Doug is the fifth horseman of the apocalypse. He is rightly the son heir of hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennet. I think he is a more effective de-converter than any of them. Long live Doug.
Regarding numbers 31:25-47, Dr. White is right about the situation in those days for women after wars and battles. For them to be given in marriage to the conquering soldiers was far better than any other nation would treat their enemies, whether just being raped and left for dead, or just left for dead. And the statement that 32 were given to the Lord, is a statement that in the division of the spoils of battle, 32 were given to the priests. It's a way to recognize the Lord along with a donation of livestock and gold, as well as to provide for the priests. If you read, all the people of Israel received part of the spoils, not just the soldiers. It's not any kind of weird thing about the Lord getting virgins like you'd think of in polytheism. It's totally foreign to us today, but the Bible has a historical context because it's a historical document. This kind of thing is a huge confirmation of it's authenticity and truth because it accurately records history without sugarcoating. The history of mankind is very grim in most regards because we are singing and rebellious against God. Part of our sinfulness is the failure to see God's goodness. Not everything recorded in the Bible is approved by God, but is simply recording what sinful people did. And God's law is perfect, but at times he made provisions for people's weakness and hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8) to mitigate the harm that would be done, such as in cases of divorce. God is good and better, more loving, and more holy that we could imagine, but our own sinfulness blinds us to that in many ways. We think God is like us or we think he is stingy or unjust. We misunderstand the historical context of much of the Bible, or our morality is corrupted and so we judge God (what a thought!) when in fact we are in the wrong.
+MsMsmak I agree. However keep in mind many, if not most Christians believe the Bible is God's word for many reasons outside the actual text itself. Christian pastors/apologists will admit this, on how badly Christians understand their own holy text.
The mental gymnastics of atheism are far more astounding. It comes down to epistemology (study of knowledge). Yes- the Bible is self attesting but without authority you are self attesting. Once you are the ultimate source of knowledge objective meaning is lost and so is *objective* truth (Dillahunty, Sagan, etc).
Greg Bahnsen: "we must reason by presupposition" In his book Presuppositional Procedure. Bahnsen has given the Atheist to account for reasoning and epistemology through their own presuppositions. I did a whole video on the presup argument. ruclips.net/video/iqzgDHsaAzM/видео.html
Alex Castro What you just pointed out, is why I think many believers stay believers. I think however, its a mistake to substitute one mystery for another. Couldn't "I don't know why" be a laudable answer?
Please keep your answers or questions short or I'll just ignore because of time constraints. To your last point: Would you rather a politician answer a question that he doesn't know the answer to with a lie? a guess? or a "I don't know"? The latter is laudable IMO.
The explanation of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter being that she didn't marry and didn't have children doesn't equate to what Jephthah vowed. He vowed "that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” (Judges 11:31) How does not marrying and not having children equate to a burnt offering?
I always enjoy the special pleading Christians pull. I once had a conversation about the distance of stars/galaxies from the Earth and the Christian said to me that god sped up the light and then set the speed of light back to what it currently is, so that the light could reach the Earth in under 6000 years.
The reason James feels he needs to explain it is not because he finds it hard to believe but because he wants to give you a better understanding of why he believes it. The reason for this is because many non-believers assume Christians don't think for themselves. If James only gave yes or no answers one would find it easy to mock him (as Richard Dawkins strongly encourages his minions to do). So with rational explanations this better informs others as to why we believe what we believe. The reason the questioner might find it unnecessary is because his end goal might be to mock him. Any Christian who reads these questions would assume as James did that this is just to set them up for mockery. That's what I thought when I read the questions. Truth is, most atheists don't care what Christians believe or why they believe what they believe. I'm kind of surprised that James even took the time to do this.
Agreed. In spite what atheists might believe Christians don't have to "check their brains at the door of the church" before entering. I, alone, can read and translate Greek, and have very good knowledge of New Testament studies. I am a Christian apologist, theologian, exegete, and self-taught New Testament scholar. I have nearly four years of college behind me, and loads of academic training. This idea that what we believe is nonsense is, itself, nonsense. Good reply.
romans1vs6teen I agreed with you up until the very end when you said “most atheists don’t care about what Christians believe or why the believe it”. It’s like you’ve never ever listened to an atheist before. Are you serious? That’s the entire reason most atheists are atheists; because we care about why we should believe any religion or god is true! Wow.
Why do you care what he think? In your wv, there is no good or evil, right not wrong... So why do you care? I’ll tell you, because you know exists and you are suppressing the knowledge of God in unrighteousness...
Jeffrey B aww, you’ve become a parrot for Jesus. Adorable. Of course your script is false; I do care about wether his claims are true and that’s not inconsistent with atheism. But you’ve clearly decided to dogmatically not entertain this obvious fact, so continue to waste your time parroting your script.
Fascinating challenge and a genius idea. I appreciate and give kudos to Dr White for responding to the challenge. Pinecreek was respectful in his comments so kudos there as well. Looking forward to others responding to the challenge. BTW, where is this challenge posted?
+PineCreek the way you have worded the questions IS mocking whether you have the testicular fortitude to admit it or not it is blatantly obvious !!! , every reader can see where you are going with this type of questioning "your mindset" and can easily foresee how your rebuttal will be , you wanting short quick answers from white makes it even more obvious!!! You can't seriously not understand why Dr White is giving you long answers to each question? of course you know why don't be daft!!! "To reveal the full context " it is clear you want short quick answers "Yes , no" from Dr white to make your job to explain away believing these things as insane & not logical on face value This Christian Challenge of yours is pathetic!!! that any first year bible student can see through a mile away as deceptive & dishonest.with ulterior belittling motives
Matthew, a guy named Steven took the challenge and recorded it with me. He owned his beliefs without the need for explanation. I didn't mock or criticize. See the last 10 min of this video. ruclips.net/video/XXWmiei1hrI/видео.html
PineCreek it has nothing to do with owning a belief . without an explanation , it leave the listener not understanding why a person holds a belief. nothing is learnt or gained by hearing a yes or no answer , it is unintelligent to give answers like that an very unhelpful It speaks volumes about your intentions to expect that . you do not expect a simplistic yes a no answer from a scientist, doctor ,biologist etc.. so do not expect it from a theologian Dr James White is a theologian ,debater , teacher , preacher an i have never heard him give a short yes or no answer to any topic , be it peaceful verses in the bible or violent & supernatural ones . The overwhelming majority of theologians are like that. Any numbskull can quote bible verses that seem harsh , cruel, supernatural ,violent etc. on the surface level. context /exegesis is everything .
He asks about Numbers 5:19-21. There is nothing in the text here mentioning the woman being pregnant. NOTHING. He is adding something into the text that is not there. He might as well say Jesus is condoning riding of dragons for transport instead of donkeys, that addition of verbiage to the Bible in this specific location is just as valid as saying these verses are talking about abortion. Now if you wish to know specifically about unborn babies the Bible does instruct us on that: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25 You see God considers unborn babies to be alive. That's why if you strike a pregnant woman and the baby dies then the person striking the woman, causing the baby to be stillborn, to pay with their own life.
Jacob, As a Christian theist, I am a bit puzzled at your comment. I know that Doug has a hard time with these things - as he noted - but simply asking these questions, I don't see what is pretend about that. It's a reasonable set of questions to ask people. I don't see why you have trouble with him doing so. I would be happy to answer based on my current understanding ( which is subject to change).
This guy at 22:31 says reading the Bible in an easier version instead of the Old English version "Thigh" which I believe he meant "Thy" but seems confused with our current english needs alittle clarity in what he's preaching!
Many versions of the bible say "Thigh to rot" to mean the womb (and its contents) to rot. IF the woman is pregnant in this scenario, her unborn baby will die due to the Biblical God's judgement.
Thanks for playing Dr. White's responses, I think he gets much of what we as believers might say. I, for one, think it would be more interesting to add the difficult passages of Jesus to your challenge: things like the Sermon on the Mount, Luke 6:24-26, Luke 12:51-53, the Olivet Discourse. Most modern believers would struggle with those I think more than the OT passages. I would say that your comment about people rising from the dead all the time is only common if you believe the NT. If you believe the NT, then you have to believe the reason why they rose from the dead was Jesus, not just because it was common. Rising from the dead, those in Matthew included, was centered on Jesus, not just happenstance. Blessings
Well, in all fairness, that's a complicated question. A person could both want and not want fries at the same time, but in different senses. They might want the fries because they like the way they taste, but they might not want the fries because they are unhealthy. So the question isn't so simple after all.
@@peetee32 - are you still beating your wife (Y/N?). I think you get the idea. There are some questions that are cleverly loaded that you cannot merely answer them with a simple answer.
I think James White nailed it when he spoke about presuppositions of naturalism. And yes, naturalist materialism is foolish. And nope, I'm not a Christian and nor am I a friend of James White. This barrage of attempted gotcha moments on the part of secularists to pin theists into a corner is a blockade to serious and meaningful dialogue. Now, James White does not have much experience in dealing with secularists although he made some good points here but I'd suggest you try debating Dr Dale Tuggy or Prof. William Lane Craig. Having said that, I hope James White responds as theists need to see more apologists engaging with and breaking down the faulty position of the naturalist materialists.
Do you find it interesting that James White said all the things he said, when really all I asked him to do is state whether or not he believes each of the 8 statements? How is asking whether someone believes something or not a "gotcha" moment?
Sir, it's obvious why James qualified and explained his assertions - he felt in a secular context they needed that extra bit of explanation as those assertions in isolation would not chime with a secular audience and even a Christian audience influenced by secular thinking.
Oh, hell yes. Let's polish the turd of genocide and plunder. That certain lands are Holy, that God favors certain people over others, that stoning your wife on dad's door step, or killing your neighbor for Sabbath work is a moral imperative. Iron Age nonsense and the surrender of critical thinking to invisible gods. I'm thankful for my higher education and living in a progressive area. Religion is a voluntary retardation and surrender to fear.
Part of being a minister is explaining what Scripture says. I understand he is making apologetic arguments here (in contrast to a sermon), but churches meet weekly, and some of us two or three times a week, to learn what the says and means. His ministry an almost exclusively apologetic one. It's how his brain functions when he sees something like this. Doesn't mean he feels the need to explain them anymore than any other verse or passage.
+Krist do you think he would have even have responded if I would have chosen 8 benign verses? Maybe, but I doubt it. The challenge was to resist the temptation to explain these "difficult" verses and just state if he believes it or not.
@9:30 to clarify, Jesus was God manifested, which occurred in the new testament, 1 timothy 3:16 "and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory". Jesus is all throughout the old testament, just not manifested in the flesh
Having the ability to answer yes/no and "I don't know" honestly without blinking. Got me in a lot of trouble as a former Christian. 😂😂 Most have almost no ability to face the fact they don't *know* something. And jump at the chance to tell you you're wrong without asking "why?" to allow you to respond to clarify. I think that's what makes an apologist a profitable means of living. Some know it. Others are buying what they sell.
haha anyone who has ever listened to James White knows that he explains everything... All the time... For a living... Even if he was speaking to a crowd of people who believe the same as he does. He's a teacher, an explainer. Also, he wasn't mocking disbelief persay, he was quoting God from the Bible who directly mocks disbelief.
Sorry, Matthew, as a Christian theist, I could easily that James was definitely personally on specific items mocking Doug and I'm very sorry to see that. Regardless, I think this is a great opportunity for all of us to step up our game to the values that we hold and I would take that for myself as well as expect that from others.
“Why do you feel the need to explain this so much?” Because you have asked questions that you find absurd and want to hear a man of faith say them for shits and giggles. So yes, he’s going to explain why he believes something that (he feels for good reason) is being used as mockery. Why the hell else would you be asking these questions? At least be honest with yourself.
Jonathan Grandt; This is a list of statements, not questions. What I am asking is; do you believe these statements as written (with minor caveats). If I stated; "The earth is spherical shaped", and then asked you if you believe that statement to be true, would you go on and on and on about it? (I hope you're not a flat earther)
PineCreek, If Dr. White dialogues with you on the Dividing Line he will read/watch beforehand all of your content you have posted so he can faithfully represent and understand you. It would make a conversation more meaningful if you would do the same.
PineCreek, I specified the Dividing Line and dialogue. As in if you have a live two way conversation on air he will be prepared and seeking to represent you accurately. I hope that is clear.
I rather ask questions directly to the person, rather than spend hours researching what they used to say. They may have changed their mind on some things in the interim. Keep in mind if I talk to James White, it will NOT be a debate. It will be a civil dialogue where "winning" or "losing" is irrelevant. We are all on this journey called "life" together, and we can learn things from each other.
PineCreek Good thing he didn’t fall into that, this was clearly aimed to condescend. You wanted him to just say it with not explanation with the intent to mock.
If I were to ask you "Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?", do you think you could just answer "yes" without any explanation? IF so, why not for these 8 statements?
But I didn't ask why you believe it, why you have the hope you have, I simply asked do you believe it? I think you gave the above answer to get out of a bind and see that on certain things, Christians have no problem with saying "yes, I believe that" ... on other things, they feel the NEED to explain it.
Why is he explaining things? Because he has studied the bible as history and in context.If you are reading the bible and just view it from your point of view (which you are doing) you will understand it out of context. If you are going to the old testament you really need to study the culture of that time. I hope atheists like you study, or would give some thought on what a person who actually studied it carefully has to say(Like James White). I am a christian and I would answer to all the questions Yes, but like Dr White in context, as history,considering the culture and viewing the bible as a whole.
+Jasonpei2008 +Yeruult The point of the challenge was to see if the believer could state what they believe without feeling the need to explain it. See the original challenge video in the description box.
What James White is doing with this particular passage is not reading it in its cultural context. He's reading it in it's biblical theological context. If he were reading it in its cultural context he would have brought up other mythologies and cultures, then compared and contrasted them.
+PineCreek I thank you for your cordial response, though a sense of snark does seem to undergird some of your sentiments. You cannot be blamed for this as it can sometimes seep into our interactions with positions that are personally perceived as untenable, amazing, or even offensive. I'm guilty of this as well, and I'm sure Dr. White would also concede as much (and he has in the past) Putting that aside, I hope you can take some criticism followed by an action of love, if you read this at all. This video is partly titled "...Given by an Atheist" and then you nearly start off by saying "I don't even know if I'm an atheist, but I don't even know if I am a naturalist." You don't even know what you are, yet you sound like you've already come to your own conclusions. I hope you recognize that prefaced inconsistency with your supposed atheistic identity sets a liable tone for questionable credibility thereafter. It seems that you might not care for the arguably more accurate term of "agnostic" considering that you follow the aforementioned statement with "I am open to the idea of the supernatural, I really am. There might be a supernatural, I don't know." If there are possibly supernatural attributes in anything (God or gods, man or nature, etc.) and you affirm a belief in that possibility, then you will need a better label or term that accurately addresses your worldview position. Having said that, dear fellow image bearer and fellow brother in Adam and Noah. I too exchanged the truth for a lie, elevating man to the growing realm of knowledge attainment regarding our world and existence solely through our own capacities. Rom|1:22-25 "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." I am not passing my own judgements on you, brother, but rather passing along the judgements of our Creator. I do this in love because it's the true desire of a Christian to see a lost brother or sister be called by the Father, bought for by the Son, and preserved by the Spirit to one day come into His presence for eternity. Rom|2:1 "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Brother, this is an eternal matter that no one can or will resolve on their own, whether by merit, knowledge, or any sort of synergistic mixture thereof. It is all of Him. Unless a sinner's nature is changed and brought to bow in spirit in true repentance and faith, they will bear the consequence that has been so clearly communicated. I commend you for entering these critiques, but you have come face to face with that which cannot be denied, namely, communication regarding life and death. You of all people have no grounds for claiming ignorance. You are the very evidence of what you say may or may not exist: YOU ARE SUPERNATURAL, BROTHER! Space, time, and matter will act on chance without intelligent direction because its natural form and function is without purpose or intent. Bringing those things into being and then using those elements to make what would not have developed and occurred according to their own nature is beyond natural... it's supernatural. There is not one realm of any branch of science that has ever reached a naturally absolute foundation, and they never will. People continue to search for what they hope to be naturally finite explanations, only resulting in exponentially further, arguably infinite, questions. These individuals continually search for naturally finite explanations, only resulting in exponentially further, arguably infinite, questions. While most in the scientific community continue to uncover the infinite Creator's design through the sciences, which I wholly support if done ethically, they do so while denying that very Creator along the way. I say "most" because there are those scientists who fully recognize that what they are learning about does indeed have an ultimate, absolute foundation: an intelligent Designer. These people dig and are amazed in awe and wonder over the sheer magnitude of complexity that is creation, which only drives them further. Brother, creation doesn't so much as merely contain evidence, it IS evidence. And the Creator has not only further revealed the origin of creation but also the purpose. And while there are those image bearers of God who scurry into darkness when the light is cast upon them, they should rather bask in that light, praising Him for not leaving them in the dark: He is the Light! I truly hope this finds you well. Take care and the Lord's blessings on you and yours, even if you do not recognize it to be so.
icedamascus: I can understand why you think I said "I don't know if I'm an atheist", but listen very carefully at the 2:58 min mark; because I said it so fast. But I said "I don't know .... I"m an atheist, but I don't know if I'm a naturalist" If you want to talk via livestream about the rest of your comment email me at dll1671@yahoo.com
I'm finding the responses on this a little frustrating, asking why James is explaining, repeatedly, when a quick google search would show that the man is an apologist and this is legitimately what he does. Like, have your say and ask your questions, but this consistent 'well why are you explaining yourself', makes it seem like you were trying to cause offence, because you don't want to hear his justification or understand his position as you seem to claim, you just want to hear him say 'Jesus said kill children, etc etc'.
just to point out about the commandment around the 11:00 mark, it's referring to a young adult, teenager that refused to support his parents in their old age, this was a point and time where there was no social security and cultural customs in that part of the world was to take care of the parents in their old age.
Dr. White looks soooo much like my dad that it freaks me out. I think my dad would’ve smiled at Dr. White’s devotion to Christianity because he shared some of it.
Your request that Christians "own their beliefs" "without explanation" while giving your own flawed explanation of the verses in question is disingenuous at best. All Christians believe what the Bible says. Wanting them to profess belief in what YOU say that the Bible says is absurd.
I would respect people like this more if they just came out with a straight "yes/no" instead of dancing around. The dancing means they know there's something wrong with their beliefs.
Explaining the passage/context of the passage is *not* dancing around. Every passage in the Bible *needs* to be viewed in it's context otherwise it falls apart. Anyone could take Anything you (and I) have stated online out of the original intended context, and the way the statements are worded here show a clear ignorance for the context of the statements. They're dishonest to the original text. Not saying it's intentional, but the way the statements are worded make it clear that the writer doesn't actually care to learn the context. and if that's the case, why bother even making the challange? That's the only reason James felt the need to give context, to explain what the authors have *actually* written rather than give a "yes and no" to *incredibly* simplified statements. I'd recommend you look into exegesis, it's a fascinating way of interprating *not* based on personal opinion but based on the context of which the passages are in. Again, without context you can make anything say anything. edit: one last note - James White hosts a daily (or weekly? can't remember) stream called the Diving Line where he critically reviews current events in Evangelicalism and Apologetics. He also at times goes through the original greek Biblical texts (since he has taught greek for decades), so another reason he's going through the context is because that's what he does and it's what his audience expects him to do
@@andreww9726 ""Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Is ^that morally acceptable? If so, in what context?
@@JMUDoc sorry for the late response, it doesn't alert me to responses The context of the passage is that it's one of the many laws given to the body of Israel as a social policy. It should also be noted that in the same chapter, (Exodus 21:16) it condemns the act of stealing men for the purpose of slavery and states that it's punishable by death. The pattern throughout the entire Bible is that it gives laws to people with the assumption that the people receiving the laws will completely understand what they entail, ie there is no place in the bible that says it's okay to torture bond servants and slaves, it states that in certain cases physical discipline was accepted. The answer again depends on the context: In the context of ancient Israel practicing discipline towards disobedience against God and His people? yes. In the context of the people who stole slaves from Africa and other parts of the world and treated them inhumanely? No, because they already broke the commandment given in Exodus 21:16 and were also in violation of the second greatest commandment, in the words of Jesus: "Love your neighbor as yourself". (Mark 12:30-31) in short - the statement itself was given at a time early in God's work with Israel, and was intended to teach them at the time how to deal with the disobedience of slaves (as seen from the pattern of the old testament), not giving them free reign to torture as some have turned it to mean.
@@andreww9726 Exodus 21:16 condemns illegal kidnapping, not slavery. There were provisions for legal enslavement at the time and they are outlined and supported in the Bible. Leviticus 25:44-46 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Dr. White believes in the resurrected saints in Matt. 27:52 but it was such an insignificant event that Mark, Luke or John make no reference to it in their gospel accounts ... Almost as if were a common occurrence of the times ... Always a troubling and bizarre verse for me.
The reason Dr. White just don't give just a yes or no answer to these question is because the overwhelming majority of people have no idea what the Bible says let alone understand what it is saying. So in Dr. White's attempt to answer the questions he has to correct the question so that the person writing this questionnaire will better understand what these text are actually saying in the context of Biblical history, that are in the questions. This is a classic example of a fundamental misunderstanding of the text of the Scripture. This is the problem I and many other Biblical teachers have with non-Christians trying to tell us what the Bible says. It’s like a child trying to tell a doctor how to perform a surgery. But that's what the non-Christians think of those of us that spend many years studying the Bible and Near Eastern area history. They seem to think of us as stupid. They wouldn't do this to any other PhD or holder of a Doctor's degree from another field of study.
I completely agree with Dr. White description of the 8. Maybe it would be best served for you to read a book on how to understand the Bible in its grammatical, and historical context before picking and choosing passages out of context, and asking Christians like Dr. White and myself to give a yes or no answer to question that are obviously worded without any understanding of Biblical history. What about the video's I suggested watch those and see what you think.
So what I am hearing you say is that you could NOT do what a christian named Geoff did the other night (he took the challenge and agreed with 7.5 out of 8.0. ruclips.net/video/qDq6T-pMMuo/видео.html
I watched the first part of Geoff's responses to the question, and yes I can agree with his answer. But only the second part of his explanation of number 4. I don't believe these women were made to be prostitutes. But as Dr. White explained they were to be given to the Israelites as wives. I think the problem you are having is you are confusing church going Christian's with Biblical Scholars like Dr. White. I don't know the experience of Geoff so I'm not sure of the education he has had but he seems to have a good grasp of Biblical understanding. My Seminary thesis was on Biblical illiteracy in the American church, and I can tell you that it is staggering how many Christians do not understand simple Biblical truth. This is why I think many Christian like yourself have fallen away from believing in the Bible. They have a hard time reconciling Biblical truth with the world around them. That is why Biblical interpretation is called both an art and a science. I am a simple Pastor/Theologian trying to dispel the misunderstandings of the Bible. I think if more people Christians and non alike would simple learn how to study the Bible using what we learn in Seminary more people would believe in it. I know my own understanding and faith has been enhanced by my careful study of the Bible.
So if you mostly agree with Geoff's responses, then you believe about 7 of the 8 statements on my challenge and for the most part have no problem with my paraphrasing with maybe some minor tweaking (like Geoff)? I wouldn't say I fell away from Christianity because of a misunderstanding of the Bible. If anything it was the opposite. I was a Christian for 30+ years and have viewed it from the perspective of several different denominations. How sad is it that simple biblical truth isn't so simple. I believe more and more Christians will continue to leave the belief because they are realizing the evidence doesn't match the claim. Just because the bible says something, doesn't make it true ... and young people are realizing that more and more with the quick ability to search information on the internet. Presuppositional apologetics is taking on new life in the U.S., and I believe that is a bad sign for things to come for Christianity.
@min8:30 it isnt mocking of what he said, he's making reference to scripture..1corinthians3:18-21 "let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours." That may seem belittling to your feelings but remember that this was followed by what's written below: 1 corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." ...Feelings of the natural man's heart tend to be taken as an offensive gesture when confronted by the gospel, but God is not a respecter of persons (romans 2:11"For there is no respect of persons with God.") because of what's stated in regards to the heart in Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Dr. James White is a formidable Christian apologist and he is very respectful in all debates I've seen him in. Explaining his position thoroughly is what he does. Why try to pschoanalyze or become so suspicious and defensive about his thoroughness in his explanations? Alas, your sarcasm runs thick.
Question for you? If I drop my experience of the Son of God and belief in the Gospel and pick up your philosophy what will it do for me ? What big questions of life and meaning will your philosophy furnish to me ?
Great question! I think the best thing I can offer you is lower cognitive dissonance. If you want a worldview that gives certainty and meaning in the after-life, then I can't help you.
@@PineCreekDoug It seems typical that skeptics count the Christian Gospel as only related to the "after-life". Funny, I never found the term "after-life" anywhere in the Bible. I see Christ AS life and I see resurrection. Anyway, in a short post its hard for you to answer. Now as for "cognitive dissonance" ... unashamedly, when we finite beings bump up against the uncreated and eternal Person [for lack of a better word] I expect some paradoxes would be encountered. Ie. the trinity. I would expect some limitations of human intellect would come to light. But, hey, enjoying eating a good ham sandwich has its mysteries as well. Why not God?
@@PineCreekDoug The way I do that is to just allow Christ to live in me in His resurrection state as "The Spirit of Jesus Christ". This is the good news. Christ can live again, this time in those who receive Him. If I can believe and let Christ live in me, anyone can, I think.
@@PineCreekDoug Ok, But I think you should get saved. I really don't have any more self generated faith then the next guy. Christ was merciful to me and gave me the believing ability. The questions you asked about the Old Testament - FIRST Jesus won my utmost trust as One whose integrity was above questioning. From that point, gradually, as a process I opened up to the Old Testament. If it was good for Him it was good for me. Caution: Do not mistake simplicity for naivete.
It could easily be argued that Dr. White felt had to explicate the contexts of the 'difficult' passages in order to assist those who find them abhorrent better understand them. Doug should not have feigned bewilderment at this. Obviously the warm and fuzzy stuff demands no such explication since no one would find it abhorrent. However I do think, along with Douglas, that there is something else going on here which needs to be highlighted. Dr. White is obviously 'rationalizing' these passages 'against' his own better judgment. He, like all believers to some extent, is in conflict. A conflict from which there is no escape - hence the defensiveness and belligerence (such as it was). But I genuinely think it's a deeper phenomenon than Doug, and nearly everyone else, realizes. All of us understand the world through the prism of our experiences. We come to consciousness by way of a flourishing of 'meaning' and this meaning is always different for everyone. It does not seem different because the only way we can communicate with each other is by means of what we agree upon as 'common experiences' and objective phenomena. This is an illusion - a very powerful one. We think we are inhabiting and looking at 'the same world' but we are not. People sometimes find that they have been talking at crossed purposes. I am suggesting that we are 'always' talking at crossed purposes and that we just never discover it. Instead we identify each other as crazy or stupid or ignorant. Or else we fumble along 'making sense' of what each other seem to be trying to say. Dr. White's 's consciousness building experiences, like the rest of us, has been heavily dependent upon 'stories'. His stories include the Bible and once having come to consciousness to some extent by means of this or that logically incoherent text, our very consciousness - our very 'selves' cannot deny the source of it's own emergence. No sincere person is guilty of anything but ignorance and all of us are ignorant.
Mark Lucas. it is quite generous of you to assume that Dr. White, a professional speaker, author and apologist, is being sincere, but I beg to differ. As for being caught in our own conditioned paradigms, that is something that can be gradually remedied by those sincere enough to do the work of skeptically examining their presuppositions. This is what Malcolm X did when he left the National of Islam and started thinking for himself.
Essentially you’re saying that scientists eliminate this biased prism by examining what they bring to the table carefully. Unfortunately many times this isn’t the case, scientists have solidified many things as facts but they are all up against the wall to contradict the Bible with their facts. There lies scientific bias. They desperately come up with embarrassing theories like the Big Bang theory and although theories are supposed to be completely observable, the Big Bang remains an assumption that has gained theory status. How? Because scientists all want to believe such a thing. There’s an overwhelming need to find evidence against the Bible because most atheists are atheists from fleeing God’s existence. They will never truly eliminate that bias.
@@johnwitek4891 The world/internet is full of people who do not see what is in front of them or understand what is being told to them. It, the world, is made of people who 'know' what they know by being what they 'are'. You are the most expert of any possible witness on what it is that 'you' witness. Therefore no one will ever be able to wake you from the dream that is your life. Nor should they. All there is for you to wake to is the incomprehensible and the unintelligible. For you to 'wake' would be what it would be for 'you' to die. Just like the child I no longer am - no longer 'exists'. It were as if he were dead. In fact he 'is' dead since he certainly is no longer alive. I said NOTHING about "science" or "scientists"! You write like an obsessed person. You certainly don't seem to know what the big bang theory even is - yet you feel qualified to talk about it as if you do! Everybody thinks they see and understand just fine - EVERYBODY. The thing I was trying to say is simply that this illusion is everywhere to be found in every person. How can I speak for 'every person' as if I knew what I was talking about? The same way 'you' talk about 'every person' believing in God. How could you possibly know that? There is only one way you could know that. If 'the belief in God' was actually the one single thing in the universe that no one can fail to 'know' - the one thing that simply MUST be true. What is this thing? It is that we ourselves personally 'exist'. Yes, everyone "knows" that they exist. The certainty of 'existence is the 'substance' of God. Or else God is .... what?
"You realize this is something hard to believe and so you needed to explain it more." He is actually explaining it for you, because if it was easy for you to believe it, this video or this challenge would have never existed.
The "challenge" was to state one's beliefs WITHOUT the need to explain it. There's been several theists who have been able to do it, James White couldn't resist. But my guess is he didn't understand the challenge and was just using the opportunity to be apologetic.
@@PineCreekDoug You simply do not get it, friend. This is a tactic of lawyers to make you answer a simple yes or no, to trap you. These are mostly trick questions. For example, the first question about a serpent speaking, what if someone took all of this to mean allegory, and they answered "No." What then would you respond with? You see, it could make the person look like he doesn't believe the Bible, but in fact he believes the Bible differently than what you think it says.
Yes Bradley. The comparison video I made with another Christian (not an apologist) makes White look really silly with especially that one. ruclips.net/video/GIMDo7nSiFI/видео.html
PineCreek perhaps, but you don't always give me that impression. you seem to be seeking the last word. I encourage you to seek dialogue in these matters
I'm not sure how that works - would we schedule something? I'm a second year M.Div student, I really shouldn't even have time to be watching RUclips let alone be on it
Haha. I hear you. I could talk right now if you want. I would send you a link via email and all you have to do is click the link. This would bring you into a private room with just you and me which I would livestream on youtube and record. If you're not comfortable with that, you can have the choice to do audio only, or even just live chat. If this is something that interests you I can give you my spam email account here.
1). what does he mean by "lower animals" ... every animal is just as evolved as we are 2) @pinecreek the comment you made that if you'd asked him 'is god love' was so on point! :)
Thanks. I do have 2 versions of the Christian challenge. One that you see here and the other is very very "benign". I have given the "benign" version to a theist and he answered it in a couple of minutes. The version you see here took much much longer. Very telling IMO.
I love to hear the mitigation of the Midianite story. It is not even religiously coherent. The story actually starts in Numbers 25 with "Don't have sex with pagan Midianite virgins" and ends in chapter 31 with "I changed my mind, go ahead and have sex with pagan Midianite virgins, and let's even add some of them to the worship team." White's view that God was providing for the young girls is such a grasp to white wash the account. If the girls were good enough to keep, then the baby boys and others were not bad enough to kill. All being said, I do appreciate James White answering the challenge and not seeking to remove Jesus from the OT.
An added note, he claims that keeping the virgins was an act of providing for them. Where was the provision for the girls in regards to Exodus 21:7-11? Their master had sex with them and they leave their master's house "without payment of money" (ESV). Christian apologetics - The strained attempt to defend the rationally absurd and the morally obscene.
Thank you for this video. Very interesting! Doing my own research, not having a bible in my house and using biblehub.com (which seems to be a reliable source) I am a bit confused why you would pick the only bible version that mentions "virgins" instead of "people" like most bible versions would do. Getting people (slaves?) as tributes is horribly in any way. But there is only ONE version ("New Living Translation") saying that these people were virgins biblehub.com/numbers/31-40.htm ...so....is the challenge in this case a matter of picking the most shocking example amongst many bible versions? What do 'we' know about the original scripts?
No, the text doesn’t say that.. Numbers 31:32-41 32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man. 36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675; 38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72; 39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61; 40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32. 41 Moses gave the tribute to (Eleazar the priest )as the Lord’s part, as the Lord commanded Moses.
Would you consider having James White on a livestream? Maybe you can reach out to him again? Your back and forth with Geoff was so much better than someone just answering questions.
Dr. White would not bloviate however he will give his answer in full context. Not just in the context of one verse or one chapter but in the context of the entire Bible if need be. You can go to Starbucks and ask for water and they will give you a glass of water. It's not just from the tap but instead, it goes through 3 filters before it comes out of the faucet. I know because I was once a manager with them. In the same manner, you must look at what is being said filtered through the entire books of the Bible. In some particular case maybe 66 filters (all books of the Protestant Bible) if you were to ask about God's love for instance. In doing so you will begin to get away from gotcha moments and maybe start gaining understanding.
All scripture is God breathed, however the scriptures are not always translated into English in a good way. Certain words or verses are translated in ways that lend themselves to bad interpretation. The scriptures ( Bible) are not meant for and are impossible to be understood by those who are perishing. The Gospel is too be preached and only those who receive it go on to read the entire scriptures. I believe every word of what God wrote when correctly translated. E.g: in Genesis Bible says serpent not snake. ( Satin took the form of a serpent) doesn't say what kind of serpent.. Lizards are serpents, Dragons are Serpents etc. This comment is only really for the children of God who might be watching this and reading the comments. Abraham was tested by God to demonstrate his obedience was real. The other man made a rash vow to the Living God and serves as an example for all time. God is a thrice Holy and must be treated with absolute respect. The daughter would have went straight to Glory because she showed herself to be righteous. This world is not our final destination, everybody dies and the final destination is in the hands of The Creator. Remember if God was fare all would end up in Hell. This man asking the questions is not interested in the truth...
Interesting that you give the same silly argument that Muslims give when someone challenges what's written in the Quran. This apologetics approach cuts no ice.
atheistmecca one day in your future every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord including you. Stop pretending to be sincere. The Bible was written down by men who were moved by The Spirit of the living God. You are trying to manipulate the answers to discredit and bring scornful reprisal against what we believe, your whole exercise is a waste of time because Salvation is a Spiritual event and is foolishness to you and others who have not been born again by The Spirit. Just leave it alone.
Hasim Hodzic Wow you are a crazy one.. If you were born somewhere else you would probably be saying something similar about Allah. Go to a cancer ward in a children's hospital and then tell me your god exists.
atheistmecca you know nothing about me and about my life,for example: I was raised in a Muslim family and rejecting Allah as a teenager, even then I knew that Islam was evil. I cannot deny what I have experienced first hand and you two will come face to face with the living God. I find your comments somewhat offensive, like I said you know nothing about me, my dad died of cancer. Regardless of how smart you think you are you know nothing about God either...
Yea Christians expound the encouraging, warm stuff too. That's typically called a sermon, which is always written in light of understanding how the principle would have applied to the first hearers versus us.
Whats really funny is that dude is trippin about James giving explanation but then starts pausing the video to give his own huge counter explanations. GTFOH
I hear you. Since White took the opportunity to advertise his apologetics I took the opportunity to counter. I realize it makes no difference to his "followers" what I say, but I couldn't help myself to highlight the fact that White didn't even understand what the challenge was (I highly doubt he watched the video in the description box of this video).
Pierre. Those positions are not equivalent. Dr. White was explaining why statements from the Bible are not as morally despicable as they seem, with quite long drawn out filibustering arguments. He is a professional Bible minister and apologist. Doug pausing to make his commentary is just what is logical for a host to do. He is not defending a position but trying to make sense of Dr. White's. White's obfuscation of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter was ridiculous. The obvious plain reading of the passage is that sacrifice means death.
Sir, with due respect, you did not get the text correct in Numbers 31. NASB Numbers 31: 40-41 (41 is required to keep proper context) "40 and the human beings were 16,000, from whom the Lord's levy was 32 persons. 41 Moses gave the levy which was the Lord's offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses." Now, this is my take on proper context: this was a rough time in the human experience. The culture of the day was horrific brutality toward the spoils of war. Brutal death to the loser in battle and the victor receives all of the loser's household. Eleazar received the lord's share for Eleazar's household. It could have been tens or hundreds in his house. Sir, honestly, you wish for us to look at the lens of the Bible through a 21st century world view. At the same time, you want to use the Christian worldview; in which concepts of morality and decency towards others actually matter. Now as to your worldview: so what? (I borrowed this line, sue me) so what if people treat others cruelly? In your worldview there's no entitlement to such concepts of justice. We are just simply space dust in the atheist worldview or ??? is what we are in an agnostic worldview. So what? In the unbelievers worldview the universe has no concept of fair or just. It is all random. So what? By the way, I will breakdown this text for the unbeliever: The Jews fresh from Egypt are now taking in people and property from spoils of battle. Part of Baal worship included sexual deviancy. Virgins had not been initiated (obviously) into sexual Baal worship. The biggest thing that Moses was opposed to was false god worship. It seems as though you might be using incomplete statements to trip up Christians on this "challenge"? If so, it is not proving very effective.
PS. Numbers 5 is a trick to make men stop doubting their wife's fidelity. I can't imagine a baby was ever aborted in the history of Judaism by tabernacle dust, holy water, and pen ink. That IS the magic abortion recipe you speak of. Once again, god knows how to fix relationships even thousands of years ago.
God Smart shepherds and clever kings knew knew knows knew how to fix relationships even thousands of years ago, even in the bloodiest of cultures. Fixed it for you.
Numbers 31:40. I looked it up, and I found that it can either say the tribute to God is either "people" or "women", depending on which translation you go with.
Well, if we were just reading 31:40, yes you'd be right. The Hebrew word there is נָפֶשׁ, which basically is indicating 'souls' in a figurative sense, a living person or creature (kinda like how if you were a ship's captain or aircraft pilot you might talk about 'souls on board' when detailing a manifest). However, the half portions in verse 40 are clearly coming from the totals in vv. 32-35, where it clearly spells out that 32,000 virgin women (literally 'women who had not known a man by lying with him') were taken. In other words, in v35, you have 32K virgin women, v.36 you have the discussion about half portions of which (in v. 40) you have the the 16,000 'souls', where souls has obviously the same referent as in v. 35.
Fact is swallowed by a great fish and your in its stomach for 3 days you are being digested. Ok I get it your invoking magic when you say someone survived. good for you
Angelo Stevens WHO is invoking magic??? when you START with the true living GOD, you realise life is supernatural anyway...atheist claim they don't believe in supernatural, but then will say the "big bang" just happened for no reason...PRETTY SUPERNATURAL!!...wake up
So what happened to all the "zombies"? Did they carry on living in the community for years? Did they fall down after a while? Did they give any amazing insights into the view from "the other side"?
I dont think you have any idea who Dr James White is. He not just a run of the mill believer. He is a Christian Scholar, that teaches both Hebrew and Greek at the University level. He is also a very accomplished author. Not to mention he has participated in over 300 professional moderated debates all over the globe defending the Christian faith.
Sure I know who he is. He's a white bald guy who also likes riding his bike, going on hikes, and long walks on the beach! He is a human being full of faults just like you and me.
I really don't understand how Christians accept the idea that God intervenes to do his little magic tricks but doesn't to save newborns and children from cancer. And yet they call him all loving.
Affordable Moonwalk God is love does not equal to He hates. If you wrote... God is hate and then started a new sentence with "He Hates" then your claims would have a bit more traction. Looking at the Bible's version of God there is more reason to believe God is an asshole than he is love. I am always very confused how do you Christians reach the conclusion that God is love.
Hi Greg Kowal, I believe God is loving yet shows different types of loves towards two classifications of people: the elect and the retrobate. The elect are chosen by God to spend an eternity with the Lamb while the retrobate are not, although they, like certain elect persons, have been given dominion over all other animals on the Earth and sometimes are blessed with wealth, fame, long life, ad infinitum. From a Biblical perspective, the retrobate are condemned to Hell because they, if not restrained by God, would choose to engage in wicked behavior all of the time. From a relativistic worldview, though, whether Christians or ISIS members are good or bad depends on the culture in which that person is raised. This creates the absurd situation where a superficial Christian can speak out against jihadists and can be lauded in American and then set children on fire in the Middle East and can be applauded for that action. Therefore, those who critique Christianity on moral grounds who embrace moral relativism are proving that their own worldview is false in the process. Now, if we return the topic of love, Jesus clearly points out that loving God entails obeying all of His commandments, something which human beings, due to their sinful nature, are unable to do. Biblically speaking, in Prelapsarian Eden, humans could choose between good and evil; afterwards, though, human sin made people incapable of acting in a righteous manner. This means that, unless God restrains sin, the only thing humans can do is conduct themselves in an unrighteous fashion. Your point too, commits the existential fallacy, since you assume that, just because humans know some things about love it necessarily follows that they understand everything about it. I will add a key point of correction, one which is logically valid: if God is omniscient, then he knows everything about love and, if He knows everything about love than God knows all particular demonstrations of life. Since God is omniscient, then the conclusion which follows is that God understands every individualized demonstration of love. I think that, before attacking God, you have to think more profoundly about the subject of hand rather than dismiss Him in an economy of four sentences. Take care, QP
Not sure why would a loving being create sick beings in the first place. It just does not make any sense. Why allow a creation of a newborn that will die within the next few months of cancer? What is the purpose of this? No loving being could allow such event to occur. Any person in the world with an average level of empathy and magic would snap his fingers and cure such child and yet your God does not do so. We humans are more loving and moral than your God which you say is love. "Grom a Biblical perspective, the retrobate are condemned to Hell because they, if not restrained by God, would choose to engage in wicked behavior all of the time. " - This makes absolutely no sense. A being that can control everything and loves his creation somehow creates bad and good people and then punishes the bad ones ? That reminds me of the story in the Bible where God on purposes hardened pharaoh;s heart and then murdered his people's children.God changed someone's heart and then punished him for the choices that were done due to God's magical spells! LOL! This is absurd! You claim this is a loving being? Loving beings don't just create you so that they can send you to hell. " if God is omniscient, then he knows everything about love and, if He knows everything about love than God knows all particular demonstrations of life. Since God is omniscient, then the conclusion which follows is that God understands every individualized demonstration of love. I think that, before attacking God, you have to think more profoundly about the subject of hand rather than dismiss Him in an economy of four sentences. " - You don't need to know everything about mathematics to know that 2+3 does not equal 4. One does not need to know all about love to understand that one cannot call someone loving if that someone shows lack of love and compassion. End of story.
Hi Greg Kowal: Let me answers your questions. 1. "Why allow a creation of a newborn that will die within the next few months of cancer? What is the purpose of this? No loving being could allow such event to occur." The short answer is that God has a purpose for evil by demonstrating his saving grace for rebel sinners on the cross. By the way, God did not bring sin into this world--we did when we rebelled against God. In fact, the only reasons sinners care about what good or evil is God restrains them from thinking utterly wicked thoughts. However, from your worldview, morality is irrelevant, since the liberal sociological worldview believes in moral situations; this, in turn, leads to a situation where a person can burn a child alive in one culture and being vilified and then perform the same action in another culture and be praised. Also, why are you bringing up cancer when you believe that pregnant women have the right to commit infanticide because you deem the fetus to be less than human? In your worldview, everything occurs by chance and, from that perspective, you are on very shaky grounds claiming to ethical absolutes. 2. In the instance I cited, I never argue that God forces humans to act wickedly and then punishes them from it. Fallen humans, if not restrained by God, would behave in a completely malevolent fashion. You mention the hardening of Pharaoh's heart as if God is causing Ramsees II to act cruelly, but the fact is that, according to Reformed Christians, Ramsees II's proclivity toward acting evilly is a natural action. When God restrains Pharaoh, he refrains from sinning, and when He removes His hand, Pharaoh returns to behaving malevolently and, in that passive sense, his heart becomes "hardened." In Exodus, Pharaoh is obstinate in his rebelling against God and, if God does not restrain him, the Jews might be completely obliterated under his reign. When God extends grace to individuals, they, in they unregenerate nature, reject it, so God has to send His Holy Spirit to convict such sinners; they, in turn, cry out to God the Son for mercy, and He saves them from the God Father's demand for perfect justice. So, grace is offered to many people, but sinners, in their sinful states, want to be their own deities. Also, I don't think you understand how Hell works. The Holy Spirit's fire is intended to purge individual of their sins. The problem is that when the unrighteous die, they lose the chance for grace because God completely restrains from stopping those who sin in Hell from doing so. These individuals will be so depraved that they will never ask for God's mercy so that they might be regenerated but, rather, continue to sin. And, as theologian Dr. John MacCarthur notes, their sins which need to be purged will always be more than the ones which are purged. In a nutshell, God is using a method which is intended to purge sinners of all inequities so they can become pure, but the retrobate will keep resisting it! In other words, as Isa. 5.20 points out, such individuals belong to a company which class "Evil good and good evil." Moreover, you might ask why does God use heat to punish sinners? It is because the Holy Spirit's fire is capable of killing all impurities. Nevertheless, you, as a moral relativist, are assuming a non-contingent perspective to attack Hell and, as a result, you are contradicting your own worldview! 3. You wrote that "One does not need to know all about love to understand that one cannot call someone loving if that someone shows lack of love and compassion. End of story." This comment shows a fundamental contradiction in your worldview since, as a being who embraces relativism you are making a non-contingent claim. As a person who has an existential understanding of love, you cannot logically, as Reformed Baptist preacher, scholar, and apologist Dr. James R. White points out, challenge a God who 1) is love and 2) therefore has a universal comprehension of it, as this commits the existential fallacy. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Take care, QP
Hi PineCreek, If you really want to challenge Dr. White, then why don't you challenge him to a moderated formal debate either in a specific location or via radio? Take care, QP
I invited him to talk with me at the end of this video. The ball is in his court. I don't do debates though, but I'd love to just dialogue back and forth. I think in the end, it would be a civil discourse and we may end up being friends.
Hi PineCreek: Thanks for your response. As a Christian, I, of course, would have a different worldview than you do, and that includes the right of God, after the to truncate a human's lifespan whenever He pleases, as we are all sinful creatures in His eyes. Now, let's apply it to a "moral problem" you saw in the Holiness Code. (Note: The Civil Code, which is no longer applicable today, since, as Dr. White points out, the demands of the Old Testament Law have been satisfied by Christ's crucifixion.) When God gives the law permitting a husband to put her wife's unborn child in jeopardy if he suspects her of being unfaithful, the idea, in that particular day and age, is to ensure that the sanctity of marriage is being honored. If it is not, then the fetus might die. Nevertheless, if the woman lies, and her unborn child perishes, she commits two sins before God: lying and allowing her baby to be killed. It should be duly noted, though, that just because a fetus is allowed to be killed by an unfaithful wife who does not want to disclose her infidelity to her husband does not necessarily implied that God will not take vengeance in the future for that baby's death. Queen Jezebel, for instance, lied to the Levites about the righteous Naboth committing a capital crime because he refused to sell a vineyard he is instructed by the Lord not to part with. Consequently, Naboth is stoned to death. Queen Jezebel's evil, though, is eventually punished when she is pushed out the window of her palace and dogs eat almost all of her dead body. In the hereafter, God will punish every sin which an unrighteous person commits. Now, how is the commandment discussed above different than abortion? The answer is the issuance has a specific purpose, as opposed to abortion, an act where babies are killed whenever a pregnant mother decides she doesn't want to have kids, which, morally speaking, is purposeless. Also, God, and not humans, has the right to give and take life. Remember this: we have sinned against a God who originally has created a perfect world for us. As far as debating Dr. James R. White is concerned, I would definitely encourage you to do so. Before engaging in debate, though, inform him of your intention to keep the debate civil and friendly and that, even if you end up disagreeing with another, each of you can benefit from the exchange of ideas. I think that you will benefit from the experience, as formal debates really force you to put forth and answer difficult questions. Again, I appreciate your feedback. Take care, QP
Whats interesting is we're able to communicate with animals in this day and age so why would communication between a serpent if it happened supernaturally be far fetched?
In the Jephthah story you don't ever even get to know his daughter's name, just that she was offered up as a sacrifice ... Oh well, she was only a woman anyway, right ? ... Who cares what her name was.
@min 18, surprised he couldn't answer that one....you did get the text right BUT you must keep reading and also use the correct translation (KJV)! This offering was called a "Heave offering"....keep reading to numbers 31:41....this offering was given to the priest as instructed by the Lord.... The heave offering was often used in conjunction with a wave offering, and both were then given to the priests. The heave offering was the part of a sacrifice set aside or “lifted up” for a higher purpose (meaning they were NOT killed off). Keep in mind that we are talking about Medianites which were Nephilim (half fallen angel/half human)...therefore, the virgin women that we are speaking of here were not killed off because they were not defiled by the Nephilim... (assuming you understand what Nephilim are, their origins, and how they survived the flood (or possible 2nd incursion))....if you don't, then that'll explain alot of issues that you have with the OT that modern church simply REFUSES to cover....bc they don't teach about the Nephilim in bible college. They ,mostly, go with the newly developed Sethite theory to explain what happened in Genesis 6....which is an entirely different subject unto itself but relevant to the scripture you are reciting
I'm not sure I see how any of these questions are "bad"? What standard of "badness" are we appealing to and what in particular makes them such? It seems to a large degree, people have a major issue with the concept of a Sovereign God, who does what He wants, when He wants and how He wants, and who seeks the approval of no external source. I think the uncontrollable element in that notion greatly distresses some.
PineCreek Well, as someone else mentioned, Dr. White uses his videos for teaching; also, as also mentioned, the format of these questions fails to foster meaningful discussion.
PineCreek I am in the process of exploring the content of your videos; I can only speak to that which I've viewed so far. I suppose I don't fully comprehend your objective with these questions; for example, I would have no problem affirming them without hesitation and without commentary; but then what? What does that prove or disprove?
The challenge was to simply state what you believe, not why you believe it. Geoff did a great job last night (he's a Christian who believes 7 of the 8). ruclips.net/video/qDq6T-pMMuo/видео.html
Kori claypool No of course not Kori. He is a victim of not researching where the challenge came in the first place. Some one took a screenshot of the video on twitter and gave it to him and he didn't think to ask where exactly the challenge came from or what exactly the challenge was. He used the challenge to preach his apologetic. Don't get me wrong, his mistake led to a lot of fruitful dialogue. I love the fact that some Christians agree 90%+ with my paraphrased statements and others are at 0%.
The thing you fail to understand is that he is explaining it to spiritually dead people! Also any manner that shows compassion and love towards people! You must be born again otherwise you will die in your sins in your perish in your sins!
I wish that I could find Dr James unbroken version. There were so many interruptions that it reminded me of those atheist/theist forum debates where a line by line response is made for every sentence a poster uttered. The Atheist in the video seemed very respectful and kind but the entire package lost all coherence due to the large multitude of interruptions.
...White's answers are not based on '[he] realises it sounds bad... ' [12:49] and therefore gives a long answer, but that YOU think they ARE bad (Jesus ordering stoning of rebellious children) and therefore, a valid reason to reject the Bible and Christianity altogether.
Had a discussion with a Jewish scholar about the abortion verse. He said the potion would more than likely also kill the woman. In essence, 'god willing', it was a great way to get rid of a wife the man no longer wanted.
The 32 woman thing if you read the whole thing in context it never said that they gave them to Jesus. It said that they were given to some priest named Levi and that moses is speaking so Jesus wasn't even born yet
people rising from the dead used to be a real problem. They even tried to set up mechanisms to allow people to be saved. "saved by the bell", "dead ringer" reference a need to put bells with strings connected to graves so that they could be dug up if they turned out not to be dead. And i think that was in the middle ages solution to the problem. Only recently have we really gotten good at determining death.
I enjoy your program and challenging belief and faith systems with honest questions. Something we all should do ,no matter the cost. Critical thinking is an asset but the tendency to be subjective in our criticism is another animal and generally not worth discussing. What we know is far less than we think we know, even of faith. Rooting out flaws within dogma is often to difficult for most since faith is hope and hope isn’t strictly subject to deductive reasoning. Perhaps I’m wrong about this but that’s where I am. Again I appreciate your view. PS. I am a Judo Christian.
I was a former fundamentalist christian, and at one time if you had asked me most of these 8 ?'s, I probably would have been somewhat surprised that the related incidents were in the bible. Of course this betrayed my lack of knowledge at the time, and it reflects the fact that I was misled by former pastors/teachers regarding, for example the story of Jephtah sacrificing his daughter, which later on disturbed me greatly, and became one of many reasons for my becoming an agnostic. I find these internet debates and presentations fascinating and informative.
+Rich C Yes, I think many Christians are unaware of these passages. And to challenge christians to state whether they believe it or not, without the need to explain, I thought was an interesting challenge. :)
Couldn't get back to you right away. The computer went wacky. Yeah, Who IS Tom?? I thot he was responding to me! Guess not; He made little sense anyway.
In his defense, yes or no questions (whether in a court room, job interview, science panel, classroom...) are rarely answered with a yes or no followed by silence. It's just not how humans operate. If I asked Leonard Susskind, "Yes or no: do you maintain that matter spontaneously arose from nothing 14 billion years ago? A simple yes or no..." Susskind might have no problem with the dating but take issue with the word "matter", or he might find it a fair statement but perhaps not like the usage of "years" as a convention to measure age and time in a relativistic universe (and so elaborate on that point). Or he might want to clarify what the interviewer intends by "spontaneous" and present a thumbnail of different quantum models accounting for this. scantron tests being one exception, "Yes or no" questions are typically heard as a prompt. Particularly in a setting where the responder knows that his affirmation to any of the questions will be received as illogical and backward.
The reason Dr. White didn't just "take the challenge" and affirm these things is because he hosts a program, the Dividing Line, specifically for Christian apologetics. It was to show reasons why he affirms these things and to help Christians if they have people ask them similar questions.
Sounds like he is defending the equivalent of sharia law. Thomas Jefferson saw fit to edit the bible,removing some of the ridiculous passages, but here we are now in 21st century and these people are still clinging to indefensible passages.
James uses the word "possible" because as he pointed out, from the text it could well be argued that he was in the belly of the fish for three days, dead, and then was resurrected and spit out. To correct you, Dr. White did argue that "It's possible that Jonah was IN the belly three days" he said, in accordance with your challenge, "It's possible that Jonah LIVED in the belly three days". So he and I and many others believe fully that Jonah was IN the belly for three days. Whether or not he lived, was ALIVE, is what he uses the words "possible" and "likely" in reference to. Yes, Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for three days.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
asking an Apologist to just give yes/no answers is ironic
I believe in miracles!!!!
@@PineCreekDoug you should do the fuzzy verses challenge
White says yes I believe that verse, but here is why the passage doesn’t say what it says. How weird.
@@PineCreekDoug There you are. You sexy thing.
Dr. White, calling yourself a 'supernaturalist' is like an insane person calling himself a super hero!
Doug is the fifth horseman of the apocalypse. He is rightly the son heir of hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennet. I think he is a more effective de-converter than any of them. Long live Doug.
How can he “long live” if he doesn’t have eternal life
Meh. He’s no Hitch.
So you do worship
@@Ma1q444 in Doug I trust
No such thing as a deconverter. Unbelievers remain unbelievers so long as Satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers and walk without the Holy Spirit
Regarding numbers 31:25-47, Dr. White is right about the situation in those days for women after wars and battles. For them to be given in marriage to the conquering soldiers was far better than any other nation would treat their enemies, whether just being raped and left for dead, or just left for dead. And the statement that 32 were given to the Lord, is a statement that in the division of the spoils of battle, 32 were given to the priests. It's a way to recognize the Lord along with a donation of livestock and gold, as well as to provide for the priests. If you read, all the people of Israel received part of the spoils, not just the soldiers. It's not any kind of weird thing about the Lord getting virgins like you'd think of in polytheism. It's totally foreign to us today, but the Bible has a historical context because it's a historical document. This kind of thing is a huge confirmation of it's authenticity and truth because it accurately records history without sugarcoating. The history of mankind is very grim in most regards because we are singing and rebellious against God. Part of our sinfulness is the failure to see God's goodness. Not everything recorded in the Bible is approved by God, but is simply recording what sinful people did. And God's law is perfect, but at times he made provisions for people's weakness and hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8) to mitigate the harm that would be done, such as in cases of divorce. God is good and better, more loving, and more holy that we could imagine, but our own sinfulness blinds us to that in many ways. We think God is like us or we think he is stingy or unjust. We misunderstand the historical context of much of the Bible, or our morality is corrupted and so we judge God (what a thought!) when in fact we are in the wrong.
Dr. James White answered your questions. You should debate Dr. James White. You did ask thought-provoking questions.
Mr. White denied Jeff fulfilled his oath and insinuated that he forced his daughter to live without a mate instead. That is not honest.
Paul Morgan It seems like he wanted James to say it lol...and then didn’t want James to explain it.
No, he did not answer, just provided words with more claims without evidence.
The mental gymnastics required to believe the bible is astounding. All sorts of excuses/caveats makes believing it an exercise in absurdity.
+MsMsmak I agree. However keep in mind many, if not most Christians believe the Bible is God's word for many reasons outside the actual text itself. Christian pastors/apologists will admit this, on how badly Christians understand their own holy text.
The mental gymnastics of atheism are far more astounding. It comes down to epistemology (study of knowledge). Yes- the Bible is self attesting but without authority you are self attesting. Once you are the ultimate source of knowledge objective meaning is lost and so is *objective* truth (Dillahunty, Sagan, etc).
Greg Bahnsen: "we must reason by presupposition" In his book Presuppositional Procedure. Bahnsen has given the Atheist to account for reasoning and epistemology through their own presuppositions. I did a whole video on the presup argument. ruclips.net/video/iqzgDHsaAzM/видео.html
Alex Castro What you just pointed out, is why I think many believers stay believers. I think however, its a mistake to substitute one mystery for another. Couldn't "I don't know why" be a laudable answer?
Please keep your answers or questions short or I'll just ignore because of time constraints. To your last point: Would you rather a politician answer a question that he doesn't know the answer to with a lie? a guess? or a "I don't know"? The latter is laudable IMO.
You just always have to smile when you feel that pure Calvinist warmth and love come shining through.
There’s no hate quite like a Calvinist’s love.
I would love to see these two gentlemen meet and have an interview and discussion of sorts. It seems like it will be civil and though full.
@Paul Morgan He's not a nut job. He's a strict Reformed Baptist and presuppositionalist. He actually believes the bible.
@@mauskins87 so, believing does not make it true.
@Paul Morgan you seem triggered.
@@a-borgia4993 oh, the Bible is true. Debunk it, I'll wait. LOL
@Paul Morgan LOLOLOLOL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The explanation of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter being that she didn't marry and didn't have children doesn't equate to what Jephthah vowed. He vowed "that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” (Judges 11:31)
How does not marrying and not having children equate to a burnt offering?
I always enjoy the special pleading Christians pull. I once had a conversation about the distance of stars/galaxies from the Earth and the Christian said to me that god sped up the light and then set the speed of light back to what it currently is, so that the light could reach the Earth in under 6000 years.
The reason James feels he needs to explain it is not because he finds it hard to believe but because he wants to give you a better understanding of why he believes it. The reason for this is because many non-believers assume Christians don't think for themselves. If James only gave yes or no answers one would find it easy to mock him (as Richard Dawkins strongly encourages his minions to do). So with rational explanations this better informs others as to why we believe what we believe. The reason the questioner might find it unnecessary is because his end goal might be to mock him. Any Christian who reads these questions would assume as James did that this is just to set them up for mockery. That's what I thought when I read the questions. Truth is, most atheists don't care what Christians believe or why they believe what they believe. I'm kind of surprised that James even took the time to do this.
Agreed. In spite what atheists might believe Christians don't have to "check their brains at the door of the church" before entering. I, alone, can read and translate Greek, and have very good knowledge of New Testament studies. I am a Christian apologist, theologian, exegete, and self-taught New Testament scholar. I have nearly four years of college behind me, and loads of academic training. This idea that what we believe is nonsense is, itself, nonsense. Good reply.
Rational arguments? Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
romans1vs6teen I agreed with you up until the very end when you said “most atheists don’t care about what Christians believe or why the believe it”. It’s like you’ve never ever listened to an atheist before. Are you serious?
That’s the entire reason most atheists are atheists; because we care about why we should believe any religion or god is true! Wow.
Why do you care what he think? In your wv, there is no good or evil, right not wrong...
So why do you care?
I’ll tell you, because you know exists and you are suppressing the knowledge of God in unrighteousness...
Jeffrey B aww, you’ve become a parrot for Jesus. Adorable.
Of course your script is false; I do care about wether his claims are true and that’s not inconsistent with atheism. But you’ve clearly decided to dogmatically not entertain this obvious fact, so continue to waste your time parroting your script.
Mocking is the white-durbin playbook
Fascinating challenge and a genius idea. I appreciate and give kudos to Dr White for responding to the challenge. Pinecreek was respectful in his comments so kudos there as well. Looking forward to others responding to the challenge. BTW, where is this challenge posted?
ruclips.net/video/holR0bo97_k/видео.html
+PineCreek
the way you have worded the questions IS mocking whether you have the testicular fortitude to admit it or not
it is blatantly obvious !!! , every reader can see where you are going with this type of questioning "your mindset"
and can easily foresee how your rebuttal will be ,
you wanting short quick answers from white makes it even more obvious!!!
You can't seriously not understand why Dr White is giving you long answers to each question? of course you know why don't be daft!!!
"To reveal the full context "
it is clear you want short quick answers "Yes , no" from Dr white to make your job to explain away believing these things as insane & not logical on face value
This Christian Challenge of yours is pathetic!!! that any first year bible student can see through a mile away as deceptive & dishonest.with ulterior belittling motives
Matthew, a guy named Steven took the challenge and recorded it with me. He owned his beliefs without the need for explanation. I didn't mock or criticize. See the last 10 min of this video. ruclips.net/video/XXWmiei1hrI/видео.html
PineCreek
it has nothing to do with owning a belief .
without an explanation , it leave the listener not understanding why a person holds a belief. nothing is learnt or gained by hearing a
yes or no answer ,
it is unintelligent to give answers like that an very unhelpful
It speaks volumes about your intentions to expect that .
you do not expect a simplistic yes a no answer from a scientist, doctor ,biologist etc..
so do not expect it from a theologian
Dr James White is a theologian ,debater , teacher , preacher an i have never heard him give a short yes or no answer to any topic , be it peaceful verses in the bible or violent & supernatural ones .
The overwhelming majority of theologians are like that.
Any numbskull can quote bible verses that seem harsh , cruel, supernatural ,violent etc. on the surface level.
context /exegesis is everything .
any chance you would want to do an interview?
Revisiting the archives is my happy place. 👍
If these challenges were for any other religion, James would have no hesitation in saying he didn't believe any of that nonsense.
He asks about Numbers 5:19-21. There is nothing in the text here mentioning the woman being pregnant. NOTHING. He is adding something into the text that is not there. He might as well say Jesus is condoning riding of dragons for transport instead of donkeys, that addition of verbiage to the Bible in this specific location is just as valid as saying these verses are talking about abortion.
Now if you wish to know specifically about unborn babies the Bible does instruct us on that:
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25
You see God considers unborn babies to be alive. That's why if you strike a pregnant woman and the baby dies then the person striking the woman, causing the baby to be stillborn, to pay with their own life.
That Numbers sacrifice bit is very illuminating.
Well Doug it does seem that White has a bit of a following and you have collected a crowd...
Nicely done!
Atheist pretending to be intellectually honest while not being intellectually honest
Jacob,
As a Christian theist, I am a bit puzzled at your comment. I know that Doug has a hard time with these things - as he noted - but simply asking these questions, I don't see what is pretend about that. It's a reasonable set of questions to ask people. I don't see why you have trouble with him doing so. I would be happy to answer based on my current understanding ( which is subject to change).
This guy at 22:31 says reading the Bible in an easier version instead of the Old English version "Thigh" which I believe he meant "Thy" but seems confused with our current english needs alittle clarity in what he's preaching!
Many versions of the bible say "Thigh to rot" to mean the womb (and its contents) to rot. IF the woman is pregnant in this scenario, her unborn baby will die due to the Biblical God's judgement.
Thanks for playing Dr. White's responses, I think he gets much of what we as believers might say. I, for one, think it would be more interesting to add the difficult passages of Jesus to your challenge: things like the Sermon on the Mount, Luke 6:24-26, Luke 12:51-53, the Olivet Discourse. Most modern believers would struggle with those I think more than the OT passages. I would say that your comment about people rising from the dead all the time is only common if you believe the NT. If you believe the NT, then you have to believe the reason why they rose from the dead was Jesus, not just because it was common. Rising from the dead, those in Matthew included, was centered on Jesus, not just happenstance. Blessings
Dr. White couldn’t give a yes or no answer if the question was as simple as “would you like fries with that?” 😆
Well here's the thing with fries...first you have to know what type of potato the fries were made from and where they were grown....
Well, in all fairness, that's a complicated question. A person could both want and not want fries at the same time, but in different senses. They might want the fries because they like the way they taste, but they might not want the fries because they are unhealthy. So the question isn't so simple after all.
@@philochristos it is simple. You're making it unnecessarily complicated. You have the makings of an expert bible apologist!
@@peetee32 - are you still beating your wife (Y/N?). I think you get the idea. There are some questions that are cleverly loaded that you cannot merely answer them with a simple answer.
I think James White nailed it when he spoke about presuppositions of naturalism. And yes, naturalist materialism is foolish. And nope, I'm not a Christian and nor am I a friend of James White. This barrage of attempted gotcha moments on the part of secularists to pin theists into a corner is a blockade to serious and meaningful dialogue. Now, James White does not have much experience in dealing with secularists although he made some good points here but I'd suggest you try debating Dr Dale Tuggy or Prof. William Lane Craig. Having said that, I hope James White responds as theists need to see more apologists engaging with and breaking down the faulty position of the naturalist materialists.
Do you find it interesting that James White said all the things he said, when really all I asked him to do is state whether or not he believes each of the 8 statements? How is asking whether someone believes something or not a "gotcha" moment?
Sir, it's obvious why James qualified and explained his assertions - he felt in a secular context they needed that extra bit of explanation as those assertions in isolation would not chime with a secular audience and even a Christian audience influenced by secular thinking.
Are there any assertions from the bible that you think "would chime with a secular audience"? Or do all assertions need this much explanation?
Oh, hell yes. Let's polish the turd of genocide and plunder. That certain lands are Holy, that God favors certain people over others, that stoning your wife on dad's door step, or killing your neighbor for Sabbath work is a moral imperative. Iron Age nonsense and the surrender of critical thinking to invisible gods. I'm thankful for my higher education and living in a progressive area. Religion is a voluntary retardation and surrender to fear.
Joe M your higher education seems to have gotten you nothing.
Part of being a minister is explaining what Scripture says. I understand he is making apologetic arguments here (in contrast to a sermon), but churches meet weekly, and some of us two or three times a week, to learn what the says and means. His ministry an almost exclusively apologetic one. It's how his brain functions when he sees something like this. Doesn't mean he feels the need to explain them anymore than any other verse or passage.
+Krist do you think he would have even have responded if I would have chosen 8 benign verses? Maybe, but I doubt it. The challenge was to resist the temptation to explain these "difficult" verses and just state if he believes it or not.
@9:30 to clarify, Jesus was God manifested, which occurred in the new testament, 1 timothy 3:16 "and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory". Jesus is all throughout the old testament, just not manifested in the flesh
Thank you Adam. That is why its ok to say that Jesus commanded the stoning of certain people, correct?
Having the ability to answer yes/no and "I don't know" honestly without blinking.
Got me in a lot of trouble as a former Christian. 😂😂
Most have almost no ability to face the fact they don't *know* something.
And jump at the chance to tell you you're wrong without asking "why?" to allow you to respond to clarify.
I think that's what makes an apologist a profitable means of living.
Some know it. Others are buying what they sell.
Yes, that is why I like asking questions like T/F, or Multiple Choice, or "Poof or Drown" with apologists.
haha anyone who has ever listened to James White knows that he explains everything... All the time... For a living... Even if he was speaking to a crowd of people who believe the same as he does. He's a teacher, an explainer. Also, he wasn't mocking disbelief persay, he was quoting God from the Bible who directly mocks disbelief.
Sorry, Matthew, as a Christian theist, I could easily that James was definitely personally on specific items mocking Doug and I'm very sorry to see that.
Regardless, I think this is a great opportunity for all of us to step up our game to the values that we hold and I would take that for myself as well as expect that from others.
“Why do you feel the need to explain this so much?”
Because you have asked questions that you find absurd and want to hear a man of faith say them for shits and giggles. So yes, he’s going to explain why he believes something that (he feels for good reason) is being used as mockery. Why the hell else would you be asking these questions? At least be honest with yourself.
Jonathan Grandt; This is a list of statements, not questions. What I am asking is; do you believe these statements as written (with minor caveats). If I stated; "The earth is spherical shaped", and then asked you if you believe that statement to be true, would you go on and on and on about it? (I hope you're not a flat earther)
Thank you for your interaction on these things and with Dr. White's response. I hope to hear you two dialogue some day!
Me too.
PineCreek, If Dr. White dialogues with you on the Dividing Line he will read/watch beforehand all of your content you have posted so he can faithfully represent and understand you. It would make a conversation more meaningful if you would do the same.
Bl V just to be clear, are you saying I can't critique a person's words unless I watch everything they have ever posted?
PineCreek, I specified the Dividing Line and dialogue. As in if you have a live two way conversation on air he will be prepared and seeking to represent you accurately. I hope that is clear.
I rather ask questions directly to the person, rather than spend hours researching what they used to say. They may have changed their mind on some things in the interim. Keep in mind if I talk to James White, it will NOT be a debate. It will be a civil dialogue where "winning" or "losing" is irrelevant. We are all on this journey called "life" together, and we can learn things from each other.
Lol this guy clearly tried to mock Christianity with cheap condescension and James White demolished the challenge. Good job Dr. White!
I agree he demolished the challenge. He didn't do what the challenged asked (just state beliefs without explanation).
PineCreek Good thing he didn’t fall into that, this was clearly aimed to condescend. You wanted him to just say it with not explanation with the intent to mock.
If I were to ask you "Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?", do you think you could just answer "yes" without any explanation? IF so, why not for these 8 statements?
PineCreek actually, I would explain in detail since scripture calls for us to give reason for the hope we have.
But I didn't ask why you believe it, why you have the hope you have, I simply asked do you believe it? I think you gave the above answer to get out of a bind and see that on certain things, Christians have no problem with saying "yes, I believe that" ... on other things, they feel the NEED to explain it.
Why is he explaining things? Because he has studied the bible as history and in context.If you are reading the bible and just view it from your point of view (which you are doing) you will understand it out of context. If you are going to the old testament you really need to study the culture of that time. I hope atheists like you study, or would give some thought on what a person who actually studied it carefully has to say(Like James White). I am a christian and I would answer to all the questions Yes, but like Dr White in context, as history,considering the culture and viewing the bible as a whole.
+Jasonpei2008 +Yeruult The point of the challenge was to see if the believer could state what they believe without feeling the need to explain it. See the original challenge video in the description box.
What James White is doing with this particular passage is not reading it in its cultural context. He's reading it in it's biblical theological context. If he were reading it in its cultural context he would have brought up other mythologies and cultures, then compared and contrasted them.
(That was specifically in reference to the Genesis passage)
+PineCreek I thank you for your cordial response, though a sense of snark does seem to undergird some of your sentiments. You cannot be blamed for this as it can sometimes seep into our interactions with positions that are personally perceived as untenable, amazing, or even offensive. I'm guilty of this as well, and I'm sure Dr. White would also concede as much (and he has in the past)
Putting that aside, I hope you can take some criticism followed by an action of love, if you read this at all.
This video is partly titled "...Given by an Atheist" and then you nearly start off by saying "I don't even know if I'm an atheist, but I don't even know if I am a naturalist." You don't even know what you are, yet you sound like you've already come to your own conclusions. I hope you recognize that prefaced inconsistency with your supposed atheistic identity sets a liable tone for questionable credibility thereafter.
It seems that you might not care for the arguably more accurate term of "agnostic" considering that you follow the aforementioned statement with "I am open to the idea of the supernatural, I really am. There might be a supernatural, I don't know." If there are possibly supernatural attributes in anything (God or gods, man or nature, etc.) and you affirm a belief in that possibility, then you will need a better label or term that accurately addresses your worldview position.
Having said that, dear fellow image bearer and fellow brother in Adam and Noah. I too exchanged the truth for a lie, elevating man to the growing realm of knowledge attainment regarding our world and existence solely through our own capacities. Rom|1:22-25 "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."
I am not passing my own judgements on you, brother, but rather passing along the judgements of our Creator. I do this in love because it's the true desire of a Christian to see a lost brother or sister be called by the Father, bought for by the Son, and preserved by the Spirit to one day come into His presence for eternity.
Rom|2:1 "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things."
Brother, this is an eternal matter that no one can or will resolve on their own, whether by merit, knowledge, or any sort of synergistic mixture thereof. It is all of Him. Unless a sinner's nature is changed and brought to bow in spirit in true repentance and faith, they will bear the consequence that has been so clearly communicated. I commend you for entering these critiques, but you have come face to face with that which cannot be denied, namely, communication regarding life and death. You of all people have no grounds for claiming ignorance.
You are the very evidence of what you say may or may not exist: YOU ARE SUPERNATURAL, BROTHER! Space, time, and matter will act on chance without intelligent direction because its natural form and function is without purpose or intent. Bringing those things into being and then using those elements to make what would not have developed and occurred according to their own nature is beyond natural... it's supernatural.
There is not one realm of any branch of science that has ever reached a naturally absolute foundation, and they never will. People continue to search for what they hope to be naturally finite explanations, only resulting in exponentially further, arguably infinite, questions. These individuals continually search for naturally finite explanations, only resulting in exponentially further, arguably infinite, questions. While most in the scientific community continue to uncover the infinite Creator's design through the sciences, which I wholly support if done ethically, they do so while denying that very Creator along the way. I say "most" because there are those scientists who fully recognize that what they are learning about does indeed have an ultimate, absolute foundation: an intelligent Designer. These people dig and are amazed in awe and wonder over the sheer magnitude of complexity that is creation, which only drives them further.
Brother, creation doesn't so much as merely contain evidence, it IS evidence. And the Creator has not only further revealed the origin of creation but also the purpose. And while there are those image bearers of God who scurry into darkness when the light is cast upon them, they should rather bask in that light, praising Him for not leaving them in the dark: He is the Light!
I truly hope this finds you well. Take care and the Lord's blessings on you and yours, even if you do not recognize it to be so.
icedamascus: I can understand why you think I said "I don't know if I'm an atheist", but listen very carefully at the 2:58 min mark; because I said it so fast. But I said "I don't know .... I"m an atheist, but I don't know if I'm a naturalist" If you want to talk via livestream about the rest of your comment email me at dll1671@yahoo.com
I'm finding the responses on this a little frustrating, asking why James is explaining, repeatedly, when a quick google search would show that the man is an apologist and this is legitimately what he does.
Like, have your say and ask your questions, but this consistent 'well why are you explaining yourself', makes it seem like you were trying to cause offence, because you don't want to hear his justification or understand his position as you seem to claim, you just want to hear him say 'Jesus said kill children, etc etc'.
You either completely missed or avoided the point.
@@cameronbarge3337 Yup
just to point out about the commandment around the 11:00 mark, it's referring to a young adult, teenager that refused to support his parents in their old age, this was a point and time where there was no social security and cultural customs in that part of the world was to take care of the parents in their old age.
That is a non-argument. Still today there are countries without social security e.g. African and Arab countries, South America, etc. So?
Dr. White looks soooo much like my dad that it freaks me out. I think my dad would’ve smiled at Dr. White’s devotion to Christianity because he shared some of it.
Your request that Christians "own their beliefs" "without explanation" while giving your own flawed explanation of the verses in question is disingenuous at best. All Christians believe what the Bible says. Wanting them to profess belief in what YOU say that the Bible says is absurd.
Would you be surprised to know that the majority of Christians who took the challenge agreed with 6 and sometimes all the 8 statements listed?
PineCreek no I wouldn't be, there is a wide spectrum in Christianity.
Also I was interested in your video because for a second I thought you were Dennis Miller! Not meant to be an insult
I would respect people like this more if they just came out with a straight "yes/no" instead of dancing around.
The dancing means they know there's something wrong with their beliefs.
Explaining the passage/context of the passage is *not* dancing around.
Every passage in the Bible *needs* to be viewed in it's context otherwise it falls apart. Anyone could take Anything you (and I) have stated online out of the original intended context, and the way the statements are worded here show a clear ignorance for the context of the statements. They're dishonest to the original text.
Not saying it's intentional, but the way the statements are worded make it clear that the writer doesn't actually care to learn the context. and if that's the case, why bother even making the challange?
That's the only reason James felt the need to give context, to explain what the authors have *actually* written rather than give a "yes and no" to *incredibly* simplified statements.
I'd recommend you look into exegesis, it's a fascinating way of interprating *not* based on personal opinion but based on the context of which the passages are in. Again, without context you can make anything say anything.
edit: one last note - James White hosts a daily (or weekly? can't remember) stream called the Diving Line where he critically reviews current events in Evangelicalism and Apologetics. He also at times goes through the original greek Biblical texts (since he has taught greek for decades), so another reason he's going through the context is because that's what he does and it's what his audience expects him to do
@@andreww9726 ""Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Is ^that morally acceptable? If so, in what context?
@@JMUDoc sorry for the late response, it doesn't alert me to responses
The context of the passage is that it's one of the many laws given to the body of Israel as a social policy. It should also be noted that in the same chapter, (Exodus 21:16) it condemns the act of stealing men for the purpose of slavery and states that it's punishable by death.
The pattern throughout the entire Bible is that it gives laws to people with the assumption that the people receiving the laws will completely understand what they entail, ie there is no place in the bible that says it's okay to torture bond servants and slaves, it states that in certain cases physical discipline was accepted.
The answer again depends on the context:
In the context of ancient Israel practicing discipline towards disobedience against God and His people? yes.
In the context of the people who stole slaves from Africa and other parts of the world and treated them inhumanely? No, because they already broke the commandment given in Exodus 21:16 and were also in violation of the second greatest commandment, in the words of Jesus: "Love your neighbor as yourself". (Mark 12:30-31)
in short - the statement itself was given at a time early in God's work with Israel, and was intended to teach them at the time how to deal with the disobedience of slaves (as seen from the pattern of the old testament), not giving them free reign to torture as some have turned it to mean.
@@andreww9726 Exodus 21:16 condemns illegal kidnapping, not slavery. There were provisions for legal enslavement at the time and they are outlined and supported in the Bible.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Dr. White believes in the resurrected saints in Matt. 27:52 but it was such an insignificant event that Mark, Luke or John make no reference to it in their gospel accounts ... Almost as if were a common occurrence of the times ... Always a troubling and bizarre verse for me.
If you get the chance in the future, please ask Dr White how old the universe is.
Some of us live as if were born yesterday - a new creation, you see.
The reason Dr. White just don't give just a yes or no answer
to these question is because the overwhelming majority of people have no idea
what the Bible says let alone understand what it is saying. So in Dr. White's
attempt to answer the questions he has to correct the question so that the
person writing this questionnaire will better understand what these text are
actually saying in the context of Biblical history, that are in the questions.
This is a classic example of a fundamental misunderstanding of the text of the
Scripture. This is the problem I and many other Biblical teachers have with non-Christians
trying to tell us what the Bible says. It’s like a child trying to tell a
doctor how to perform a surgery. But that's what the non-Christians think of those
of us that spend many years studying the Bible and Near Eastern area history.
They seem to think of us as stupid. They wouldn't do this to any other PhD or
holder of a Doctor's degree from another field of study.
How many of the 8 do you believe Preacher Jim?
I completely agree with Dr. White description of the 8. Maybe it would be best served for you to read a book on how to understand the Bible in its grammatical, and historical context before picking and choosing passages out of context, and asking Christians like Dr. White and myself to give a yes or no answer to question that are obviously worded without any understanding of Biblical history.
What about the video's I suggested watch those and see what you think.
So what I am hearing you say is that you could NOT do what a christian named Geoff did the other night (he took the challenge and agreed with 7.5 out of 8.0. ruclips.net/video/qDq6T-pMMuo/видео.html
I watched the first part of Geoff's responses to the question, and yes I can agree with his answer. But only the second part of his explanation of number 4. I don't believe these women were made to be prostitutes. But as Dr. White explained they were to be given to the Israelites as wives. I think the problem you are having is you are confusing church going Christian's with Biblical Scholars like Dr. White. I don't know the experience of Geoff so I'm not sure of the education he has had but he seems to have a good grasp of Biblical understanding. My Seminary thesis was on Biblical illiteracy in the American church, and I can tell you that it is staggering how many Christians do not understand simple Biblical truth. This is why I think many Christian like yourself have fallen away from believing in the Bible. They have a hard time reconciling Biblical truth with the world around them. That is why Biblical interpretation is called both an art and a science. I am a simple Pastor/Theologian trying to dispel the misunderstandings of the Bible. I think if more people Christians and non alike would simple learn how to study the Bible using what we learn in Seminary more people would believe in it. I know my own understanding and faith has been enhanced by my careful study of the Bible.
So if you mostly agree with Geoff's responses, then you believe about 7 of the 8 statements on my challenge and for the most part have no problem with my paraphrasing with maybe some minor tweaking (like Geoff)? I wouldn't say I fell away from Christianity because of a misunderstanding of the Bible. If anything it was the opposite. I was a Christian for 30+ years and have viewed it from the perspective of several different denominations. How sad is it that simple biblical truth isn't so simple. I believe more and more Christians will continue to leave the belief because they are realizing the evidence doesn't match the claim. Just because the bible says something, doesn't make it true ... and young people are realizing that more and more with the quick ability to search information on the internet. Presuppositional apologetics is taking on new life in the U.S., and I believe that is a bad sign for things to come for Christianity.
@min8:30 it isnt mocking of what he said, he's making reference to scripture..1corinthians3:18-21 "let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours."
That may seem belittling to your feelings but remember that this was followed by what's written below:
1 corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
...Feelings of the natural man's heart tend to be taken as an offensive gesture when confronted by the gospel, but God is not a respecter of persons (romans 2:11"For there is no respect of persons with God.") because of what's stated in regards to the heart in Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Wow, this guy hates it when people explain the Bible! "Just answer 'Yes' or 'No' and let me mock you!!!"
That was the point of the challenge. To see if one could simply state their belief without all the explanation.
Did you write that in the challenge?
Dr. James White is a formidable Christian apologist and he is very respectful in all debates I've seen him in. Explaining his position thoroughly is what he does. Why try to pschoanalyze or become so suspicious and defensive about his thoroughness in his explanations? Alas, your sarcasm runs thick.
Question for you? If I drop my experience of the Son of God and belief in the Gospel and pick up your philosophy what will it do for me ? What big questions of life and meaning will your philosophy furnish to me ?
Great question! I think the best thing I can offer you is lower cognitive dissonance. If you want a worldview that gives certainty and meaning in the after-life, then I can't help you.
@@PineCreekDoug It seems typical that skeptics count the Christian Gospel as only related to the "after-life". Funny, I never found the term "after-life" anywhere in the Bible. I see Christ AS life and I see resurrection. Anyway, in a short post its hard for you to answer.
Now as for "cognitive dissonance" ... unashamedly, when we finite beings bump up against the uncreated and eternal Person [for lack of a better word] I expect some paradoxes would be encountered. Ie. the trinity. I would expect some limitations of human intellect would come to light. But, hey, enjoying eating a good ham sandwich has its mysteries as well. Why not God?
@@jackwilmoresongs ok, I encourage you to be the best Christian you can be.
@@PineCreekDoug The way I do that is to just allow Christ to live in me in His resurrection state as "The Spirit of Jesus Christ". This is the good news. Christ can live again, this time in those who receive Him. If I can believe and let Christ live in me, anyone can, I think.
@@PineCreekDoug Ok, But I think you should get saved. I really don't have any more self generated faith then the next guy. Christ was merciful to me and gave me the believing ability. The questions you asked about the Old Testament - FIRST Jesus won my utmost trust as One whose integrity was above questioning. From that point, gradually, as a process I opened up to the Old Testament. If it was good for Him it was good for me. Caution: Do not mistake simplicity for naivete.
It could easily be argued that Dr. White felt had to explicate the contexts of the 'difficult' passages in order to assist those who find them abhorrent better understand them. Doug should not have feigned bewilderment at this. Obviously the warm and fuzzy stuff demands no such explication since no one would find it abhorrent. However I do think, along with Douglas, that there is something else going on here which needs to be highlighted. Dr. White is obviously 'rationalizing' these passages 'against' his own better judgment. He, like all believers to some extent, is in conflict. A conflict from which there is no escape - hence the defensiveness and belligerence (such as it was). But I genuinely think it's a deeper phenomenon than Doug, and nearly everyone else, realizes. All of us understand the world through the prism of our experiences. We come to consciousness by way of a flourishing of 'meaning' and this meaning is always different for everyone. It does not seem different because the only way we can communicate with each other is by means of what we agree upon as 'common experiences' and objective phenomena. This is an illusion - a very powerful one. We think we are inhabiting and looking at 'the same world' but we are not. People sometimes find that they have been talking at crossed purposes. I am suggesting that we are 'always' talking at crossed purposes and that we just never discover it. Instead we identify each other as crazy or stupid or ignorant. Or else we fumble along 'making sense' of what each other seem to be trying to say. Dr. White's 's consciousness building experiences, like the rest of us, has been heavily dependent upon 'stories'. His stories include the Bible and once having come to consciousness to some extent by means of this or that logically incoherent text, our very consciousness - our very 'selves' cannot deny the source of it's own emergence. No sincere person is guilty of anything but ignorance and all of us are ignorant.
Mark Lucas. it is quite generous of you to assume that Dr. White, a professional speaker, author and apologist, is being sincere, but I beg to differ.
As for being caught in our own conditioned paradigms, that is something that can be gradually remedied by those sincere enough to do the work of skeptically examining their presuppositions.
This is what Malcolm X did when he left the National of Islam and started thinking for himself.
Essentially you’re saying that scientists eliminate this biased prism by examining what they bring to the table carefully. Unfortunately many times this isn’t the case, scientists have solidified many things as facts but they are all up against the wall to contradict the Bible with their facts. There lies scientific bias. They desperately come up with embarrassing theories like the Big Bang theory and although theories are supposed to be completely observable, the Big Bang remains an assumption that has gained theory status. How? Because scientists all want to believe such a thing. There’s an overwhelming need to find evidence against the Bible because most atheists are atheists from fleeing God’s existence. They will never truly eliminate that bias.
@@johnwitek4891 The world/internet is full of people who do not see what is in front of them or understand what is being told to them. It, the world, is made of people who 'know' what they know by being what they 'are'. You are the most expert of any possible witness on what it is that 'you' witness. Therefore no one will ever be able to wake you from the dream that is your life. Nor should they. All there is for you to wake to is the incomprehensible and the unintelligible. For you to 'wake' would be what it would be for 'you' to die. Just like the child I no longer am - no longer 'exists'. It were as if he were dead. In fact he 'is' dead since he certainly is no longer alive. I said NOTHING about "science" or "scientists"! You write like an obsessed person. You certainly don't seem to know what the big bang theory even is - yet you feel qualified to talk about it as if you do! Everybody thinks they see and understand just fine - EVERYBODY. The thing I was trying to say is simply that this illusion is everywhere to be found in every person. How can I speak for 'every person' as if I knew what I was talking about? The same way 'you' talk about 'every person' believing in God. How could you possibly know that? There is only one way you could know that. If 'the belief in God' was actually the one single thing in the universe that no one can fail to 'know' - the one thing that simply MUST be true. What is this thing? It is that we ourselves personally 'exist'. Yes, everyone "knows" that they exist. The certainty of 'existence is the 'substance' of God. Or else God is .... what?
Dr. James white, a brilliant man and scholar, fellow Christian.
Dr. James seems like he has lost a couple marbles...
@@lamaar8252 why do you say that ?? Did he become an atheist or something ????
@@angelbrother1238 - or something. ;)
"You realize this is something hard to believe and so you needed to explain it more."
He is actually explaining it for you, because if it was easy for you to believe it, this video or this challenge would have never existed.
The "challenge" was to state one's beliefs WITHOUT the need to explain it. There's been several theists who have been able to do it, James White couldn't resist. But my guess is he didn't understand the challenge and was just using the opportunity to be apologetic.
I would have guessed the "WITHOUT the need to explain it." was never mentioned to James White prior to his video
@@tweakmeup1 Sometimes the most useful information is revealed when the subject doesn't know they are being tested.
@@PineCreekDoug You simply do not get it, friend. This is a tactic of lawyers to make you answer a simple yes or no, to trap you. These are mostly trick questions. For example, the first question about a serpent speaking, what if someone took all of this to mean allegory, and they answered "No." What then would you respond with? You see, it could make the person look like he doesn't believe the Bible, but in fact he believes the Bible differently than what you think it says.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 are Christians scared to look bad by answering yes or no?
I find it unlikely that a christian apologist is unfamiliar with Numbers 31. Flat out dishonesty seems like the most probable explanation.
Yes Bradley. The comparison video I made with another Christian (not an apologist) makes White look really silly with especially that one. ruclips.net/video/GIMDo7nSiFI/видео.html
Why don’t you debate dr white and see how that goes
context ... it can go a long way
I grant the Christian all the context they desire.
PineCreek perhaps, but you don't always give me that impression. you seem to be seeking the last word. I encourage you to seek dialogue in these matters
I'm seeking a dialogue with you on youtube livestream. Interested?
I'm not sure how that works - would we schedule something? I'm a second year M.Div student, I really shouldn't even have time to be watching RUclips let alone be on it
Haha. I hear you. I could talk right now if you want. I would send you a link via email and all you have to do is click the link. This would bring you into a private room with just you and me which I would livestream on youtube and record. If you're not comfortable with that, you can have the choice to do audio only, or even just live chat. If this is something that interests you I can give you my spam email account here.
1). what does he mean by "lower animals" ... every animal is just as evolved as we are
2) @pinecreek the comment you made that if you'd asked him 'is god love' was so on point! :)
Thanks. I do have 2 versions of the Christian challenge. One that you see here and the other is very very "benign". I have given the "benign" version to a theist and he answered it in a couple of minutes. The version you see here took much much longer. Very telling IMO.
yes - exactly! apologetics summed up really.
Thankyou James white! you are awesome.
@Paul Morgan lovely answer, it boggles a person's mind that people can believe this shite in the 21st century.
@@ericdumont610 are you an atheist materialist ?
@pinecreek if you ever do this again, bring the passages with you. They are absolutely insane
I love to hear the mitigation of the Midianite story. It is not even religiously coherent. The story actually starts in Numbers 25 with "Don't have sex with pagan Midianite virgins" and ends in chapter 31 with "I changed my mind, go ahead and have sex with pagan Midianite virgins, and let's even add some of them to the worship team." White's view that God was providing for the young girls is such a grasp to white wash the account. If the girls were good enough to keep, then the baby boys and others were not bad enough to kill. All being said, I do appreciate James White answering the challenge and not seeking to remove Jesus from the OT.
An added note, he claims that keeping the virgins was an act of providing for them. Where was the provision for the girls in regards to Exodus 21:7-11? Their master had sex with them and they leave their master's house "without payment of money" (ESV). Christian apologetics - The strained attempt to defend the rationally absurd and the morally obscene.
Talking snakes and six foot rabbits? I'm off to see the wizard......😂
But we evolved from fish and now talk, so not too crazy of a thought...
@@dt4ever042 one of those things has a mountain of scientific evidence and scientific consensus, the other only exists in fairytales
Where is the original response without this guy interrupting all the time?
See alpha and omega's website.
Thank you for this video. Very interesting! Doing my own research, not having a bible in my house and using biblehub.com (which seems to be a reliable source) I am a bit confused why you would pick the only bible version that mentions "virgins" instead of "people" like most bible versions would do. Getting people (slaves?) as tributes is horribly in any way. But there is only ONE version ("New Living Translation") saying that these people were virgins biblehub.com/numbers/31-40.htm ...so....is the challenge in this case a matter of picking the most shocking example amongst many bible versions? What do 'we' know about the original scripts?
No, the text doesn’t say that.. Numbers 31:32-41 32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:
337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675;
38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72;
39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61;
40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.
41 Moses gave the tribute to (Eleazar the priest )as the Lord’s part, as the Lord commanded Moses.
"of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32" Thirty-two what? Answer: virgin women. You're welcome :)
Is there a limit to things that we know are impossible and/or absurd that Christians are willing to believe? If there is, what is it?
All religions other than their own?
Geoff nails the challenge here. I also give my reason why I am not a believer. ruclips.net/video/qDq6T-pMMuo/видео.html
Would you consider having James White on a livestream? Maybe you can reach out to him again? Your back and forth with Geoff was so much better than someone just answering questions.
Jaeden Haas I agree. The talk with Geoff went really well. I'm ok with talking with White but I'm not ok with bloviation.
Dr. White would not bloviate however he will give his answer in full context. Not just in the context of one verse or one chapter but in the context of the entire Bible if need be.
You can go to Starbucks and ask for water and they will give you a glass of water. It's not just from the tap but instead, it goes through 3 filters before it comes out of the faucet. I know because I was once a manager with them. In the same manner, you must look at what is being said filtered through the entire books of the Bible. In some particular case maybe 66 filters (all books of the Protestant Bible) if you were to ask about God's love for instance.
In doing so you will begin to get away from gotcha moments and maybe start gaining understanding.
Geoff didn't take the challenge. James White did.
+Mike V what do you mean?
All scripture is God breathed, however the scriptures are not always translated into English in a good way. Certain words or verses are translated in ways that lend themselves to bad interpretation. The scriptures ( Bible) are not meant for and are impossible to be understood by those who are perishing. The Gospel is too be preached and only those who receive it go on to read the entire scriptures. I believe every word of what God wrote when correctly translated. E.g: in Genesis Bible says serpent not snake. ( Satin took the form of a serpent) doesn't say what kind of serpent.. Lizards are serpents, Dragons are Serpents etc. This comment is only really for the children of God who might be watching this and reading the comments. Abraham was tested by God to demonstrate his obedience was real. The other man made a rash vow to the Living God and serves as an example for all time. God is a thrice Holy and must be treated with absolute respect. The daughter would have went straight to Glory because she showed herself to be righteous. This world is not our final destination, everybody dies and the final destination is in the hands of The Creator. Remember if God was fare all would end up in Hell. This man asking the questions is not interested in the truth...
Interesting that you give the same silly argument that Muslims give when someone challenges what's written in the Quran. This apologetics approach cuts no ice.
Hasim Hodzic Sorry but the bible was written by people.
atheistmecca one day in your future every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord including you. Stop pretending to be sincere. The Bible was written down by men who were moved by The Spirit of the living God. You are trying to manipulate the answers to discredit and bring scornful reprisal against what we believe, your whole exercise is a waste of time because Salvation is a Spiritual event and is foolishness to you and others who have not been born again by The Spirit. Just leave it alone.
Hasim Hodzic Wow you are a crazy one.. If you were born somewhere else you would probably be saying something similar about Allah.
Go to a cancer ward in a children's hospital and then tell me your god exists.
atheistmecca you know nothing about me and about my life,for example: I was raised in a Muslim family and rejecting Allah as a teenager, even then I knew that Islam was evil. I cannot deny what I have experienced first hand and you two will come face to face with the living God. I find your comments somewhat offensive, like I said you know nothing about me, my dad died of cancer. Regardless of how smart you think you are you know nothing about God either...
totally agree with james white.
Kori claypool you are a deluded sap like he is then.
Tejas Green you are the deluded one.
yolanda jerginson James spoke truth.
yolanda jerginson what a load of crap. Are you a christian? You sound ignorant.
yolanda jerginson and you are disgusting.
None of his explanations were even remotely satisfying
Yea Christians expound the encouraging, warm stuff too. That's typically called a sermon, which is always written in light of understanding how the principle would have applied to the first hearers versus us.
Whats really funny is that dude is trippin about James giving explanation but then starts pausing the video to give his own huge counter explanations. GTFOH
I hear you. Since White took the opportunity to advertise his apologetics I took the opportunity to counter. I realize it makes no difference to his "followers" what I say, but I couldn't help myself to highlight the fact that White didn't even understand what the challenge was (I highly doubt he watched the video in the description box of this video).
Pierre. Those positions are not equivalent.
Dr. White was explaining why statements from the Bible are not as morally
despicable as they seem, with quite long drawn out filibustering arguments.
He is a professional Bible minister and apologist.
Doug pausing to make his commentary is just what is logical for a host to do.
He is not defending a position but trying to make sense of Dr. White's.
White's obfuscation of the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter was ridiculous.
The obvious plain reading of the passage is that sacrifice means death.
@@PineCreekDoug you're ignorant and typical. Recruiting for Communism. You're all shameful and I pity you all. Lol
@@biblestudy63 communism lmao, what an idiot. It’s a shame you can’t use your brain.
Sir, with due respect, you did not get the text correct in Numbers 31. NASB Numbers 31: 40-41 (41 is required to keep proper context) "40 and the human beings were 16,000, from whom the Lord's levy was 32 persons. 41 Moses gave the levy which was the Lord's offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."
Now, this is my take on proper context: this was a rough time in the human experience. The culture of the day was horrific brutality toward the spoils of war.
Brutal death to the loser in battle and the victor receives all of the loser's household.
Eleazar received the lord's share for Eleazar's household. It could have been tens or hundreds in his house.
Sir, honestly, you wish for us to look at the lens of the Bible through a 21st century world view. At the same time, you want to use the Christian worldview; in which concepts of morality and decency towards others actually matter. Now as to your worldview: so what? (I borrowed this line, sue me) so what if people treat others cruelly? In your worldview there's no entitlement to such concepts of justice. We are just simply space dust in the atheist worldview or ??? is what we are in an agnostic worldview.
So what? In the unbelievers worldview the universe has no concept of fair or just. It is all random. So what?
By the way, I will breakdown this text for the unbeliever: The Jews fresh from Egypt are now taking in people and property from spoils of battle. Part of Baal worship included sexual deviancy. Virgins had not been initiated (obviously) into sexual Baal worship. The biggest thing that Moses was opposed to was false god worship.
It seems as though you might be using incomplete statements to trip up Christians on this "challenge"? If so, it is not proving very effective.
PS. Numbers 5 is a trick to make men stop doubting their wife's fidelity. I can't imagine a baby was ever aborted in the history of Judaism by tabernacle dust, holy water, and pen ink. That IS the magic abortion recipe you speak of. Once again, god knows how to fix relationships even thousands of years ago.
+Brock Ewell I am granting all the context the believer wants. I just would like to know if they believe it or not.
God Smart shepherds and clever kings knew knew knows knew how to fix relationships even thousands of years ago, even in the bloodiest of cultures.
Fixed it for you.
Is it my imagination does Doug sound like Steven hawkins
I'm curious if these questions (except #6) will also be presented to jews as a "Challenge for Jews" since most come from the Torah.
Numbers 31:40. I looked it up, and I found that it can either say the tribute to God is either "people" or "women", depending on which translation you go with.
Well, if we were just reading 31:40, yes you'd be right. The Hebrew word there is נָפֶשׁ, which basically is indicating 'souls' in a figurative sense, a living person or creature (kinda like how if you were a ship's captain or aircraft pilot you might talk about 'souls on board' when detailing a manifest).
However, the half portions in verse 40 are clearly coming from the totals in vv. 32-35, where it clearly spells out that 32,000 virgin women (literally 'women who had not known a man by lying with him') were taken.
In other words, in v35, you have 32K virgin women, v.36 you have the discussion about half portions of which (in v. 40) you have the the 16,000 'souls', where souls has obviously the same referent as in v. 35.
Its very clear who is the teacher of scripture here lol. James did a good job!
Just here for the dishonesty. I needed a good laugh....
Fact is swallowed by a great fish and your in its stomach for 3 days you are being digested. Ok I get it your invoking magic when you say someone survived. good for you
*****
YEP
Angelo Stevens WHO is invoking magic??? when you START with the true living GOD, you realise life is supernatural anyway...atheist claim they don't believe in supernatural, but then will say the "big bang" just happened for no reason...PRETTY SUPERNATURAL!!...wake up
the "big bang" just happened for no reason. Who ever said that except you.. giant strawman *****
+Angelo Stevens
very nice..keep up the good work.. in the end the truth will set you free
***** "atheism has nothing to do with the big bang"LOL. ..sorry I already stopped reading...
So what happened to all the "zombies"? Did they carry on living in the community for years? Did they fall down after a while? Did they give any amazing insights into the view from "the other side"?
I dont think you have any idea who Dr James White is. He not just a run of the mill believer. He is a Christian Scholar, that teaches both Hebrew and Greek at the University level. He is also a very accomplished author. Not to mention he has participated in over 300 professional moderated debates all over the globe defending the Christian faith.
Sure I know who he is. He's a white bald guy who also likes riding his bike, going on hikes, and long walks on the beach! He is a human being full of faults just like you and me.
James white rocks
I really don't understand how Christians accept the idea that God intervenes to do his little magic tricks but doesn't to save newborns and children from cancer. And yet they call him all loving.
God is love. The Christians I know don't believe God is All Loving. He hates, not a popular thing in today's world.
Affordable Moonwalk God is love does not equal to He hates. If you wrote... God is hate and then started a new sentence with "He Hates" then your claims would have a bit more traction. Looking at the Bible's version of God there is more reason to believe God is an asshole than he is love. I am always very confused how do you Christians reach the conclusion that God is love.
Hi Greg Kowal, I believe God is loving yet shows different types of loves towards two classifications of people: the elect and the retrobate. The elect are chosen by God to spend an eternity with the Lamb while the retrobate are not, although they, like certain elect persons, have been given dominion over all other animals on the Earth and sometimes are blessed with wealth, fame, long life, ad infinitum. From a Biblical perspective, the retrobate are condemned to Hell because they, if not restrained by God, would choose to engage in wicked behavior all of the time. From a relativistic worldview, though, whether Christians or ISIS members are good or bad depends on the culture in which that person is raised. This creates the absurd situation where a superficial Christian can speak out against jihadists and can be lauded in American and then set children on fire in the Middle East and can be applauded for that action. Therefore, those who critique Christianity on moral grounds who embrace moral relativism are proving that their own worldview is false in the process. Now, if we return the topic of love, Jesus clearly points out that loving God entails obeying all of His commandments, something which human beings, due to their sinful nature, are unable to do. Biblically speaking, in Prelapsarian Eden, humans could choose between good and evil; afterwards, though, human sin made people incapable of acting in a righteous manner. This means that, unless God restrains sin, the only thing humans can do is conduct themselves in an unrighteous fashion. Your point too, commits the existential fallacy, since you assume that, just because humans know some things about love it necessarily follows that they understand everything about it. I will add a key point of correction, one which is logically valid: if God is omniscient, then he knows everything about love and, if He knows everything about love than God knows all particular demonstrations of life. Since God is omniscient, then the conclusion which follows is that God understands every individualized demonstration of love. I think that, before attacking God, you have to think more profoundly about the subject of hand rather than dismiss Him in an economy of four sentences. Take care, QP
Not sure why would a loving being create sick beings in the first place. It just does not make any sense. Why allow a creation of a newborn that will die within the next few months of cancer? What is the purpose of this? No loving being could allow such event to occur. Any person in the world with an average level of empathy and magic would snap his fingers and cure such child and yet your God does not do so. We humans are more loving and moral than your God which you say is love.
"Grom a Biblical perspective, the retrobate are condemned to Hell because they, if not restrained by God, would choose to engage in wicked behavior all of the time. " - This makes absolutely no sense. A being that can control everything and loves his creation somehow creates bad and good people and then punishes the bad ones ? That reminds me of the story in the Bible where God on purposes hardened pharaoh;s heart and then murdered his people's children.God changed someone's heart and then punished him for the choices that were done due to God's magical spells! LOL! This is absurd! You claim this is a loving being? Loving beings don't just create you so that they can send you to hell.
" if God is omniscient, then he knows everything about love and, if He knows everything about love than God knows all particular demonstrations of life. Since God is omniscient, then the conclusion which follows is that God understands every individualized demonstration of love. I think that, before attacking God, you have to think more profoundly about the subject of hand rather than dismiss Him in an economy of four sentences. " - You don't need to know everything about mathematics to know that 2+3 does not equal 4. One does not need to know all about love to understand that one cannot call someone loving if that someone shows lack of love and compassion. End of story.
Hi Greg Kowal:
Let me answers your questions.
1. "Why allow a creation of a newborn that will die within the next few months of cancer? What is the purpose of this? No loving being could allow such event to occur." The short answer is that God has a purpose for evil by demonstrating his saving grace for rebel sinners on the cross. By the way, God did not bring sin into this world--we did when we rebelled against God. In fact, the only reasons sinners care about what good or evil is God restrains them from thinking utterly wicked thoughts. However, from your worldview, morality is irrelevant, since the liberal sociological worldview believes in moral situations; this, in turn, leads to a situation where a person can burn a child alive in one culture and being vilified and then perform the same action in another culture and be praised. Also, why are you bringing up cancer when you believe that pregnant women have the right to commit infanticide because you deem the fetus to be less than human? In your worldview, everything occurs by chance and, from that perspective, you are on very shaky grounds claiming to ethical absolutes.
2. In the instance I cited, I never argue that God forces humans to act wickedly and then punishes them from it. Fallen humans, if not restrained by God, would behave in a completely malevolent fashion. You mention the hardening of Pharaoh's heart as if God is causing Ramsees II to act cruelly, but the fact is that, according to Reformed Christians, Ramsees II's proclivity toward acting evilly is a natural action. When God restrains Pharaoh, he refrains from sinning, and when He removes His hand, Pharaoh returns to behaving malevolently and, in that passive sense, his heart becomes "hardened." In Exodus, Pharaoh is obstinate in his rebelling against God and, if God does not restrain him, the Jews might be completely obliterated under his reign.
When God extends grace to individuals, they, in they unregenerate nature, reject it, so God has to send His Holy Spirit to convict such sinners; they, in turn, cry out to God the Son for mercy, and He saves them from the God Father's demand for perfect justice. So, grace is offered to many people, but sinners, in their sinful states, want to be their own deities.
Also, I don't think you understand how Hell works. The Holy Spirit's fire is intended to purge individual of their sins. The problem is that when the unrighteous die, they lose the chance for grace because God completely restrains from stopping those who sin in Hell from doing so. These individuals will be so depraved that they will never ask for God's mercy so that they might be regenerated but, rather, continue to sin. And, as theologian Dr. John MacCarthur notes, their sins which need to be purged will always be more than the ones which are purged. In a nutshell, God is using a method which is intended to purge sinners of all inequities so they can become pure, but the retrobate will keep resisting it! In other words, as Isa. 5.20 points out, such individuals belong to a company which class "Evil good and good evil."
Moreover, you might ask why does God use heat to punish sinners? It is because the Holy Spirit's fire is capable of killing all impurities.
Nevertheless, you, as a moral relativist, are assuming a non-contingent perspective to attack Hell and, as a result, you are contradicting your own worldview!
3. You wrote that "One does not need to know all about love to understand that one cannot call someone loving if that someone shows lack of love and compassion. End of story." This comment shows a fundamental contradiction in your worldview since, as a being who embraces relativism you are making a non-contingent claim. As a person who has an existential understanding of love, you cannot logically, as Reformed Baptist preacher, scholar, and apologist Dr. James R. White points out, challenge a God who 1) is love and 2) therefore has a universal comprehension of it, as this commits the existential fallacy.
I hope I have addressed your concerns.
Take care,
QP
Hi PineCreek, If you really want to challenge Dr. White, then why don't you challenge him to a moderated formal debate either in a specific location or via radio? Take care, QP
I invited him to talk with me at the end of this video. The ball is in his court. I don't do debates though, but I'd love to just dialogue back and forth. I think in the end, it would be a civil discourse and we may end up being friends.
Hi PineCreek:
Thanks for your response.
As a Christian, I, of course, would have a different worldview than you do, and that includes the right of God, after the to truncate a human's lifespan whenever He pleases, as we are all sinful creatures in His eyes. Now, let's apply it to a "moral problem" you saw in the Holiness Code. (Note: The Civil Code, which is no longer applicable today, since, as Dr. White points out, the demands of the Old Testament Law have been satisfied by Christ's crucifixion.) When God gives the law permitting a husband to put her wife's unborn child in jeopardy if he suspects her of being unfaithful, the idea, in that particular day and age, is to ensure that the sanctity of marriage is being honored. If it is not, then the fetus might die. Nevertheless, if the woman lies, and her unborn child perishes, she commits two sins before God: lying and allowing her baby to be killed.
It should be duly noted, though, that just because a fetus is allowed to be killed by an unfaithful wife who does not want to disclose her infidelity to her husband does not necessarily implied that God will not take vengeance in the future for that baby's death. Queen Jezebel, for instance, lied to the Levites about the righteous Naboth committing a capital crime because he refused to sell a vineyard he is instructed by the Lord not to part with. Consequently, Naboth is stoned to death. Queen Jezebel's evil, though, is eventually punished when she is pushed out the window of her palace and dogs eat almost all of her dead body. In the hereafter, God will punish every sin which an unrighteous person commits.
Now, how is the commandment discussed above different than abortion? The answer is the issuance has a specific purpose, as opposed to abortion, an act where babies are killed whenever a pregnant mother decides she doesn't want to have kids, which, morally speaking, is purposeless. Also, God, and not humans, has the right to give and take life. Remember this: we have sinned against a God who originally has created a perfect world for us.
As far as debating Dr. James R. White is concerned, I would definitely encourage you to do so. Before engaging in debate, though, inform him of your intention to keep the debate civil and friendly and that, even if you end up disagreeing with another, each of you can benefit from the exchange of ideas. I think that you will benefit from the experience, as formal debates really force you to put forth and answer difficult questions.
Again, I appreciate your feedback.
Take care,
QP
My question to you PineCreek; Is God subject to the morality of man or should man be subject to the righteousness of God?
The Bible calls you fools. James White didn't.
Whats interesting is we're able to communicate with animals in this day and age so why would communication between a serpent if it happened supernaturally be far fetched?
I have a talking rat for sale. Only $10,000. Interested? :)
In the Jephthah story you don't ever even get to know his daughter's name, just that she was offered up as a sacrifice ... Oh well, she was only a woman anyway, right ? ... Who cares what her name was.
@min 18, surprised he couldn't answer that one....you did get the text right BUT you must keep reading and also use the correct translation (KJV)! This offering was called a "Heave offering"....keep reading to numbers 31:41....this offering was given to the priest as instructed by the Lord....
The heave offering was often used in conjunction with a wave offering, and both were then given to the priests. The heave offering was the part of a sacrifice set aside or “lifted up” for a higher purpose (meaning they were NOT killed off). Keep in mind that we are talking about Medianites which were Nephilim (half fallen angel/half human)...therefore, the virgin women that we are speaking of here were not killed off because they were not defiled by the Nephilim... (assuming you understand what Nephilim are, their origins, and how they survived the flood (or possible 2nd incursion))....if you don't, then that'll explain alot of issues that you have with the OT that modern church simply REFUSES to cover....bc they don't teach about the Nephilim in bible college. They ,mostly, go with the newly developed Sethite theory to explain what happened in Genesis 6....which is an entirely different subject unto itself but relevant to the scripture you are reciting
You are so full of crap. Please stop speaking for Christians. You are not correct.
where am I full of it? do you have an example?
You have stated a theory as fact. Try to defend that position.
theory?.....Tell that to the early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement, JustinMartyr, etc
I'm not sure I see how any of these questions are "bad"? What standard of "badness" are we appealing to and what in particular makes them such?
It seems to a large degree, people have a major issue with the concept of a Sovereign God, who does what He wants, when He wants and how He wants, and who seeks the approval of no external source. I think the uncontrollable element in that notion greatly distresses some.
The fact that White spends so much time explaining these verses makes me think he knows others view them as bad (and not just non-believers).
PineCreek Well, as someone else mentioned, Dr. White uses his videos for teaching; also, as also mentioned, the format of these questions fails to foster meaningful discussion.
Louis Unger You do realize I conduct many interview type videos for that purpose??
PineCreek I am in the process of exploring the content of your videos; I can only speak to that which I've viewed so far.
I suppose I don't fully comprehend your objective with these questions; for example, I would have no problem affirming them without hesitation and without commentary; but then what? What does that prove or disprove?
I don’t understand why he even pausing to talk when he already ask the questions ? And he not really having a conversation with him
you apparently havent seen anything else james white has done. yes he explains everything. he doesnt want anyone to misunderstand him.
The challenge was to simply state what you believe, not why you believe it. Geoff did a great job last night (he's a Christian who believes 7 of the 8). ruclips.net/video/qDq6T-pMMuo/видео.html
PineCreek so James is suppose to follow the rules he knew nothing about?
Kori claypool No of course not Kori. He is a victim of not researching where the challenge came in the first place. Some one took a screenshot of the video on twitter and gave it to him and he didn't think to ask where exactly the challenge came from or what exactly the challenge was. He used the challenge to preach his apologetic. Don't get me wrong, his mistake led to a lot of fruitful dialogue. I love the fact that some Christians agree 90%+ with my paraphrased statements and others are at 0%.
A text w/o a context is a pretext. There's a reason he expounds on the texts. You have to look at it in its historical context.
The thing you fail to understand is that he is explaining it to spiritually dead people! Also any manner that shows compassion and love towards people! You must be born again otherwise you will die in your sins in your perish in your sins!
I wish that I could find Dr James unbroken version. There were so many interruptions that it reminded me of those atheist/theist forum debates where a line by line response is made for every sentence a poster uttered. The Atheist in the video seemed very respectful and kind but the entire package lost all coherence due to the large multitude of interruptions.
...White's answers are not based on '[he] realises it sounds bad... ' [12:49] and therefore gives a long answer, but that YOU think they ARE bad (Jesus ordering stoning of rebellious children) and therefore, a valid reason to reject the Bible and Christianity altogether.
Had a discussion with a Jewish scholar about the abortion verse. He said the potion would more than likely also kill the woman. In essence, 'god willing', it was a great way to get rid of a wife the man no longer wanted.
+B.J. Price I wish more Christians would talk to Rabbi's or Jewish scholars on these OT verses.
Like Bishop Spong. Muslims should do the same to learn about their religion. Heck, go back even further in time!
The 32 woman thing if you read the whole thing in context it never said that they gave them to Jesus. It said that they were given to some priest named Levi and that moses is speaking so Jesus wasn't even born yet
James White does not have a legit PhD
You have a problem with unaccredited online schools?
I got my medical degree out of a cereal packet.
people rising from the dead used to be a real problem. They even tried to set up mechanisms to allow people to be saved. "saved by the bell", "dead ringer" reference a need to put bells with strings connected to graves so that they could be dug up if they turned out not to be dead. And i think that was in the middle ages solution to the problem. Only recently have we really gotten good at determining death.
Interesting. Thanks for the trivia.
I enjoy your program and challenging belief and faith systems with honest questions. Something we all should do ,no matter the cost. Critical thinking is an asset but the tendency to be subjective in our criticism is another animal and generally not worth discussing. What we know is far less than we think we know, even of faith. Rooting out flaws within dogma is often to difficult for most since faith is hope and hope isn’t strictly subject to deductive reasoning. Perhaps I’m wrong about this but that’s where I am. Again I appreciate your view. PS. I am a Judo Christian.
I was a former fundamentalist christian, and at one time if you had asked me most of these 8 ?'s, I probably would have been somewhat surprised that the related incidents were in the bible. Of course this betrayed my lack of knowledge at the time, and it reflects the fact that I was misled by former pastors/teachers regarding, for example the story of Jephtah sacrificing his daughter, which later on disturbed me greatly, and became one of many reasons for my becoming an agnostic. I find these internet debates and presentations fascinating and informative.
+Rich C Yes, I think many Christians are unaware of these passages. And to challenge christians to state whether they believe it or not, without the need to explain, I thought was an interesting challenge. :)
Gee thanks Tom for the encouragement; like I didn't already figure this out.
+Rich C Who is Tom? Is this comment in the wrong place? (I am Doug/PineCreek)
Couldn't get back to you right away. The computer went wacky. Yeah, Who IS Tom?? I thot he was responding to me! Guess not; He made little sense anyway.
Well, at this point in my life I'm only concerned with not breaking the laws of our country, state, city, etc., which is pretty darn easy anyway.
James White is such a spin doctor. I find it revealing that this guy simply can't answer yes or no.
In his defense, yes or no questions (whether in a court room, job interview, science panel, classroom...) are rarely answered with a yes or no followed by silence. It's just not how humans operate.
If I asked Leonard Susskind, "Yes or no: do you maintain that matter spontaneously arose from nothing 14 billion years ago? A simple yes or no..."
Susskind might have no problem with the dating but take issue with the word "matter", or he might find it a fair statement but perhaps not like the usage of "years" as a convention to measure age and time in a relativistic universe (and so elaborate on that point). Or he might want to clarify what the interviewer intends by "spontaneous" and present a thumbnail of different quantum models accounting for this.
scantron tests being one exception, "Yes or no" questions are typically heard as a prompt. Particularly in a setting where the responder knows that his affirmation to any of the questions will be received as illogical and backward.
The reason Dr. White didn't just "take the challenge" and affirm these things is because he hosts a program, the Dividing Line, specifically for Christian apologetics. It was to show reasons why he affirms these things and to help Christians if they have people ask them similar questions.
Yeah, he used me. I feel so dirty. He didn't even buy me dinner first.
Sounds like he is defending the equivalent of sharia law.
Thomas Jefferson saw fit to edit the bible,removing some of the ridiculous passages, but here we are now in 21st century and these people are still clinging to indefensible passages.
James uses the word "possible" because as he pointed out, from the text it could well be argued that he was in the belly of the fish for three days, dead, and then was resurrected and spit out. To correct you, Dr. White did argue that "It's possible that Jonah was IN the belly three days" he said, in accordance with your challenge, "It's possible that Jonah LIVED in the belly three days". So he and I and many others believe fully that Jonah was IN the belly for three days. Whether or not he lived, was ALIVE, is what he uses the words "possible" and "likely" in reference to. Yes, Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for three days.