Skeptics misunderstand - sometimes willfully - the categories of text in the Bible. Not everything is meant to be taken literally. RUMBLE BACKUP: rumble.com/c/c...
Regardless, a book inspired by an all-powerful perfect superbeing should not even have _apparent_ contradictions. Not to mention, the way this bible came into being bears no resemblance to what a superbeing would do, written over the course of many centuries by dozens of different authors, passed down for centuries by word of mouth and hand written scrolls before the printing press was invented around the year 1450. And there is no doubt that it has been altered many many times: Older manuscripts have things in them that are not in later ones, meaning things have been removed. And newer manuscripts have things in them that are not in older ones, meaning things have been added. The thing that finally opened my eyes was this: I asked myself a very simple question: Would I still have the same beliefs I have if I had been born somewhere else in the world, raised by parents of a different belief system? Almost certainly not. So how can there be an official truth if your religious beliefs are based almost entirely on where you were born and by whom you were raised? Christians always take things literally in the bible...unless that causes a problem in which case it should not be taken literally. But I wonder if it has ever been explained how the first 3 days of creation happened without the sun (which wasn't created until the fourth day)? This tells me that those early writers didn't know that the sun wasn't just a small bright thing that came out DURING the day, but was in fact large, far away and the actual CAUSE of daytime. This is why having it created on day 4 was no big deal and why having Joshua stopping it from moving across the sky (instead of saying that he stopped the Earth from rotating) made more sense to them.
@@christiangadfly24 God/Allah could prove his existence easily to the whole world by simply showing his face in the clouds and addressing the world. But I'm sure you will have a reason for why he doesn't or can't do this one simple thing that would literally change the world, presumably for the better. Why does he need us puny humans to spread his words and defend his existence? And what about the poor people who had the misfortune of being born and raised into the wrong religion, or the poor shmucks who have never even heard of God/Allah like some African tribesman living in the desert? Are those people doomed because of where they were born?
@@nathanaelashnonmusic2615 The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not the job of the skeptics (the default position) to disprove the claims of the believers. And you would have completely different beliefs if you had been born in some other part of the world, raised by parents of a completely different belief system. How "true" can it be in this case?
Also, no one is "trying to make the Bible look evil" by pointing out its errors and contradictions. Wtf does that even mean? Honestly braindead commentary.
@@found.ernest no one has to try to make the Bible look evil. All anyone has to do is read it and see all the times "God" condoned misogyny, homophobia, intolerance, violence, genocide, infanticide, r*pe and slavery. The contradictions don't make it evil, the contents do.
@@BIayne no one has to try to make it look evil? The Reason Project obviously did. Seriously though, in your world view, is it ok to be judgmental and on what basis do you judge good and evil?
@@found.ernest are you asking me why slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide, r*pe and genocide are "bad"? Not a week goes by where I don't see a theist saying the equivalent of: _"if God isn't real then I can't think of a single reason not to kick a puppy."_ I can think of a dozen reasons not to kick a puppy without appealing to "because God said so". When it comes to slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide, r*pe and genocide I can list even more reasons without appealing to _"because God says so"_ Whereas you have to explain why those things are bad *IN SPITE OF* the Bible condoning them. I don't have that baggage. I don't have to make apologies for why my allegedly "all-loving" God said a bunch of violent, genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, slavery endorsing bullshit. That's your job, Mr. Apologist. There's nothing that your Iron Age "Biblical morality" offers that secular humanism doesn't. I know why kicking puppies is wrong. Do you know why it's wrong? Because the answer isn't _"because my genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, slavery endorsing God said so"._
@@found.ernest WHO changed the colors? He even says in the video that they COULD be looking at the original color-coded version. He specifically CHOSE this red version for the video and then used it as an excuse to make the strawman claim that atheists say "the Bible is evil".
No, we're not misunderstanding anything. We merely don't make up excuses as to why blatant contradictions aren't contradictions. Your "inerrant bible" is chock full of errors and contradictions. That's not your fault of course, it's the fault of the people who made the story up. But it's your fault that you still believe this ridiculous story and even defend it against all reason.
No the excuses materialists make are once you bring up fine tuning, consciousness, objective normatives, anything that isn't describable in third person terms, the big bang, etc.
@@christiangadfly24 You mean like excuse about how your god is intangible, unobservable, unknowable, and in every other sense equal to the definition of something that does NOT exist at all? Wherein every other defense is an argument from metaphysics, made in lieu of evidence, or question-begging presuppositions? Fine Tuning"? The puddle analogy. Neither you nor anyone else can even hope to demonstrate that it was even possible for the universal constants to have settled into ANY other arrangement. All we can do is calculate the laws as they are and make guesses about what would happen if said constants had different values. Moreover, neither you nor anyone else can definitely say that some other combination of values could not also lead to a life-supporting universe because we have a sample size of ONE. "Consciousness"? A still incomplete but not unsolvable question, the evidence of which nonetheless indicates consciousness is entirely an emergent property of processes in the brain and not a result of some immaterial and undemonstrative "soul", since both chemical interactions and physical damage demonstrate profound alterations to perception and personality. I assume by "objective normatives" you're attempting to argue for god by claiming that neither "objective truth" nor "objective morality" can exist without some SUBJECTIVE dictate handed down by a higher authority to defer to?
They believe in drinking the blood of a human sacrifice so that the creator of the entire universe will forgive them for a woman eating a fruit because a talking snake told her to. They are incapable of intelligent thought.
@@christiangadfly24 How about the excuses for how god is immaterial, invisible, unknowable, impotent, and otherwise meets every description of something that does not exist at all? Followed up with excuses from metaphysics, in lieu of any actual evidence, and a reliance on question-begging presuppositions?
@@niox1920 No it isn't. Genesis is why the definition of "days" is ever mentioned. Is a God day a normal 24h day? Or is it thousands of years? Or millions of years?
Just because you are not biblical literalists does not mean those people do not exist and aren't worth acknowledging in choosing all of the biblical contradictions. Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals are both groups that practice biblical literalism, and evangelical protestantism is the largest christian sect in the U.S. t around 25%. btw- literalism has a dictionary definition that "biblical literalism" follows. literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense"
Listen to all the excuses you have to make to defend the Bible, because apparently your god was incapable of ensuring that his word was free from disparate interpretations and is too impotent as to rectify and correct the beliefs or practices adopted by people who misinterpret or misuse his word over the last two millennia. "What does literal mean"? It means there are a substantial number of fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is perfect, inerrant, and should be interpreted as a LITERAL, historical record. Literal (adj) - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory. That type of Christian is most likely to be ignorant of the contradictions listed in the Bible, and these resources are used to demonstrate that this specific worldview is untenable. Whether or not you, personally, interpret the Bible in this way is not the point. Nor is there some immoral intent behind atheists pointing out that these contradictions exist. Trying to hand wave this reality away by suggesting there's some ambiguity here is fallacious nonsense, just like every other apologetics argument ever made.
@@christiangadfly24 I'm sorry, did I stutter or something? Because all I saw were two bottom-tier RUclips apologists crying about how: A. atheists point out the fact that there are contradictions in the Bible. and that B. "just some Pew Research poll" demonstrated that nearly 1/3rd of Christians DO take the Bible literally. Then they tried making up pedantic excuses about what "literal" means to obscure how absurd a literalist interpretation of scripture actually is. Why don't YOU tell ME exactly what other "argument" was being made here that I didn't address in my original comment?
@@ASM42186 I'm going to be real honest with you even though it makes me look super dumb and say that I thought this was another JG video, one that I was on when I commented that. ruclips.net/video/m8DXjnMvQ7k/видео.html That's why I was confused. It looked like you were talking about something that wasn't even in the video. It was me who wasn't paying attention, so that's on me.
These arent even good arguemnts, not even five minutes in and you just stated your opinions "just terrible work", "it makes what they did evil" like what???? These arent even rebuttals to why you think their works arent accurate nor did you provide evidence to support your case. Youre just angry about people calling out your religion and then go on to debate what the term literal means when theres dictionary and didnt even bother to dig deeper into the pew research article to elaborate their cases. Its just lazy and thats why atheists dont give evangelist the time of day
What can we say about life on other worlds? We observe a universe with billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, and that's only the part of the universe we can see because it's the observable universe. If there is intelligent life out there, there must be a form of salvation for those souls. If they have not sinned, then the laws of the universe must be different, which we do not observe. But if they do need salvation, Jesus Christ must be the one to save them. What do you think? What I do believe is that this is an observational question that may never be answered due to the vast distances and the limit imposed by the speed of light. However, it would be quite interesting to verify this, even though it is impossible because of the distances. If they also have the incarnate Word. Perhaps others would say that some things are not revealed to us because they are not fundamental to our salvation.
The Pew research doesn't need to define what they think "literal" means. They aren't telling people how to answer, and letting the respondents of the poll define "literal" for themselves. Seems you are confused how polls work. Yet know you don't like the results.
It is because your scriptures have been corrupted. Only the Quran is the true revelation dot for dot letter for letter from the true prophet صَلَّى ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ!!!!
You have not seen or read every manuscript written since 600ad, so you cannot say that it has not changed over time with any more confidence than a Christian or any other religious person about their holy text.
@@JulianGentry See, THIS is exactly the reaction atheists have when you try and justify your religious belief using the Bible. Demonstrate how you are able to reject any claim made by any other religion in the world that cannot be instantaneously turned around and used to dismiss the validity of your own belief system. Then self-reflect for a moment about WHY it is that you reject these competing beliefs offhand and MAYBE you'll start to realize that the "evidence" for the truth of Islam is exactly the same as the "evidence" for the truth of the Bible.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere There's only two sources of reliable information. Things that come to me from an isnad or things in the quran. Your argument is from neither source so it is false.
Thats a lie your faith created. In reality islam struggles with the same thing, there have been multiple versions of the quran and it has not been passed down exactly the same. Noones books are corrupted cause its all nonsense anyway, just appreciate it as literary works.
I should have explained... "what they did looks evil" because of the ominous red and black graphics. Looks like a Sith designed it. 😂
Regardless, a book inspired by an all-powerful perfect superbeing should not even have _apparent_ contradictions. Not to mention, the way this bible came into being bears no resemblance to what a superbeing would do, written over the course of many centuries by dozens of different authors, passed down for centuries by word of mouth and hand written scrolls before the printing press was invented around the year 1450. And there is no doubt that it has been altered many many times: Older manuscripts have things in them that are not in later ones, meaning things have been removed. And newer manuscripts have things in them that are not in older ones, meaning things have been added.
The thing that finally opened my eyes was this: I asked myself a very simple question: Would I still have the same beliefs I have if I had been born somewhere else in the world, raised by parents of a different belief system? Almost certainly not. So how can there be an official truth if your religious beliefs are based almost entirely on where you were born and by whom you were raised?
Christians always take things literally in the bible...unless that causes a problem in which case it should not be taken literally. But I wonder if it has ever been explained how the first 3 days of creation happened without the sun (which wasn't created until the fourth day)? This tells me that those early writers didn't know that the sun wasn't just a small bright thing that came out DURING the day, but was in fact large, far away and the actual CAUSE of daytime. This is why having it created on day 4 was no big deal and why having Joshua stopping it from moving across the sky (instead of saying that he stopped the Earth from rotating) made more sense to them.
How do you know what a super being would do?
@@christiangadfly24 God/Allah could prove his existence easily to the whole world by simply showing his face in the clouds and addressing the world. But I'm sure you will have a reason for why he doesn't or can't do this one simple thing that would literally change the world, presumably for the better. Why does he need us puny humans to spread his words and defend his existence? And what about the poor people who had the misfortune of being born and raised into the wrong religion, or the poor shmucks who have never even heard of God/Allah like some African tribesman living in the desert? Are those people doomed because of where they were born?
Blah blah blah. Dont care. Christ is king. Burden of proof tossed upon non believers.
@@nathanaelashnonmusic2615 The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not the job of the skeptics (the default position) to disprove the claims of the believers. And you would have completely different beliefs if you had been born in some other part of the world, raised by parents of a completely different belief system. How "true" can it be in this case?
@JustWasted3HoursHere nah. You prove it. You're the one saying the world is devoid of meaning so you prove your depressing ass viewpoint.
Also, no one is "trying to make the Bible look evil" by pointing out its errors and contradictions.
Wtf does that even mean?
Honestly braindead commentary.
I'll type slowly for you. They intentionally changed the colors in the info graphic for a more ominous palette.
@@found.ernest no one has to try to make the Bible look evil.
All anyone has to do is read it and see all the times "God" condoned misogyny, homophobia, intolerance, violence, genocide, infanticide, r*pe and slavery.
The contradictions don't make it evil, the contents do.
@@BIayne no one has to try to make it look evil? The Reason Project obviously did. Seriously though, in your world view, is it ok to be judgmental and on what basis do you judge good and evil?
@@found.ernest are you asking me why slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide, r*pe and genocide are "bad"?
Not a week goes by where I don't see a theist saying the equivalent of:
_"if God isn't real then I can't think of a single reason not to kick a puppy."_
I can think of a dozen reasons not to kick a puppy without appealing to "because God said so".
When it comes to slavery, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide, r*pe and genocide I can list even more reasons without appealing to _"because God says so"_
Whereas you have to explain why those things are bad *IN SPITE OF* the Bible condoning them.
I don't have that baggage.
I don't have to make apologies for why my allegedly "all-loving" God said a bunch of violent, genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, slavery endorsing bullshit.
That's your job, Mr. Apologist.
There's nothing that your Iron Age "Biblical morality" offers that secular humanism doesn't.
I know why kicking puppies is wrong.
Do you know why it's wrong?
Because the answer isn't _"because my genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, slavery endorsing God said so"._
@@found.ernest WHO changed the colors? He even says in the video that they COULD be looking at the original color-coded version. He specifically CHOSE this red version for the video and then used it as an excuse to make the strawman claim that atheists say "the Bible is evil".
No, we're not misunderstanding anything. We merely don't make up excuses as to why blatant contradictions aren't contradictions. Your "inerrant bible" is chock full of errors and contradictions. That's not your fault of course, it's the fault of the people who made the story up. But it's your fault that you still believe this ridiculous story and even defend it against all reason.
No the excuses materialists make are once you bring up fine tuning, consciousness, objective normatives, anything that isn't describable in third person terms, the big bang, etc.
@@christiangadfly24 You mean like excuse about how your god is intangible, unobservable, unknowable, and in every other sense equal to the definition of something that does NOT exist at all? Wherein every other defense is an argument from metaphysics, made in lieu of evidence, or question-begging presuppositions?
Fine Tuning"? The puddle analogy.
Neither you nor anyone else can even hope to demonstrate that it was even possible for the universal constants to have settled into ANY other arrangement. All we can do is calculate the laws as they are and make guesses about what would happen if said constants had different values. Moreover, neither you nor anyone else can definitely say that some other combination of values could not also lead to a life-supporting universe because we have a sample size of ONE.
"Consciousness"? A still incomplete but not unsolvable question, the evidence of which nonetheless indicates consciousness is entirely an emergent property of processes in the brain and not a result of some immaterial and undemonstrative "soul", since both chemical interactions and physical damage demonstrate profound alterations to perception and personality.
I assume by "objective normatives" you're attempting to argue for god by claiming that neither "objective truth" nor "objective morality" can exist without some SUBJECTIVE dictate handed down by a higher authority to defer to?
They believe in drinking the blood of a human sacrifice so that the creator of the entire universe will forgive them for a woman eating a fruit because a talking snake told her to. They are incapable of intelligent thought.
@@christiangadfly24 How about the excuses for how god is immaterial, invisible, unknowable, impotent, and otherwise meets every description of something that does not exist at all? Followed up with excuses from metaphysics, in lieu of any actual evidence, and a reliance on question-begging presuppositions?
@@ASM42186 A programmer for a video game doesn't have HP or attack points or a defense stats. Do video game programmers exist?
How can you find contradictions in the Bible when theologians can’t agree on what a “day” means? 😂
Check mate atheists!
we know what a day is
@@niox1920 You do?
On what day did God create the earth and plants?
And which day did God create the sun?
@@BIayne irrelevant information
@@niox1920 No it isn't.
Genesis is why the definition of "days" is ever mentioned.
Is a God day a normal 24h day?
Or is it thousands of years?
Or millions of years?
@@BIayne atheists don't care about your God days
Just because you are not biblical literalists does not mean those people do not exist and aren't worth acknowledging in choosing all of the biblical contradictions. Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals are both groups that practice biblical literalism, and evangelical protestantism is the largest christian sect in the U.S. t around 25%. btw- literalism has a dictionary definition that "biblical literalism" follows.
literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense"
Listen to all the excuses you have to make to defend the Bible, because apparently your god was incapable of ensuring that his word was free from disparate interpretations and is too impotent as to rectify and correct the beliefs or practices adopted by people who misinterpret or misuse his word over the last two millennia.
"What does literal mean"? It means there are a substantial number of fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is perfect, inerrant, and should be interpreted as a LITERAL, historical record. Literal (adj) - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
That type of Christian is most likely to be ignorant of the contradictions listed in the Bible, and these resources are used to demonstrate that this specific worldview is untenable. Whether or not you, personally, interpret the Bible in this way is not the point. Nor is there some immoral intent behind atheists pointing out that these contradictions exist.
Trying to hand wave this reality away by suggesting there's some ambiguity here is fallacious nonsense, just like every other apologetics argument ever made.
Which particular argument are you addressing here?
@@christiangadfly24 I'm sorry, did I stutter or something?
Because all I saw were two bottom-tier RUclips apologists crying about how:
A. atheists point out the fact that there are contradictions in the Bible.
and that B. "just some Pew Research poll" demonstrated that nearly 1/3rd of Christians DO take the Bible literally.
Then they tried making up pedantic excuses about what "literal" means to obscure how absurd a literalist interpretation of scripture actually is.
Why don't YOU tell ME exactly what other "argument" was being made here that I didn't address in my original comment?
Chill dude. We're not here to attack you.
@@christiangadfly24 I'm sorry, did I stutter? What "argument" was made here that I didn't address?
@@ASM42186 I'm going to be real honest with you even though it makes me look super dumb and say that I thought this was another JG video, one that I was on when I commented that.
ruclips.net/video/m8DXjnMvQ7k/видео.html
That's why I was confused. It looked like you were talking about something that wasn't even in the video. It was me who wasn't paying attention, so that's on me.
These arent even good arguemnts, not even five minutes in and you just stated your opinions "just terrible work", "it makes what they did evil" like what???? These arent even rebuttals to why you think their works arent accurate nor did you provide evidence to support your case. Youre just angry about people calling out your religion and then go on to debate what the term literal means when theres dictionary and didnt even bother to dig deeper into the pew research article to elaborate their cases. Its just lazy and thats why atheists dont give evangelist the time of day
What can we say about life on other worlds? We observe a universe with billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, and that's only the part of the universe we can see because it's the observable universe. If there is intelligent life out there, there must be a form of salvation for those souls. If they have not sinned, then the laws of the universe must be different, which we do not observe. But if they do need salvation, Jesus Christ must be the one to save them. What do you think?
What I do believe is that this is an observational question that may never be answered due to the vast distances and the limit imposed by the speed of light. However, it would be quite interesting to verify this, even though it is impossible because of the distances. If they also have the incarnate Word. Perhaps others would say that some things are not revealed to us because they are not fundamental to our salvation.
The Pew research doesn't need to define what they think "literal" means. They aren't telling people how to answer, and letting the respondents of the poll define "literal" for themselves.
Seems you are confused how polls work. Yet know you don't like the results.
It is because your scriptures have been corrupted. Only the Quran is the true revelation dot for dot letter for letter from the true prophet صَلَّى ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ!!!!
Ah yes totally
You have not seen or read every manuscript written since 600ad, so you cannot say that it has not changed over time with any more confidence than a Christian or any other religious person about their holy text.
@@JulianGentry See, THIS is exactly the reaction atheists have when you try and justify your religious belief using the Bible.
Demonstrate how you are able to reject any claim made by any other religion in the world that cannot be instantaneously turned around and used to dismiss the validity of your own belief system.
Then self-reflect for a moment about WHY it is that you reject these competing beliefs offhand and MAYBE you'll start to realize that the "evidence" for the truth of Islam is exactly the same as the "evidence" for the truth of the Bible.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere There's only two sources of reliable information. Things that come to me from an isnad or things in the quran. Your argument is from neither source so it is false.
Thats a lie your faith created. In reality islam struggles with the same thing, there have been multiple versions of the quran and it has not been passed down exactly the same. Noones books are corrupted cause its all nonsense anyway, just appreciate it as literary works.