Видео

The important distinction here is that God can reveal Himself to His creatures however He pleases. He is not obligated to give us anything. Even if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, there's no reason to assume that the God of the universe couldn't operate in this way. With that said, the Bible teaches that God has revealed Himself to us in various ways, the problem is our hearts. God changes hearts in accordance with His will. I'm only here to share the message. God bless! :)

Well he referred to philosophers and then to the claims of various religions, and then said that those claims don't align with his view of the world. So I don't believe it was only his supposition. He's referencing his own perspective of various takes on God. My point there was that Christians don't only define God in those ways. Neither Jews or Christians have ever only defined God as "all powerful" and "all good".

Neither Jews nor Christians have defined God as all good. But they have defined him as all knowing, and all powerful, as well as all present and only wanting good for his beloved children. But you say he is not all good, so Tyson is right by seeing in such a being as also cruel, malicious and malevolent, when he makes, or refuses to prevent or invokes this terrible things on the world. If a police officer sees crime happening and let's it happen, is definitely guilty of negligence and possible coaltion.

What constitutes a scientific mind?

@@reddapologetics One who is capable of analyzing information and thinking critically rather than bleating out whatever was written in a mutilated version of a book that was used to brainwash you at a young age.

I take it that you would ascribe those negative traits to me. Why is that? Also, why is the Bible mutilated?

Because you parrot what you choose from the Bible. With all it's contradictions, to ony call it mutilated is being nice.

@@prospros54fiftyfour67 Could you give me an example of a Bible contradiction? One at a time please.

I'm not sure how I missed his point. I responded basically point by point. He spoke about how suffering doesn't align with his expectations for God and how others describe him, I addressed that. He spoke about why he thinks religions are called faiths, I addressed that briefly. He spoke about how he remains unconvinced by the lack of evidence, I addressed that by speaking about the origin of the universe and the amazing complexity of human biology, followed by some thoughts about the Bible. What did I miss? Also, he didn't charge theists with producing evidence explicitly, he just said that he doesn't think there is evidence. It seems like you wanted me to spend the whole time going through evidences for God instead of addressing his statements directly. And I didn't include this point in the video, but I would argue that the use of the word "faith" is irrelevant. Clearly, we are operating on two different definitions of "faith", so it doesn't really get us anywhere. The question that matters is: What is the foundation for one's belief? Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)

No no no, you're overthinking it. This is RELIGION. You have to tone your brain activity way, way down. Anything good = LAWD JEBUS. Anything bad = Free will. Like... you know... how people born into slavery do so of their... own free will, right? Either way = Blindly do what we say, hate the people we hate, and tithe generously.

I think the end of the video makes it clear that my position is not merely an affinity for the Bible. I said that it is, by it's nature, evidence that Yahweh is the true God. There is a whole world of study around the issue of inspiration. You can disagree with the findings. But I've never made the argument that I like the book therefor it's God's word. That would be absurd.

​@reddapologetics Unfortunately, you mention that your belief is not based on affinity to the bible, but everything else you stated is based on affinity to the bible. You mention Yahweh which is rejecting all the other thousands of gods for no particular reason other than your affinity to the bible. You mention sin but that is based on misinterpretation of the Adam & Eve story. Yet all the evidence shows that the story was about corruption of Israelites culture by outsiders. Here the tree of knowledge could be the knowledge and culture of the outsiders and eating of the fruit was the youngsters listening to the new knowledge and becoming like the outsiders (god). This explains the Israelites subsequent hatred of the outsiders and justification for their slaughter, using god as a means to justify their action. You also mention that the bible was beautifully written. Unfortunately, only theists think this to be true. Much of the OT is poorly written in a patriarchal manner, reflecting the culture of the writers tribe. Anyone reading Revelations can see that it is all over the place and written by someone high on drugs. Also, the gospels shows indicates that the divinity of Jesus was largely introduced by John to make it easier to sell their religion. As for how the universe and life came into existence, this is pushing the goalpost back to who created God. Here, everything is viewed from human centric viewpoints, and theists have no answer other than a large swathe of equally improbable special pleadings. As for the properties of a god, the only properties required would be to allow the creation of the universe in a way that ultimately allows life to evolve. Everything else, such as an all loving, all singing, dancing god is nothing more than to meet human needs to feel special. These properties are not an essential requirement for a God. A God that is narcissistic, egotistical, or sadistic would not change anything about such an entity capability to create a universe or life. Similarly, the bible has no answer as to why a God would create something in which virtually all planets are devoid of life. Nor does it require a God to be required to be human centric or have human emotions. You mention that God provides morality which is coming back to an unproven objective morality. Theists cannot answer where humans got their morality for 99.9% of their existence before the onset of Abrahamic religions. So, there are no real answers being provided.

@@reddapologetics For someone *obsessed* with books, you really should learn that it's = it is/has/was. Therefor... lol.

Yeah, I'm bad about that considering the fact that possessive nouns generally end with 's. You got me. I must now go into repose.

The Muslims love the Koran as much, believe it is God's word just as the Christians do about the Bible and yet each group see how incredible the other groups belief is yet think their equally incredible belief is believable.

Well, we obviously interpret the data differently. God bless! :)

@@reddapologetics No I disagree, you do not interpret data AT ALL!

3:49 - I never said that we can't expect God to act in accordance with what we know about Him. However, I definitely wouldn't use the word "compelled" in the context that you use it. The questions are: What do we know? And how do we know it? 5:23 - The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things, knows all things, and determined all things that have come to pass. It also teaches that God is not the author of evil and that man is responsible for our sin. These are profound ideas that you can either accept or reject. Ultimately, in this section you are choosing to stand before God and cast judgement upon Him, the definer of morality. I say this with love in my heart, this is illogical and I would insist that you turn from this way of thinking. God makes the rules, my friend. Quick note on free will: I hold to a reformed view of salvation which teaches that man doesn't have a free will, but that we are either enslaved to sin, or made alive in Christ. So I wouldn't hold to your description of free will here. Only God has a truly free will. 8:00 - It would be a straw man if I said I was responding to a specific argument. I made the point because it is the logical conclusion when addressing the universe's origin. Ultimately, any theory has to push back the question to an ultimate beginning. I understand that many believe in an eternal universe/multiverse/etc. But I think that's unfeasible. Something had to give us matter and the laws that operate in the universe. 11:42 - I'm not making the argument you are claiming that I'm making. My argument is that the Bible, by its nature, is self-authenticating. And I point to the broad timeline of writing, the number of books, and the number of writers. The fact that the writings have consistent teachings about things like who God is, who man is, the law, salvation, prophecy and its fulfillment in Christ, etc, is miraculous. You can disagree, but my argument is not circular, it's recognizing the ways in which the Bible proves itself. Spider-man was not a real Rabbi in Israel who predicted His own death and resurrection in fulfillment of prophecy, with multiple writers documenting it, and eyewitnesses who were willing to die for their claims that He lived again and had appeared to them and many others. Thank you for the comment! I enjoyed addressing your points. Be well! :)

@@reddapologetics The Bible DOES teach that god is the author of evil - Isaiah 45:7 The arrogance you display by believing yourself entitled to insist that I do anything is astounding. “God makes the rules?” This alone illustrates your complete unwillingness to critically examine your beliefs. Your strawman is still a strawman. You insisted that everyone must account for how something can come from nothing… that’s not a position that people who have considered true philosophical nothingness actually hold. And it doesn’t matter what you consider feasible, if you cannot demonstrate those ideas to be logically impossible (and you can’t) then you don’t get to dismiss them out of hand. Self-authenticating? This is nothing but you attempting to shirk of the burden of proof… instead of justifying the veracity of biblical claims, you pretend that you can assume the veracity of miracle claims by pointing to another unsubstantiated “miracle of composition and consistency.” That said, even your claims of consistency and accuracy fail miserably. The gospels are NOT autographed and the names of the gospels are applied due to church tradition. It’s laughable that anybody would claim “self-authentication” when the authors cannot even be identified with certainty. The cannon of the Bible composition hasn’t even remained completely consistent as it WOULD HAVE TO DO in order to qualify as “miraculous”… the elimination of apocrypha more than a millennia after the beginning of the church demonstrates this claim false. The subject matter of the Bible, and the character of the god of the Bible, are NOT consistent either. -Nobody has seen god (John 1:18)… except Moses (Exodus 33:11) and Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30) saw him face to face. -Nobody has been to heaven except the one who descended from heaven (John 3:13)… except Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-15) and Enoch (Hebrews 11:5). -God does not change his mind (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 3:6)… except all the times that god relents (Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10, Jeremiah 18:8), regrets (Genesis 6:6-7, 1 Samuel 15:11), and changes his damn mind (Exodus 32:12-14, 2 Samuel 24:16, 1 Chronicles 21:15, Psalm 106:45, Jeremiah 4:28, 18:8, 26:3, 13, 19, 42:10, Joel 2:13-14, Amos 7:3). -And, god is supposedly synonymous with love (1 John 4:8) - with love being described as something that does not envy, is not boastful nor prideful, and always protects in 1 Corinthians 13:4. And yet, the god of the Bible is described as jealous and envious of love expressed to others in Exodus 34:11-14, Exodus 20:5, Matthew 10:27, and Matthew 10:34-3. Additionally, god boasts of his own greatness repeatedly (for example: Exodus 9:14, Isaiah 46:9). And of course, god repeatedly rescinds protection (for example: Jeremiah 14:12, 15:4, and Deuteronomy 4:26-17). God does not just contradict my notion of love, or human notions of love; rather, god contradicts the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of love. And finally, Jesus did not fulfill MESSIANIC PROHPHESY of the Old Testament. Psalms are not messianic prophecy when they are written in the present and past tense because PREDICTIONS must indicate that the author is actually talking about a fulfillable FUTURE event. Isaiah 53 is not messianic prophesy - when read in the entire context of Second Isaiah, Isaiah 53 is clearly referring to Israel just as the author does throughout the narrative of Babylonian exile (Isaiah 41:8, 44:1-2, 21, 45:4, 49:3, 52:1-2, and generally throughout chapters 54, and 55). The only way to contrive a messianic prediction is to rip chapter 53 completely out of the surrounding context, look back at the passage through the lens of the New Testament and ignore verses like 53:10 “he shall see his offspring and shall prolong his days,” and 53:12 “Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,” as no war spoils were divided and Jesus had no offspring to prolong his life… Israel on the other hand experienced both. If Jesus had ushered in the Messianic Age, the evidence would be clear: ALL Jews would have been restored to Israel from the time of Jesus (Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13); Israel would also be populated by the resurrected souls who died in previous generations (Isa. 26:19); The Holy Temple would have be rebuilt and continuously functioning since Jesus was on the earth (Micah 4:1); There would be world-wide peace (Isa. 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3); and the entire world would believe in The God of Abraham (Isa. 11:9, 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9). Claims that Jesus will do this upon a “second coming” are irrelevant because that just means that Jesus has NOT YET FULFILLED these prophesies, and therefore, does not qualify as the Messiah because one cannot be the Messiah if one DID NOT completely fulfill Messianic Prophesy. The foregoing clearly demonstrates that your argument for self-authentication is complete and utter nonsense.

This your reply is just frivolous. You are using the propaganda book to claim the propaganda is correct and denying logic. Your statement that no one knows the way of God tells it all. Since no one knows the way of God how can you claim all these things of the imaginary being? People have painted that being the way they chose and none ever saw him. It is all imaginary hence the frequent contradictions and further manufactured reasoning to explain the contradictions, to keep the story going.

@prospros54fiftyfour67 If your assertion is no one knows the way of God, they why do evangelists keep lying that they know the truth? In reality, any interpretation of a religious text is just that. Since text such as the bible is written in an ambiguous manner, anyone claiming that it is the truth or is literally true is basically just making it up.

My statement was: "We shouldn't expect that He is going to act a certain way and only if He acts those certain ways is he real." The greater context was that our personal theories of what God is like shouldn’t be a test for His existence. To be clear, we can expect that God will act in accordance with what He has revealed to us about Himself. But that is different than us judging His existence based on our personal theories. Your take on religion strikes me as a very slanted narrative that is missing many puzzle pieces. While I agree that many of the things you describe can indeed happen in religion, I think people engage in every worldview with all sorts of perspectives and levels of critical thought. I'm curious: How would you apply this to Protestant Christians? I ask because we have no ultimate top-down authority other than the Bible. For those who study the evidence for the faith, we have a cumulative case that is far from prepackaged imitation-truth-feels. In my opinion, that would be a caricature that would limit meaningful interaction. Where I hope we would agree is that everyone should test their worldview by its merits. God bless! :)

​@@reddapologetics Great. Test one's world view by its merits (but I would add - and discard what falls short). Let's not expect any God or Gods would or should act any certain way if it/they exist - AND interact in our reality (because if there is no current interaction, there would be no way to test what is undetectable - at which time a person may still accept one claim over another but only for reasons other than they've been demonstrated to be true - which is fine, if that's one's desire). You claim: "we can expect that God will act in accordance with what He has revealed to us about Himself." Great. Assuming your currently chosen source of what He has revealed is a Bible, it seems like John 14:13-14 might be a good place to start. Did your test meet your expectations? I choose to accept a claim’s validity - because it is demonstrable to be so by evidence pointing only to the claim. If the claim is not demonstrable, I do not claim it is false, I claim "I do not know" because the accuracy of the claim remains undetermined. This only applies to claims that are regarded as important (If you claim to have a pet cat - I'll take your word for it). Since across religions (from one to the next, some even using the same holy book and others using different ones) there seems to be disagreement on what each of their members claims to be true, and I imagine you would agree with this because there appears to be more than one religion making truth claims that conflict with another religion - and many of these claims are mutually exclusive. Each religion has members convinced that their claims exclusively are the correct ones (I see a problem here, do you?). I define truth as that which purports with reality as adjudicated by current predictive power. (Reality is what would remain if all beliefs and books vanished. That which can then be rediscovered with the same conclusion as before they vanished were also correctly held beliefs at that time). Note: eventually humans would also invent new religions as has been the case for millennia. I believe any new religion would be highly unlikely to resemble any preexisting one, like how our current religions vary. You may have another definition of truth (for example, instead believing - 1) it's true that thing X exists in our universe as claimed by person A and also believing that 2) it's true that thing X does not exist in our universe as claimed by person B - in the same way and at same time as described by person A). Kind of a 'personal truth' model. I believe we share a reality that consists of what it currently is, and that it is what is regardless of beliefs about it; where beliefs can A) more correctly match what is, or beliefs may B) less correctly match what is. Belief itself does not force reality to conform. So, we do agree that testing worldviews would be best. Are there organizations evaluating the best evidence from each religion to verify each of their claims? Does each prospective member do an exhaustive analysis of data and evidence to verify the claims of many religions PRIOR to selecting one or more religions based only on the verified accuracy of its claims/merits? Since religions each claim to value truth - I would expect the religions themselves to be the ones doing this exhaustive, rigorous verification testing of each claim. Has this been your experience? Or is religion instead a faith-based belief system (for which members from each religion can fill in claimed evidence using their own bias AFTER whatever the group pronounces has been fully accepted)?

So do you think God subject to your judgements?

@ being the creator of the universe, and therefore everything, makes him the creator of evil. Therefore he’s more culpable, not less. That’s logic. Sorry if you don’t like it.

That is why they call it faith. They are averse to logic. He tries to frighten you? How can you question the all powerful? Is he a tyrant? OK he is.

Nah, it’s you that misunderstand free-will. You believe that god gave you the ability to freely choose, but you also believe that god has perfect knowledge and knows what you’ll choose before you choose it. Can you freely choose to do something other than that which god knows you will do? If god knows that you will choose “X” do you have the free will to choose “Y” instead? Not without negating god’s omniscience you don’t. See, it’s you who believes in contradictory things… a god with perfect foreknowledge prohibits your ability to surprise god with your choices, meaning you can’t actually choose anything other than what god already knows you will choose… and that’s not free-will.

How has the God of the Bible been proven to be man's creation?

​​@@reddapologeticsthe god of the Bible had the exact same level of oriented and misconceptions as the bronze age peasants that invented him. Can you explain why your God is ignorant about the universe he made?

@@darkeen42 god is an old man with beard that randomly popped into existence. then he created an tiny particle smaller than an athom with the mass of our full universe in it and it exploded into an universe , its the truth

@xthexskrillex the Bible disagrees with you.

@@darkeen42 its the truth

I know what you mean,a real easy way for these people to prove god is to just follow the bible verse Mark 16:17-18 saying they can do miracles just like Jesus supposedly did and start healing amputees and severed spinal cords.

Well, I really answered this question in the video. Ultimately, these very emotional examples don't prove anything. All you're saying is if there is no creator, it's all meaningless. If there is, the creator defines His creation.

There are different schools of thought on the miraculous gifts (and how one would interpret these verses) that I would encourage you to study. I still have a lot of studying to do there as well. But I'll say that I personally don't see Biblical reason to assume that Christians are able to walk around healing anyone on command, or that we are in the same situation as the early church in regards to the purpose that the miraculous gifts had at that time. Also, there is a well known dispute among scholars on if the longer ending of Mark (9-20) is a later addition that is not original. Also, worth a study!

@@reddapologetics If there is no creator then my purpose on earth becomes more precious than anything. My purpose is to love and cherish my family and friends with what precious time we have. I will help those in need and find fulfillment in a job well done. That is my meaning! At least I don't need the threat of eternal damnation to be a good person. It's like when Batman told Superman that only men are brave. Only atheists/agnostics are brave. We do good despite thinking we will be saved no matter what, that we have an answer to the big question, that we don't just blink into nothingness! We face life at its rawest form and are tougher and braver than the safe space theists just waiting in line at the pearly gates like it's summer at Disneyland. Y'all are tourists on this earth

The teaching is that God is sovereign over all things and that He allows the effects of Satan and sin in the world for His purposes, yet He is not the author of evil. And I never said we can't ascribe traits to God, I'm saying that we can't reason from our human perspective up to God. If the Bible is true, it is God revealing to us who He is through a source that is external to us so we can start there. That's the distinction I was trying to make.

⁠@@reddapologetics Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. God CREATES evil. God didn’t say he allows evil, or permits Satan to do evil for some purpose… GOD MADE EVIL. Don’t lie on the book.

Yeah, there are a lot of gods out there. However, my idea of God didn't come from me. Christians recognize that our idea of God would be useless. I recommend you focus on the Bible if you want to test Christians. God bless! :)

Yes, focus on the fairy tale book to confirm the fairy. Real logic.

@@prospros54fiftyfour67 You don’t even need a book to see evidence of a Creator and Designer. If you were to find the David statue created by Michael Angelo in the desert and didn’t even know who made it…would you think for a minute that it just happened to come about by chance? Why or why not? It’s a masterpiece with incredible talent behind it. No way given how many years would ever become what we have today agreed? We don’t have to read about it to know that.

What did I skip and where did I lie? And the universe is a pretty full gap if you ask me.

@@reddapologetics I'm not going to rewatch the whole video again, but one I remember at the end, "cohesive & consistent" this is a clear lie, ether intentional, or unintentional, to yourself basically. If it is unintentional you have a bit more research to do.

@@reddapologetics also, the god of the gap is basically, "because we can't understand X, god must have done it"

@@ericf3688 I have studied many supposed inconsistencies and haven't been convinced. On the contrary, studying has ultimately left me more amazed with the Bible. But I'm happy to check out any examples that you have! So I would personally chalk up my claim to a disagreement between you and I, not a lie. But you're welcome to your opinion and I wish you the best my friend!

How is it a "clear lie"? ​@@ericf3688

We have our differences, Nick. But this a very thoughtful comment with a lot of great points. :)

@ Yeah we do but that’s okay. It’s good to talk about them respectfully and share thoughts we may never have heard before. Even if we will never agree on somethings I will always love and respect you. One thing I see is many will label things “Acts of God” as though God is behind it and responsible. Not true at all. Even though God is the Sovereign of the universe as you correctly point out many are not told in the church’s who the real ruler of this world is and why. And the reason God allows it to continue is answered if we study the Bible. The only satisfying answer for me is found there. And you are right there is plenty of evidence around us that intelligence is needed as we see in the code for DNA. Any sophisticated code we know of requires intelligence. And when there is intelligence there is a mind. And if there is a mind there is a person. That person is Yahweh/Yehowah or Jehovah as we say in English. And I’m happy to talk about that one with you when we talk next Friday. Take care and enjoy your weekend.

Faith, what religion uses to rob people of their reason. Yet "God gave man reason that he may have judgement", but religion then in some other place tells you, do not reason or question what I tell you just take it in faith. Like te sun rotates round the earth till people who choose to reason and put their life on the line cannot be silenced any longer.

@ There are certain things that can defy what we know true. But because we put our trust in God and know what he tells us is always true and know his qualities and character we can believe him and put faith in what he tells us. Yes I do there is misguided faith. In the Bible tells us that long before you a nice guy here on the internet. But God gives us good reasons to put his faith and trust in Him. I see it in my own personal life and so does my family. Whether you have never believed in God, have lost your faith, or would like to strengthen your faith, the Bible can help you.

Did you understand the problem he exposed by how people define god?

“For you keep recording bitter accusations against me, And you make me answer for the sins of my youth.” - Job (Job 13:26) This should make it clear that you’ve misunderstood. “For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

@ “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.” Job 1:1. So what did God and Satan decide to do to this blameless upright God fearing man? Murder all of his children, kill his servants, kill every animal that he owned, and fill him with sores. After killing his children, killing his employees, and destroying everything Job owns, God says to Satan that “you incited me against this man to ruin him WITHOUT ANY REASON.” Job’s suffering had nothing to do with sin as he was blameless, upright, God fearing, and God literally tells Satan he ruined Job for no reason whatsoever. BTW, why does an omniscient God not know (and have to ask) where Satan was before their celestial meeting? Job 1:6.

@@DPM917 What I was responding to is your claim that Job didnt sin. He had. You are correct that Satan’s attack on him wasn’t because of his sin. On the contrary, it was because of his righteousness. But for a perfect son of God, the rules are different. (Matthew 26:53; John 18:6) And as loyal as Job was, he wasn’t perfect. Do you think someone asking a question means that they don’t know the answer? One of the characteristics we see in Jehovah from the very beginning is his masterful use of questions to teach and expose, just like any good parent. (Genesis 4:6, 7, 9, 10) This was all done before the angelic sons of God. (Job 1:6) There is nothing in Job’s account or anywhere else that indicates he is ever ignorant or not in complete control at any time. Best wishes to you!

​@@heyalun just another contradictory claim of the Bible. How can a man sin and be blameless? That's the problem. And if good made everyone good made sin itself on purpose otherwise they made a mistake which a perfect being can't do.

@@heyalun Good parents don’t instruct their adversary to kill people just to teach heir children. Your beliefs have made your morality a wretched mess of excuses.

Ah! Thank you so much, Knieshia! I really appreciate the kind words and encouragement. I'm glad you enjoyed it. :)

How does one determine what a universe would look like without a creator?

Why is there no prime mover? Why should I accept your assertion? And just because I present my argument as a question doesn't mean I'm not making an argument. My position is not merely that I don't understand how something came to be without a creator (although I do admittedly find that perspective to be about as perplexing as imagining a 747 coming into existence without a designer). I'm making the assertion that the universe is in fact evidence of a creator. Your position requires you to look at the universe and see a random meaningless evolutionary process that originated from absolutely nothing at all. I find that to be not very logical and actually quite miraculous. Both of us require a miracle to get this whole universe going. God bless! :)

Ah I see! Do you have it figured out then? I would love to hear your take.

I believe everything is here by the divine decree of the God of the Bible who created all things. And that perspective is not a matter of likelihood, but of evidence in the world and in the divine nature of the Bible. And you're describing the limited capabilities and creativity of man, but where does the environment, the minds, and the tools come from? Why can we make things in the first place? By your logic a 747 would be more likely to be randomly generated than a coffee mug. I would say that both require a creator to exist. God bless!

Sure! It implies that God doesn't have anything offensive to say to us other than things like "don't be selfish".

@@drewcilley121 Jesus said not to say the same things over and over again in prayer. (Matthew 6:7) I spoke to a Baha’i nice young girl at a university and she couldn’t get away from that. She looked at me with a blank stare and didn’t know what to say. She is taught by Baha’i to repeat “Allah'u'Abha” 95 times daily, to recite Obligatory Prayers every day. So who should we believe? What is the authority if not Jesus and Jehovah or scripture from the Bible? It’s religion ala carte for Baha’i.

@@NickHawaii Matthew 6:7 Says nothing to what you’re referring it to.

@ Matthew 6:7, “And when you are praying, do not use thoughtless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.”-NASB

@@drewcilley121 Jesus helps us to realize that the “use of many words” in long and repetitious prayers is of no value from God’s standpoint.

@@NickHawaii Matthew was talking about the Pharisees and how they would repeat long prayer over and over again to make themselves look more righteous. Also in the time of the Matthew the pagans were non believers. They believe in the pagan gods, not in the God of the jews or early Christians. You put the word "Gentiles" in the verse when it is Pagans. big difference!

Haha confusionism is a good way to put it. And yes, Rainn seems uninterested in verses like these where Jesus defines things like God and worship. But he's down with love related verses. 🥴 I think it would be enlightening to see Rainn define some of Jesus' statements for us. I don't think would go well based on what I've heard so far. But given the fact that at one point he calls Bahai's "red letter Christians" (which could be it's own video), it would be good for him to speak to Jesus' statements. And yeah I think the Satan example is a great demonstration of the incoherence of the Bahai worldview. God bless, Nick! :)

@ I don’t think he really knows the scriptures. You pointed out he said “Jesus said God is love”. The Bible says that of course in 1 John 4:8 but Jesus never said that. At least it’s not recorded of him saying that. And I agree with you he sees God in creation and nature. We do too. The difference is many admire and love the creation but what about the Creator himself? We see his qualities and power in his creation. (Romans 1:20) Rainn is like an illegitimate child right now who does not know who his Father is. He is not an impersonal God who is unknowing, unfeeling. He cares about him and maybe will draw him if he is humble. If Rainn asked you and me to paint his house brown but he came back and we painted it purple. Would he be happy? I don’t think we would have our jobs very long. He probably would fire us on the spot. Why? We were painting right? What was the problem? We didn’t do what he asked? The Bible tells us “he that does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2:17) God sets the standard of worship and living and we need to do what he wants not what we think or feel we should be doing. It comes down to that. Saul, we know as Paul, had to change his beliefs and so should we if shown we are in error. He had a zeal for God but not according to accurate knowledge. (Romans 10:2) Actually the NWT got it right by highlighting EPI GNOSIS. Not just knowledge but accurate knowledge. And verse 3 shows where they went wrong. They decided to establish their own thinking on things instead of lining up our thinking with God’s way. Sorry didn’t mean to make this long. Haha. Enjoy the rest of the year James!

Hey you! :)

I’m a bit confused. Are you saying I was hiding information in this video?

@reddapologetics no am saying that you don't inform them enough to lit them understand.time and all considerations

Got ya! Can you show me where that's happening in the video?

I have. We have thousands of Biblical manuscripts to compare and thousands of scholars to compare them. If somebody writes in their own understanding into a Bible text during translation, we know about it and can examine the differences. Translating a text into a new language can obviously involve challenges when trying to carry over the original meaning of words. But that’s why scholars study the original languages. My point in the video is that entire phrases would have to be mistranslated for us to have a misunderstanding of how the biblical writers looked at sin.

@reddapologetics the people don't see it or hear it and don't have a theological dictionary. They just learn it from there pastors. In babtist churches they don't hear anything about the spirit acknowledgement or no babtism at all just go into the water and you are saved.all the different words used for god etc. Translate or don't etc.

Sure. I think churches should be teaching from the Bible, good theology, church history, etc. I also think the people should be intentional about learning on their own time. Part of why I make these videos is to be a learning resource for those who want to interact with others about their faith. There are plenty of resources out there. People just have to willing.

Right, I wasn't saying that we have the original manuscripts. With the Old Testament we are generally working with things like the Masoretic text, many quotations from the New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls (which contained a copy of Isaiah that was basically identical to the earliest copy we possessed, despite a nearly 1,000 year leap backwards in time), and so on. With the New Testament we have various streams of manuscripts going out from the early church which has left us with a bunch of early fragments which date as far back as the 2nd century, and then texts like Codex Sinaiticus (which contains most of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament) dating to the 4th Century. Ultimately with Old Testament, I like to look at Jesus' view of the Jewish scriptures, which was that he took for granted that it was the words of God and held people accountable to them (one example: Matthew 22:31-32). If you don't think he's the prophesied messiah, or that we can't know what Jesus said, or that the Old Testament has been radically altered since the 1st century, that will probably mean nothing to you. But if you think the gospel accounts can be trusted, it's pretty amazing.

I don't think that was their point. I think the point was that the process of translation and differences in culture causes us to see terms like sin differently. My response involved going back to Biblical statements about sin which are translated from the original language to make the point that these ideas about sin did not develop over time. And about the Bible being badly written, I completely disagree. It self authenticates and it's nature points to divine authorship. It’s consistency of teaching about things like who God is, salvation, and prophecy is wonderfully consistent. Which is not what you would expect from a library of books written by around 40 authors over 1,500 years. Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)

@reddapologetics As I keep scrolling through your responses I have come to admire your honesty and maturity. And honoring your preparation I have to humble myself and admit I don't have the preparation to argue about ancient languages, transcriptions, etc. I do have a question, tho: why it is impressive that the message on the bible written by so many authors is approximately coherent? The books that are considered cannon were specifically chosen to conform the bible because they were sound together. Before there was a Bible there was a broader corpus of scriptures that would definitely challenge the coherent argument (both for the old and new testament). If it's coherent by design why should this point be treated as favorable; I'm sure if you deviate you studies a bit from the Hebrew scriptures you'll find other religions with similar soundness in their scriptures.

​@@aramisscabott6747 Hello! I really appreciate the kind words here! And I admire your humility and am reminded that I must always pursue that myself. None of us have perfect knowledge, and I always try to be clear that I'm not an expert in the original languages. Because of that, I try to make my arguments very carefully as to not step into territory that I don't yet understand. But I never claim to be perfect. I also really appreciate your question and think it's a very good one! First, if you would indulge my perspective for a second, I believe it's profound and miraculous that so many authors across 1,500 years could write 66 books full of sentences that convey perfectly coherent teachings on things like who God is, how we have salvation, how to obey God, and prophecy. I've spent time studying all sorts of different texts that are attempting to be authoritative additions to what we find in the Bible (Gnostic writings, Roman Catholic teachings, LDS texts, etc.), and the writings of church fathers and teachers throughout time. There is everything from straightforward inconsistencies to massive irreconcilable departures from what is already established in the canon. These contradictions are often made by those who passionately claim to follow the God of the Bible. If you got 40 Baptists in a room today, you will almost certainly observe some serious disagreements. But I understand a major part of your concern is regarding the canonization process. I think it's important to remember that the process has always been a very organic recognition of what is God-breathed based on various things including yes, what is written, but also who the author was. And for example, when we look at the New Testament, there were no large counsels early on determining what belonged and what didn't. That came later. By the way, I don't treat counsels as authoritative. Instead, there was a careful process carried out by a dispersed and persecuted people who were generally trying to understand what God had spoken. I'd also be curious to know which rejected books you are referring to. All of the contenders I've come across tend to have pretty straightforward reasons why they weren't considered to be canon. Although, I would recognize that some involve more nuanced situations. The popular examples tend to be the Gnostic writings. But those are generally very distant from the Biblical worldview altogether and are late in dating. I think the details bring clarity to this issue. I would also love to hear about examples from other faiths as you mentioned! You say that the texts are coherent by human design. My point is that it's amazing that we have such a large collection of texts that are not just approximately coherent, but perfectly coherent. And they tell a story across time of what God has promised and then ultimately carried out in history in the person of Jesus Christ. There's a lot more to say but I'll stop there. Sorry for the essay. 😂 Thank you again for this question! Would love to hear your thoughts. Happy to clarify anything. God bless!

@@reddapologetics Thanks for your time, it is always a pleasure to debate this topics. Let me jump right into it: In the western world the predominance of Christianity not only as the main religion but as a very powerful ruling force during a huge portion of our modern history was, and I'll admit this is just speculation, probably enough to erase any other major religion from the popular argot, specially since Christianism was adopted by the most developed countries furtherly propeling its popularity. But if we look to the east we can still find a rich religious culture with traditions and texts that even predate the Bible. If I'm not mistaken there is a 50 tomes enciclopedy of Eastern religious texts that reunite the main scriptures of many religions. I think you might find these books interesting as a bare minimum. Let me see if I can find the name: it is called "Sacred Books of the East" I want to address again the perceived miracolous coherence in the Bible. When you become a theologian, even in the ancient times, you'd spend a lot of time learning the scriptures and believes of your feith. Not even a theologian, a fervient believer would also be familiar with the scriptures. It is that surprising someone like that is able to write a coherent message that resonates with the rest of the texts? I know I could do it, I was raised a christian and I'm confidently familiar with them. And you would be able to do it too. Also, about books that didn't made it into the Bible, I would sugest to take a look at the Jewish Virtual Library under the section of Hebrew Manuscripts. Altogether with the biblical books you'll find many examples of religious texts that were overlooked during the creation of the canon in order of creating a consistent compendium. I hope you don't find disapointing that I'm not mentioning any book in specific; I believe that I would embarrass myself if I dared to do so. But if you find the two sources I mentioned lackluster I promise to make the jump and prepare myself better so I don't come out as shallow. Finally, I would like to have a word about the coherence of the Bible; but I already extended myself. I think I left a related comentary about the concept of marriage and family somewhere in this video that I wish you had shared your thought on. Thanks for the goodwill and honesty. If you wish to debate further I'll be very happy to provide further arguments.

I feel your comment is out of place. This is obviously a well informed person in opposition to the usual "vibe bro" who makes these kind of response videos. I think he has put real effort into these topics that matter to him and his believes. And tho I can currently see the Bible as nothing more than ancient writing as an exbeliever who was raised a Christian I know how hard is to depart from what you were thought even in the light of evidence. There are a few points in the video that offer foot for debate; and tho I'm in no position to police you; I think is disserviceable to make a straw man out of him instead of attacking this points.

Christians believe that God has a beautiful design for marriage and sexuality which involves a man and a woman together in marriage. And that we, as His creation, don't get to make up our own definition. When we do, we offend a Holy God and cause chaos in our own lives. You may or may not believe this, but Christians are acting out of love for both God and their neighbor by being honest with them about God's design. Christians don't condemn anyone. We are simply called to love our neighbor which involves telling the truth. With that said, some who claim the name of Christ will act out of hate, which is never acceptable. But that's not all of us. God bless! :)

@reddapologetics Even in the Bible the "perfect design" of marriage was relative to the culture. In the old testament the practice of poligamy is widespread, women are possessions to their husband whose job is leaving him descendance (according to the customs of the Arabic nations). Here the nuclear family stays together at all time living under the same "roof" and always under the rule of the father. But when you move towards the new testament, were the predominant culture is the monogamous roman one, suddenly we find a family that looks more like our current understanding of family. A woman betrothed to a man abandon their parents house and start a love together. I think you are granting credit to God's design where culture had the most influence.

I appreciate that! I'm glad you enjoyed it. God bless! :)

In this video I was only choosing a few verses that point to how the writers (in this case, Paul) viewed the concept of sin at the time of writing his letters. But also, sin leading to death and sin causing us to fall short of God's glory are absolutely definitional statements about sin. The rest of his letters and the rest of the Biblical texts flesh things out more to give us a consistent and robust definition. But my point was that they had an understanding of sin that was more than merely missing the mark for yourself. So Rainn's assertion that the idea of sin being more than that came about by some other means such as translation, doesn't make sense when the Bible already contained rich teaching on the subject before anyone ever translated the texts. And the conversation of the coherence and consistency of the Bible is one I've greatly enjoyed studying. And one that could make this comment thread as long as the Bible haha. I'm happy to discuss specifics if you like. But whenever I do study this topic, I only find more consistency. God bless! I appreciate the comment. :)

Yes there is a gap between the time of the original manuscripts and the dating of the existing manuscripts that we possess, and yes the manuscript tradition involves copies of copies. However, with the Bible, we have very early manuscript evidence in comparison to other historical writings. And, as you said, we have various uncontrolled streams of manuscripts going into different parts of the world that we can compare as we look for inconsistencies. This is a good thing! We do find inconsistencies (which would be expected), but the vast majority of them are insignificant things like scribal errors. Where there are considerable differences, as you said, we 2024 folks have the privilege of being able to compare the various streams of manuscript evidence to make an assessment. The question then becomes: Did the dispersed and persecuted early church, who valued God's word as divinely inspired, create tremendous changes in the earliest manuscripts which we no longer possess that we would miss today? I see no reason to assume that. We also have findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contained the Isaiah Scroll, which was a 1,000 year leap backwards from the next earliest copy of Isaiah that we possessed when they were found. They contained a basically identical copy of Isaiah to the next earliest one, which makes the point that the passage of time doesn't automatically mean that massive changes will be made to a text. Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)

"i dont want to listent to what someone says about my belief if they arent already indoctrinated and emotionally invested in holding the same belief i do" if you want to actually understand yourself, your beliefs, and your reality, its wise to absorb different perspectives and learn to see the world through eyes other than your own.

@@krangitebacon5039Yeah right, what an arrogant comment that was.

While I of course disagree with their perspective and think it's deceptive, I think we can learn a lot from it as a means to test the consistency of our own beliefs. And to know how to interact with others who hold these beliefs for the sake of the gospel. God bless!

​@@reddapologetics With all due respect, I was raised atheist. And Bahai'i is essentially an attempt at ecumenism. Both of which we've been inundated with our whole lives. We've heard atheists' arguments ad nauseum. Its time to simply move on and begin retaking the culture from them. As for Bahai'i, they reject the Gospel and have no competing revelation or historicity, and so I don't take them very seriously. Of course dialog is a necessity, especially if we are to convert others to the faith. But this culture of passive learning and blanket acceptance of others' ideas has allowed our culture to stagnate and decay, meanwhile people know very little about what the Church or her Scriptures have to say.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. And you won’t hear me saying that we should try to find middle ground with those who reject God’s truth so we can dance around the fire together. We must call out falsehood inside and outside of the church. However, we also can’t expect to have a meaningful conversation with anyone and demonstrate inconsistencies if we don’t take the time to understand they’re position. Paul tells us to gently instruct our opponents in the hopes that they will come to repentance. That’s what I aim for. God bless! :)