Brief Bible Blunders -- Episode #9

The ninth in a series of quick looks at biblical oddities.

Is anyone righteous? Has anyone been righteous? The various biblical authors, Yahweh, and Jesus disagree.

Biblical citations (some are a bit difficult to see on screen ... sorry about that):

Matthew 1:19 (Joseph)
Luke 2:25 (Simeon)
Luke 23:50 (Joseph of Arimathea)
Matthew 13:17 (many righteous men)
Luke 1:6 (Elizabeth and Zechariah)
2 Peter 2:7 (Lot)
Job 1:1, 1:8, and 2:3 (Job)
Mark 6:20 (John the Baptist)
Hebrews 11:4 (Abel)
Genesis 6:9 (Noah)
Romans 3:10


Link to playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6F8036F680C1DBEB


Music:

"Mighty Righteous" by The Fantastics

Category:

Education

Tags:

• righteousness
• depravity
• Joseph
• Noah
• good
• Arimathea
• John
• Baptist
• holy
• Elizabeth
• Zechariah
• priest
• righteous
• Lot
• Simeon
• Abel
• Job
• blameless
• Jesus
• men
• Matthew
• Luke
• Peter
• Mark
• Hebrews
• Genesis
• Christ
• Paul
• Romans
• justification
• contradiction
• discrepancy
• God
• Bible
• scriptures
• Yahweh
• Jehovah
• Christian
• divine
• inspiration
• revelation
• Word
• authority
• exegesis
• hermeneutics
• apologetics
• inerrancy
• theist
• atheist
• agnostic
• ignostic
• humanist
• skeptic
• reason
• fallacy
• epistemology
• believer
• faith
• yt:stretch=16:9

[KingDavid478]

Yea. I do like ur videos. Of course no one will agree 100% of the time...right?

[ProfMTH]

@KingDavid478 Thanks. And, yes, 100% agreement is rare indeed.

[KingDavid478]

Well you have to understand that letter was to ROME. No one in Rome was rightous at the time. Just saying.

[ProfMTH]

@KingDavid478 So, there were righteous people elsewhere?

[KingDavid478]

@KingDavid478 Yea all the people you named. The people in Rome was not. Romans was a letter to Rome...you see what Im saying??

[ProfMTH]

@KingDavid478 Oh, yes, I see what you're saying.  Thanks. lol

[paramattic70]

I don't debate Christians for the same reason I don't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. The existence of God is unsuitable for debate. It is preposterous in this day and age of science, reason and technology. Believers lack the standing to debate among reasonable people. It is degrading to Atheists. I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist. I refuse to hold on to a Bronze age security blanket and deny myself the rewards of progression. I'm an Atheist. I'm saved.

[paramattic70]

Christians always deflect the true nature of evidence. They demand that you are an expert in physics, geology, archeology, biology and cosmology yet they turn to the Bible and start a quoting frenzy. And "God can do anything" and we are expected to accept that. So I've adopted a new philosophy.

[PurpleSugarSweet]

@carlsonap16 ....Question: If You're "RIGHTeous", then why do You need "to be saved"? And from WHAT? "God's wrath"?!! Why would HE have wrath against One Who is "RIGHTeous"?...there is nothing WRONG with RIGHT!..correct?

[carlsonap16]

you are misinterpreting Paul. Paul quoted verses that said there is no nation righteous, and Paul was also teaching that there is no nation righteous. read the context. there are righteous people, and you must be righteous in order to be saved. and if paul or any other book even one from God taught otherwise, then throw out that abomination.

[jimmo42]

@sandy78442 Come now, "idiot" is perhaps a little too harse. Misquided might be more applicable. Perhaps ingorant, as well.

[jimmo42]

@j919or "That is why recently formed rocks from a volcano..."

Well, professor, how about you provide some references from respectable sources that have not yet been refuted multiple times, then we'll talk. Further, you have failed to say ro which radiometric method you afe refering. There is a difference, for example, in Ar-40/Ar-39 dating versus K-Ar dating. Knowing at least a couple of details about things you discuss is actually important, in case you didn't know.

[jimmo42]

@j919or "Prove that no other outside processes or elements contaminated the element"

There is no known process that would account for that contamination. If you have one, submit your research to a peer-review journal, win the nobel prize and then come back to us. Since decay rate fit all of the observations, it is up to people refuting it to come up with reasons why the observations can be true, but the principle of constant decay rates is false.

[jimmo42]

@j919or

"Prove that rates of decay remained constant" - It is an inductive argument, just like almost everything else in science. Further, we know that if the decay rates are constant, then certain things will be true. These are true, therefore, it is most likely true that the decay rates are constant. If the decay rates were not constant, other things would be true. The other things aer not true. Therefore, again, it is most likely true that the decay rates are constant.

[legion1a]

@ANIMOSITYISNOAMITY

You are right, saying that I am right.