours when composing my above response.
So as for the "personal spiritual experience / ask the Lord to reveal Himself and He will" method of "knowing" God's Will,
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
2 of 2:
... I can only respond that believers from a variety of religions all claim that this is "proof" that *their* religion alone is straight from God: Bahaists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, etc. And if this same "spiritual experience" argument can be used by all (and who's to say which spiritual experience is genuine and whose is delusional?), the best we can say about it is that it's an unreliable means of "knowing" anything.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
Excellent point! It's a matter of faith, as to which translation of which 'holy scriptures' one chooses to believe in. In general, Christians have taken the King James Version of the Holy Bible to be the first serious attempt to xlate the Vulgate and Greek (Aramaic & Latin vers. of the Old Test.) plus Greek versions of the New Test. into a single cohesive version of "God's Word". Obviously, Islam states the Koran is their Holy Script too. Read both & tell me which God you'd want to believe!
srchg4truth 3 years ago
1 of 5:
> It's a matter of faith as to which translation of which 'holy scriptures' one chooses to believe in.
Which translation to choose is only a minor sub-question within the larger question of which religion to choose.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
2 of 5:
That is, as long as we're working with the three assumptions that:
(1) there IS a god, and
(2) this God did indeed make some kind of communication effort, and
(3) in trying to make sense of our THOUSANDS of religious options, we conclude that one religion is truly authorized from God and the rest come from nowhere but the human imagination.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
3 of 5:
> Obviously, Islam states the Koran is their Holy Script too. Read both & tell me which God you'd want to believe!
If only it were as simple as (1) the Koran vs. the Bible, and (2) which version is the one we'd "want" to believe!
But more than the Islamic & Judeo-Christian versions of "God's Word," we also have versions from:
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
4 of 5:
the Baha'i, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jainist, the Scientologist, the Sikh, the Taoist, the Zoroastrian and many more, including thousands of unwritten versions from the oral traditions of pre-literate religions.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
5 of 5:
As far as which version we should follow, I feel the question is not "which version is the most attractive to me?", but "which religion contains information that could not have been created by man alone, but shows evidence of being written by an Omniscient Wisdom?"
I have a 7-part video series dedicated to this issue called "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." Focusing on the above questions in particular are videos 3, 4, and 5.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
Superb video, insightful as always, great stuff!
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
Cool video! To think I once believed this stuff amazes me. I remember my father (a believer) telling me about the differing numbers of animals and somehow rationalising it, it can't remember how. Believers rationalise contradictions with all kinds of excuses and take everything else literally. They have it both ways. Delusion is a powerful thing. If it serves a person to believe, a delusion can withstand anything!
Cheers Todd
pos777 4 years ago 3
> Cool video!
Thank you!
> Delusion is a powerful thing. If it serves a person to believe, a delusion can withstand anything!
All too true, yet it still never ceases to amaze me!
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
I hope the flood doesn't hgappen again, because I'm drunk, and can't swim. I don't have my floaties. I have no inner tube. I have no life. I hope if there is a flood, it doesn't mix with our wicked sewage, and I don't get an infection.
hoppy1978 4 years ago 7
I also find it interesting that the Greeks had a similar flood myth. Zeus flooded the world because of man's wickedness.
On a separate note, I think there actually was a flood in Mesopotamia that originated the flood myth, so it may be based of historical events (although it was not at all like the biblical account)
RationalLiberty 4 years ago
That's awesome how The Epic of Gilgamesh confirms the biblical account of the flood.
The historical event generated a mythos recorded by the Mesopotamians. Then Moses was able to provide details in Exodus via revelation.
StormTrek 4 years ago
> That's awesome how The Epic of Gilgamesh confirms the biblical account of the flood.
Or maybe the Hebrew version of this story is confirming the truth of the Sumerian account of *their* gods & goddesses (the water-god Ea, the goddess Beletili, etc.). Well, I can't disprove it ...
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
Sure, maybe. But I would expect you to show trajectory in that case. Without that, a common motif is more likely to represent historical events. But I guess that depends on your point of view.
StormTrek 4 years ago
"That's awesome how The Epic of Gilgamesh confirms the biblical account of the flood."
It's awesome that the Biblical account confirms the Epic of Gilgamesh: you got your chronology backwards. The Hebrews got the myth from the Babylonians.
Desertphile 4 years ago
Good to see your vids reposted!
Keep up the good work!
ThatOneQuestion 4 years ago
A damn fine video, though neither version of the global flood story in _Genesis_ are monotheistic.
Desertphile 4 years ago
1 of 4:
> A damn fine video . . .
To Desertphile: Thanks!
> . . . though neither version of the global flood story in Genesis . . .
To anyone puzzled by Desertphile's comment: According to many biblical scholars, the story of Noah and the Ark is a combination of two separate flood myths, one by an author often referred to as "J" and the other as "P." This explains the many contradictions inherent within the Bible itself:
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
2 of 4:
. . . some passages say Noah brings 2 of every animal, other passages say 2 of unclean animals but 7 of the clean; some passages say the rain lasted 40 days; some say 150, etc. An excellent online source for details on this explanation can be found by searching for Henry E. Neufeld's "The Two Flood Stories: A Comparison of the J and P Accounts."
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
3 of 4:
> . . . neither version of the global flood story in Genesis are monotheistic.
The polytheism found in Genesis & the Bible's other early books is a whole other subject! I didn't want to bring up too many things at once . . . but yes, I agree with you.
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
4 of 4:
I COULD re-name the video
"Myths of the Flood & the Ark: a tale originally involving lots of gods, but edited down to involving only Jehovah in the Hebrew Bible's version, and currently interpreted as a monotheistic tale"
. . . but YouTube only allows 60 characters in a title.
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
Also, off-topic of the Ark story but I think as far as biblical examples of God's inexplicable shortsightedness go, the "forbidden fruit" is probably the first. Why would God make such a tree knowing that humans would eat from it and still be surprised? How could God ever be surprised at anything? Why wouldn't he skip the fruit-based-delivery-system and just give us morality from the start. The more you try to grasp at it, the more it unravels. It all just seems so silly.
ReligionIsACrutch 4 years ago