Joel Baden: The Bible Doesn't Say What You Think it Does
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 ноя 2014
- Joel Baden (Professor of Hebrew Bible Yale University) spoke at the 2013 Nantucket Project.
Nearly 80 percent of all Americans think the Bible is either literally true or is the inspired word of God. And yet, most Americans have no idea what is actually in the Bible. So we have the paradoxical situation in which we as a culture "have invested the words of this book with amazing authority even when we don't know what these words are and what they mean."
About The Nantucket Project
The Nantucket Project is one of the world’s great gatherings, each year hosting preeminent thinkers, leaders and innovators in a wide range of fields.
We focus on the intersection of art and commerce - one fueled by passion, the other by reason. In every organization - whether it’s a business, a philanthropy or a creative endeavor - those two forces jostle to achieve the right balance.
In the process, values are determined. We believe TNP is the only event of its kind that rigorously examines those values.
I agree that the Bible has strange effect on some people. The less they read it the more they consider themselves experts on it.
^^^ THIS ^^^ And The Library is Closed.
So true.
Typical Dunning-Kreuger...
@@SNORKYMEDIA How do you know this? If you're a non-believer, you don't understand it . If you are a believer, then I"m sure you can explain your statement.
@@E.K.2003 Was your comment meant as a joke?
I've read the bible from Genesis to Revelation in 3 languages. In point of fact, it is my go to source for learning a new language. What is most frustrating to me is the number of Christians I meet who, when confronted with this declaration, tell me, without shame, that they have never read the bible but subscribe only to its 'truth'.
They go to church.....take Bible quotes out of context.
@@haroldz2323 Most of them don't even understand the relationship between Christianity and Judaism - it's like in nomine Patris et Filii is nothing more than eenie meenie miney moe.
Heather Spoonheim - You look uninformed by wearing that mask.
Re. Bible- it's pretty well known these days about how much was distorted, misinterpreted when put into other languages, not to mention the majority of the books being confiscated (stolen and hidden) by the wicked Catholic church/Vatican
0
@@judyhickman5831 I guess you didn't pick up on Heather's use of "nomine Patris et Filii". This is her way of flexing her Bible wizardry by speaking Latin, the language of the anti-christ Catholic Church as you just stated. Her roots are obviously in that God forsaken cult. Your first observation that she was uninformed was spot on.
"Sometimes the Bible is used as a prop." And sometimes it's used as a club.
And sometimes it used to explain God's plan for mankind
and sometimes it is used as a suppository
But it is always used to inform us we were created to enjoy God.
And sometimes its used as a shield.
@@jimmyross4352 And yet so many of things (100%) show us that we're just another animal. We're 99%related to chimpanzees yanno?
The Earth is 4.5 billion year old. The crude oil that your gasoline comes from, is 180 million years old.. and so on.
I thank God every day for the bible. Without it, how would I know how to treat my slaves.
Slavery was common in the ancient world in all nations, and it's still around today. Doesn't make it "right", but it's just a reality and the Bible acknowledged that--as it did for other practices of the period. God didn't change Israel's traditions on that matter before using them for His purposes.
A few years ago, you wouldn't ever have said that a "man" could become a "woman." It's now the "received truth." The point is, no one lives in the future, so what was accepted as normal in times past, and isn't now, has to be evaluated in light of that. Fifty years ago, the husband was the breadwinner and the wife the homemaker. Today, to insist on that is considered sexist. Times change, and what's considered "acceptable" also changes--which is why taking down statues of past figures because they owned slaves is ridiculous. Doing so is tantamount to saying people living 200 years ago should have held today's standards. Do you still hold every belief that you held even 20 years ago?
@@L5player So what you're saying is God didn't have enough power to change things, so he let slavery go on???? You mean God couldn't have had a commandment like Thou shall not own other people???? By your logic (more like lack of) God should have let murder go on too because people are just going to do it. Then why did GOD say, Thou Shall not murder? Yeah, time for you to get your GED.
@@dmimcg God understands the human heart, and part of the gift of free will is choosing what to accept and what not to accept. The largest empire the world had seen until then was based on cheap labor through slaves, and no one would accept the suicide of the state, even if God had commanded it
@@RealAugustusAutumn According to youR logic then there should not be 10 commandments because, "People have free will anyway". ROFL. I think God could have said, THOU SHALL NOT OWN OTHER PEOPLE instead of don't covet your neighbors wife- but I guess, a wife is more important than a slave. PRAISE THE LORD!@ ROFL.
@@L5player That's actually the point. The idea that a law given by God at that time would not prohibit slavery makes sense under a naturalistic view in which the law's human authors would have no ability to conceive how immoral owning humans is. It doesn't make sense for a perfectly moral being to give these instructions to his chosen people.
"The Bible doesn't say what you think it does." Says every Christian to everyone else.
Every Christian DENOMINATION about every Bible VERSION, edition, and translation.
And if either of you read the Bible or listened to this, you’d have gathered the crux of the dialogue, therein. Re: dia-logue. I’ve assumed you’ve not based upon your criticism. My apologies if that is an incorrect assumption. I only veer into getting contentious because what you’ve gathered from not reading it immediately renders your opinion regarding it as...well...ignorance, not to mention arrogant. The Beauty of the design of the Bible, one of its many IMHO, is quite eloquently shared here. If of any worthy assertion ascribing it to a higher power can possibly be imparted it’s easily not going to be from any opposition to reading it. Haha. Ask those guys who didn’t read it. Ironically, the message in the gospels is that it’s written for those who’ve no merit in following some prescribed Law as spiritually divined or of some sacred merit or doctrine adhered to faithfully. “What you said”...says every know it all fool ever to criticize a Bible. You’re not one-up on “believers,” right or wrong, because you can’t know what you don’t know...Just in case you don’t know in addition to not knowing. It really is as profound as what this guy says. It’s also as good as any historical text of the Times. Criticizing things w/o knowing the things isn’t what you think it is.
@@joshuasiefring5810 Why do you assume people who criticize your bible haven't read it? Ask around atheists, and you'll find that the quickest path to atheism is to actually read the bible…
@@jursamaj Why do you assume it’s my Bible? To answer your question I was addressing the the comment we are replying to specifically because it heavily alludes to it and that the comment takes that side of the argument w/o overtly stating it. I’ve read it twice and didn’t use reductivism to determine there’s no God. Actually atheists probably believe what I do and do many others who in God. It’s about effectively discerning each word and then effectively communicating we each are on the same page with our def’n of each word. Case in point: I was specifically addressing those who judge before reading it anyway.
@XICODECOPA That’s great. The point is that you’re describing the literal perspective of the Bible. You may not realize what you just stated is also referring to a spiritually correlated message at the sane time. Jesus was attempting to share a universal teaching. You just have to be at the awareness level required to grasp the implications of his transformation. Realizing the spiritual implications of the archetypes as we evolve consciously one becomes aware of the progression from The Satan > Lucifer > Jesus > on into the next levels of growth are key.
The real problem here is the problem of the "institution". It's a problem that seems difficult to avoid and it happens rather commonly.
In the beginning, someone has a truly great idea. Often this is a fundamental truth or a noble idea, a virtue or ideal that if followed carefully would make humanity as a whole better off. Take the idea of universities for example. The university is supposed to be a bastion of reason and scholarship, a place of enlightenment established on the free exchange of ideas. The IDEA of universities is a truly great idea. The problem is that everyone forgot what a university is really supposed to be. Today, universities don't exist for the sake of the free exchange of ideas, scholarship or reason. Today, the university is a business and it exists to make money and to perpetuate itself. It isn't treated as a place where the highest priority is the pursuit of knowledge or the free exchange of ideas. The original idea of the university has been lost, consumed by a system designed to maximize profits.
The same thing has happened to the Bible and to Christianity. In the beginning, the IDEA of the church as it was during the time of Jesus was a pure idea. It was meant to be a place where true believers in Jesus and the lessons he taught could gather and remind one another of those lessons and teach their children those lessons and improve the soul of anyone who came to their doors seeking the wisdom of Jesus Christ.
But in time, the church no longer existed to teach these lessons. In time the church existed only to continue perpetuating it's own existence for its own sake, not the sake of Jesus or his teachings. The church became an institution that forgot where and why it came to exist in the first place.
I'm a 20 percenter. I was religious at one time. My church asked me to conduct an adult Bible study on the OT. When I started to read it critically it immediately became apparent it had the validity of King Arthur.
There is a fantastic book, written by a Harvard literary professor called “Who Wrote the Bible?” Which explains many contradictions in the Old Testament. It’s incredibly fascinating but the punch line is that it was not divinely inspired but rather the work of different priests / religious sects and was ultimately woven together (similar to how the New Testament was a collection of different authors).
And you believe them more? You will never witness the power of God or his miracles as we who believe on him do.
@@mgwgeneral6467 I never said I didn’t believe in god. Quite the opposite. I was saying that people need to dive deeply into their religion and not blindly accept what their pastor tells them like a herd of sheep. Jesus was not a Christian (remember that) he didn’t worship himself. He preached Jewish law. Understand the Hebrew bible as well as the different offshoots such as the Kabbalah - and you will have a deeper understanding of the true Word. (Not to mention reading other religious texts from other religions to see the commonality). Also, the book I mentioned has a beautifully documented analysis that explains, for example, why there are two entirely different dimensions given for the Arc, or why we see God as a benevolent fatherly figure in some texts but a vengeful being in others. Personally, such information only enriched my experience with God - but there are so many people who would chastise me for seeking my own truth - because it doesn’t agree with their own dogma handed down from self proclaimed experts who have never probed and gone beyond blind acceptance.
@@13Ambro I'm agree with you buddy 🤙🤙🤙🤙👍👍👍👍
The DOcumentary hypothesis has been around almost two hundred years .
What is the name of the author?
This is merely an interesting speech that led up to non-sequitur. How does one get from “there are several completely irreconcilable accounts in the Bible” to “therefore religious pluralism”? Especially when the Bible pretty clearly despises religious pluralism throughout the entire narrative? It seems to me like a lot of mental gymnastics in order to preserve faith in something that clearly doesn’t make sense.
That's what all theology is: mental gymnastics.
I thought he explained that idea fairly well. The authors/compilers of the Bible included conflicting accounts because they valued different ways to explore or talk about “the truth”. And well... And anybody who can help the zealously religious to take the Bible less literal is doing gods work.
The only useful way to talk about the truth is to tell the truth. Multiple conflicting stories can't all be right. And in the case of the bible, they're usually all wrong.
As for zealots, they consider all of this to be heresy.
You are talking about what the rabbis did, which was to *not* talk about the truth. Thus it is completely irrelevant to what I said about talking about the truth.
The arts are very nice, but they aren't about truth either.
If everybody's voice is heard, but they all say things that conflict, then most, if not all, of them are wrong. That isn't truth either.
If the 3 creation stories conflict, then their "different purposes" aren't about truth.
I'm seeing a pattern here. You use the word 'truth' a lot, but you aren't actually interested in truth…
Jonathan Herring I couldn't agree more. It's like he lost the courage to go the extra step and say "its ancient myth & superstition, let's file it away as such, and move forward in the 21st century with a collective discussion about values, tolerance, boundaries etc based on reason and evidence." I have never understood the argument of some people who clearly show and understand that the bible is full of contradictions, unhistorical information, scientific absurdities, and shouldn't be taken as literal truth, but then want to attach words like inspired or authoritative to it?? It boggles my mind. I can think of all kinds of other adjectives to attach to it (influential, poetic, ancient, etc) but I cannot accept that its both highly innacuate in fields of science, history, anthropology, etc and yet it's still authorative or inspired somehow. I think it's his sentiment attempting to somehow still salvage the book but it is unreasonable, in my humble opinion.
Baden: "The bible preserves religious pluralism for us"
Me: I agree, we accept all opinions except from the Amalekites, of course.
Good one!
Throwing something contradictory and which has caused so much harm to the garbage doesn't sound as bad math actually. Just like the right thing to do.
@@josecartin825 What?
Let him who walks in sin, walk further still - and he who walks in Righteousness walk further still. Those who consistently refuse to seek the Lord with a whole heart will be damned with annihilation. Those performing the Law of Christ will be saved into the next life, traditions be damned (as they are worldly at best).
@@johngraham1274 malapropos
I knew this when I was 6 years old caused quite the commotion in sunday school.
I always felt that the church never understood these interpretation
The Bible has been changed in the long period of time, the true Bible was with Jesus Pbuh himself in his time, Quran is the last book to humanity and Islam is the last religion to humanity, in Quran you will find the truth about this life and what is our purpose in this life and what will happened in afterlife.
John 20:17
New International Version
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers(A) and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father(B) and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Matthew 24:36
New King James Version
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
John 5:30
New King James Version
I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
Mark 9:37
New King James Version
“Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me.”
John 9:3/9:4
New King James Version
Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.
John 7:33
So Jesus said, "I am with you only a little while longer, and then I am going to the One who sent Me.
John 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
@@MD99111 I would love to debate this. I've seen a lot in the old testament that seems to predict Jesus, as God in the flesh. He was the son, but he is one with the father. I'm on the fence about Muhammad, either a prophet or a victim of evil spirits.
@@travissharon1536 you can check these verses from the Bible
Is Jesus and Father are one? I don't think so, who sucrificed his only begotten son to save humanity, is the one who sucrifice is same as the one who sucrificed, When Jesus died for 3 days, the Father and Holy spirit were alive, so they are not same, who put Jesus in Virgin Mary womb as baby and stayed there for 9 month until bearth, and the Father was the one controlling everything when Jesus was baby, Jesus did some mericles by heeling sick, by reviving dead, by creating bird from soil, but the father created whole universe, all creatures all matters, he created everything from beginning there is no comparison in power, the Father sent Jesus, the one who is sent is not the same as the one who send,
John 17 :3
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
As per Jesus here the only true God is the Father that he sent him
Jesus pray to the Father, so they are not one God and not same, the father is most superior.
No one knows about the hour except the Father even the son Jesus doesn't know, so they are not same.
COOL STORY, BRO.
Love to show this to my dad, but I think it would break his brain.
What the speaker said at the very beginning shows that we are further gone as a country than I thought.
No we are not....he is ignorant and his speech is filled with errors
@Kokichi World Order it doesn't take a scholar to see the errors go study yourself
@Kokichi World Order I am not watching it again ....I cannot list everything in bible he needs to correct but it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE..YOU CAN CALL YOUR OWN CHURCH LEADERS ANDCHECK.....THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH POLYGOMY OR HOMOSEXUALITY.....even non Christians know this...you can google words straight out of the mouth of Jesus and he condems Sodomy and Jesus said out of his mouth marriage is one man one woman......the old testament condems this too....the Bible shows the culture of the day not just God's commandments....culture back then some men had more than one wife...but bible says marriage is one man one woman....God told the kings to not get multiple wives but they did it anyway some of it was political.....Yale is part of the deep state it is not the place to get good info on bible the deep state pushes homosexuality on everyone...
@Kokichi World Order prove it dear....it's in ten commandments it's in old mosaic law it's out of Jesus mouth in NT.....everyone even non Christians know this...
@@ruthietreselan You would be wise to educate yourself beyond the 8th grade level. You are a very ignorant person who knows nothing of the Bible…let alone politics. Get over it…there is no deep state and your orange headed nut is a loser 1
I have mad respect for Frank Zappa. Before he felt entitled to criticize Christianity, he read the Bible from cover to cover. Not many people can say that.
My entire family is religious and I am atheist. I'm also the only one that has entirely read the Bible. Somewhat ironic.
Anytime I bring up weird verses, they're like, "I have a hard time believing that's in the Bible..." And then they read it and have to go pray about it for understanding, a.k.a. forget that it exists.
@@joshua.merrill No it isn't most Christians I meet are basically Bible illiterate. They have differing copy Jesus loves you or Jesus smites everyone I dislike, but they haven't read it cover to cover nor do they care to do.
I read it twice. Word for word. Cover to cover. It's a mess of contradictions and tales rewritten from much older tales. And today's so-called "Christians" have no idea what Jesus' teachings were and live in opposition to them and don't even know it. And, by the way, Jesus wasn't the only one in the bible who cured the sick and brought someone back from the dead, and Jesus wasn't the only one in the bible who was resurrected.
Millions of people have read the Bible. It’s not that hard.
@@Mark-yb1sp Over 60% of all Americans can not cite five of the ten commandments. This was the result of a study done by a religious organization. Not to mention that for decades churches complain about a growing bible illiteracy.
big news for an American crowd...
we learned that genesis 1 and genesis 2 are not the same story
in protestant religious class
at Bavarian Gymnasium
in the 90s.
btw
in the German unified bible translation, a footnote (yes, footnotes in the bible...) elaborates on the discrepancies between both creation accounts, stating that the second is the older one.
I mean, not big news for all of us. A lot of the kids that went to like... catholic school and bible study classes are actually pretty well informed about a lot of these things.
I already knew about it. In fact I already know part of the Jewish explanation that has long been passed down in the oral tradition from teacher to students. The first creation account refers to the creation of Adam Kadmon, primordial Adam who exists at a higher level of the soul and of creation. The second account refers to the creation of Adam HaRishon from the dust of the earth. Also that term is more accurately translated as "side" not rib.
Can you help me see this piece through directing me toward the Protestant verses you are referring to? Please.
Not sure, but I do know Israel was divided into TWO kingdoms, Israel & Judah..and my recollection is that each story from both kingdoms is included in Genesis…see cosmologist Hugh Ross for a scientific affirmation of Genesis
When we got religious instruction, the Catholic priest would collect the Catholics. Since there were fewer of them, my sister thought, since she is normally special, she must be part of the crowd that left. Needless to say, my father was very proud.
My grandfather was a missionary's son, of the persuasion that succesive Catholic rulers have been trying to exterminate since 1415.
But yes learnt that also as a young man.
That's not true. One is a synopsis of the other. All of that other stuff is just later Jewish mumbo jumbo.
I'm having a hard time matching his word "on" from "on the day" with any translation or the original Hebrew. "In the day" seems to be how everyone translates that part. In vs on would lead to a different meaning.
Mikal Shabbat has a good grip on the scriptures.
He glosses over the nuances and how to understand the texts. He is not shooting for that. Instead he is using this micro-example to make a macro-conclusion, which is false - the bible teaches religious pluralism. He uses the bible as a prop. but he is right that we shouldn't do what he did and we would find it useful if we read it.
Useful in the way that heroin is useful. The difference? Heroin is easier to get off of, and society recognizes heroin ADDICTION as an ADDICTION.
00:43 Most American’s don’t read the Bible
2:00 Bible is used as a prop
2:55 People like "religious truth" of Bible
4:28 Religion tells us Bible has one meaning
6:45 Creation story #1
9:00 Creations story #2
12:10 Contradictions in creation stories
13:20 What creation stories tell us
14:45 Reading Bible in new way
15:25 Biblical authors shared two beliefs
16:34 Many truths equally Biblical
17:12 Religious pluralism is preserved in the Bible
17:52 Bible is about dialogue - not monologue
wtf is the point of doing that?
@@madsquid9943 So you don't waste your time with a pseudo academic getting woke-funding through grants
@@lauroandrea3241 Sounds like somebody doesn't like their story book being questioned. lol
Yep this guy's a moron... He has no idea what the Bible's telling us 🤣🤣🤣 but it ain't what he thinks!! Absolutely astonishing how many stupid people there are on this planet
@@adamlangton1967 ah finally... A decent, if not sincere, challenge...🤣 No I know you're being sarcastic... No need for me to lift myself up above my station.... If you get a genuine question about some portion of the Bible though give me a shout... I know Someone who knows it backwards and forwards.... Or is that forwards and backwards ...I forget... Oh yeah, bring cash 🤣
“The Bible doesn’t say what you think it does.”
Goddamn quintessential christian statement right there, even and especially toward other christians.
Yep…that’s how it works with most of them.
They don't read it.they pay a man to lie to them.
Hmmm... To the right of the video, among the recommended videos, is found a video bemoaning scientific illiteracy. Could it be that these idealogical and cultural wars can be mediated by literacy in general?
I think that's a huge part of it. I feel the public has been de-educated systematically, and although I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that this has been strategic. Many people thought updates about Covid-19 precautions were "flip-flopping" that proved you can't trust science; those who understand even a little about how science works understood that information is updated to include new data.
Well I've seen the other video by Tyson... The most you can ever get out of him is how stupid religious people are... I've never seen him offer up any science or scientific literature... Or even a science experiment... I think the science Guy might be even smarter than him... Except the science Guy always steps out of his area of expertise... Not being 13 and a half billion years old he don't know shinola 🤣🤣🤣
Walter Kaufman used to cal this exegetical thinking:using a sacred text to give authority to personal arguments or ideas.
@XICODECOPA "Slavery" in Jesus' time was indentured servitude. If you were in poverty, you attached yourself to someone with money; you worked as a servant and could eventually buy your way out. It was their version of welfare: what to do with the poor.
Today we have debt slavery, and leftist "Christians" are OK with that. The laws in Moses' time forgave debt every 7 years. Sounds like I'd rather live under Moses than in the world today.
@XICODECOPA enough. Nobody cares and stop spamming every comment.
Sacred? Lmao
@@TheRKae apologist bullshit. Even if that were true, it still says you're allowed to BEAT THEM as long as they don't die. Foh.
@@TheRKae ""Slavery" in Jesus' time was indentured servitude. "
Mostly NO. Many bibilcal slaves are totally owned by their masters, as are their wives and children. Yahweh commands his people to take (permanent) sex slaves from vanquished enemies (after slaughtering their families). Even in Roman Judea, slaves were still property.
Stop making excuses.
So essentially...the bible is riddled with contradictions and flaws, but can I still massage it to cling on to theology. That's not critical thinking.
Ian Banks
Materialism, physicalism and determinism
This leads to substance monism
Spiritual being is dogmatically excluded
Its laws are Contingent And Changeless laws
Expressionless mathematically
Teleology is rejected
No ultimate cosmology is possible without the infinite regress.
No free will exists, therefore
No ontological or “deontological” ethics
No theodicy
No eschatology
Principle method of investigation induction empiricism
Its metaphysic is inaccessible empirically.
The metaphysic of religion is more involved. It continues rightfully to exist as I will suggest, because what science is limited to by fiat does not satisfy existentially. It requires most of the presuppositions of naturalism plus its own. This creates the most contentious and irreconcilable aspects of the entire problem.
Empiricism cannot prove its ontology is either true or that it represents the justifiable extent of human knowledge. Religion likewise cannot prove its ontology and therefore its knowledge is based on an alternative metaphysics. The metaphysic of science cannot validate itself or refute the metaphysic of religion and vice versa. Both ultimately must rely on transduction, or inference to the best explanation.
Like science the existential must invoke a minimal metaphysic without which it cannot begin to do what it must. But contrary to science, it cannot reject materialism. The unfortunate result is dualism, which has never been reconciled.
Unfortunately, the great paradigmatic revolution created a virtual insurmountable problem. This problem is suppressed, but this tactic is failing. It is failing because it’s resolution depends on the resolution….
🐆🐿🐿🐿🐿🐿🐿🐿🐿🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵
Zak
Its mostly implicit ontology that defines the existential, and lies at the foundation of its incompatibility, maintains,
Substance Dualism, as both matter and mind are presupposed.
Libertarian Free will must exist. Without it there can be no morality
Definition of virtue must be based thereon.
Teleology is therefore an implicit fact
Non contingent Cosmology becomes necessary assuming God is the first and self-caused cause
Theodicy becomes essential to resolve an all perfect God with the state of the world and injustice
Eschatology follows
Principle investigative method is rationalism. The religious ontology cannot be subject to empiricism as defined by science.
That took an awfully long time to say very little.
Ian Banks
My thoughts exactly.
To quote myself from another place: "Genesis describes the order of creation before science did. The only piece that's out of order is the sun and plant matter, and given that ancient people knew the importance of the sun to plant matter (and this is demonstrable) really only a very dumb atheist would think the authors switched that order unintentionally. (That is to say, there's a powerful theological point being made there.) There is no other creation story that achieves this unless it's one really really obscure.
Moving forward, the common atheist objection to this is that "the Bible describes a literal six days", yet the literal six days is a young doctrine that correlates to the emergence of Protestantism. It actually isn't orthodox theology, and you can see even as early as the Apostle Paul and I believe the Apostle Peter the treatment of Genesis as symbolic - Paul with actual characters such as Sarah and Hagar and Peter I believe with the flood. So that particular objection from atheists would only affect certain sects of Protestantism. (Most such objections only affect certain sects of Protestantism.)
Moreover, the first two chapters of Genesis don't contradict at all. They were actually written by two different sources. The first source, "J", wrote the second chapter as the beginning of what is considered to be the first work of long prose in history. Ergo the story-like nature of Genesis 2 as well as other parts of the Bible like most of Exodus, let's say.
Chapter 1 has different source and is written with zero story elements on the other hand, so that's evidence of different genres. In which case, the two can't contradict because they're talking about different things and are written in two different ways: Genesis 1 records creation in non-novel language and Genesis 2 and 3 tell the story of the degeneration of creation with explicitly novel language.
That's because everything written by J is essentially a historical-novel and should be read as such. (Which also explains why Jews, who burned texts they didn't like or thought were disfavorable, didn't care about the contradictions between Kings and Chronicles, such as the recorded quantities of charities used in war: Chronicles was the actual historical record and Kings is apart of what is basically a novel work.)
The point being that in all, the inspiration of the Bible actually remains in tact. Certain extra-biblical traditions on the other hand, not so much.
Textually speaking the Inspiration (not Dictation) of the Bible is mostly evidence by its unity of message. From Genesis to Revelations it's theme is one thing all the way through and that's Christ."
Think again. bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/the-creation-order-of-genesis
Anki and Anlil. "Let us make them in OUR image".
Monotheism was an idea that evolved over time. The early parts of the Bible support henotheism. The first unqualified statement of monotheism doesn't appear in the Bible until Isaiah 44:6.
So, Genesis II being included shows that from the beginning of time no one could agree.
That was a gloriously excellent talk. It contains at its core an argument I have been making now over hundreds of conversations for several decades now. It is a joy to see it so coherently made in a short 20-minute video. We are, as it were, meant to wrestle with God continuously.
That's a waste of time and a source of division. If there was a god, his instructions would be unambiguous.
I would argue that the Bible is a window on how people thought in a world that has long since passed, and nothing more.
Or not. If people admit that it's just words written by people then the whole thing becomes more clear.
Let’s Go Baden
A problem with this, is comparing the English "day" word usage in two sentences, when the Hebrew words are different. One refers to a period of time differently, and in some English translations of Genesis 2, they actually used "during the time of" and not "on the day" as a literal single day. So they are more complimentary than contradictory, with no implication of literal sequence in Genesis 2. It's a retelling of the events of "the time". Whether the events are metaphorical or literal is a different debate. Either way, getting hung up on "day=day" as referenced here really misses the point anyway. That said, the Bible is far too often used out of context as a prop on all sides, that is unfortunately true.
Ironically, the fact that the bible is notoriously difficult to faithfully translate makes it all the harder to believe that it is the inspired word of god. Actually, it makes it quite absurd.
Yeah I was wondering about that
Because of the phrase "back in the day..." and how even in English, it can be less than literal.
@@Elite7555 , sorry I can interpret your comment several ways so it must therefore be absurd. :)
Every language has its level of precision. It is absurd to try to be more precise with the ideas mentioned than the precision that the language allows.
@@allenrhoades8482 Elite's comment isn't the implied basis of morality for an entire group of people. If you write a text that you expect people to live by, it's absurd and cruel to make it in a way that will inevitably cause confusion and violence among believers and non believers.
A religious text should be held to much more rigorous standards than a RUclips comment
@@Elite7555 (relatively) shortly after this Genesis narrative the difficulty of translating between languages is presented as an intentional punishment from God in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Bravo.
The first time I had this notion was reading about Delilah. Delilah seemed out of place in the story of Samson. Then my mind put 2 and 2 together. Delilah must have been grafted onto the story of Samson from other stories.
considering that the video presents: "the a-p-p-l-e and the snake" shows that the presenter is full of ignorance and most definitely not reliable source of information (6:20)
How does Delilah seem out of place.
ruclips.net/video/4bNOvZJcKiE/видео.html&ab_channel=Biography
Seems very much in place.
@@idminister nitpicking aside, Genesis chapters one and two are logically inconsistent and point to the conflation of multiple creation stories, likely due to multiple source texts being grafted together.
My biggest pet peeve with Christians is when they say "the Bible says..." when they should say "Paul said..." or "The book of Exodus says..." and act like that is an idea that the entire Bible espouses, when it may not be. My second biggest pet peeve is when they take a promise or quote directed at one man, and present it as applying to everyone. For example, after Moses died, God spoke personally to Joshua and gave him a speech that pertained to him alone. God told him that he would conquer the entire promised land, that no man would ever be able to withstand him, and that he would keep the law his whole life. Lastly, God reminded Joshua that he commanded him to be strong and courageous, because God would be with Joshua wherever he went.. Christians will so often quote Joshua 1:9 out of context and act like God was promising every person ever, that he would be with all of them everywhere they go. And before someone says "but God is omnipresent; of course he's with everyone." Either some of the biblical authors didn't know that, or you are misinterpreting what the biblical authors meant when they said God was with someone. 1 Samuel, 18:12 "And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul." Saul displeased God; therefore God "departed" from him. God promised Joshua that he would never depart from him. One might as well say "the Bible says 'put to death men and women, children and infants'." Technically it does, but that's hardly an instruction for everyone who reads it.
In short, please stop saying "the Bible says" and please stop presenting promises/instructions/rhetorical questions that were directed at one person, as if they were directed at everyone. Thanks.
That's why we study the Bible, rightly dividing the word of truth! Yes idiots claim promises and rules from previous covenants.
My biggest pet peeve is people who shun the condemnation part and quote only for the warm hugs: the cheap gracers.
You are going to have to stay "peeved." The Bible, the whole thing...is God's Word. Second Timothy 3:16 and 17. Check it out.
@@arthouston7361 You got me. Lol
@@arthouston7361 "The Bible, the whole thing...is God's Word... It says so in the Bible!" (ugh. Quran says the same thing; does that make it true? Check it out)
Great presentation. As a lifelong atheist, I have always maintained that the value in the Bible is available as metaphor and parable, and even as a look into the metaphysical roots of the human psyche and culture. It doesn't need to be literally true for there to be some value to it, and that's a good thing, since it is very evidently not possible for it to be literally true.
The big secret that has been kept from you materialists is that your entire world view has been buttressed by a million mile long series of assumptions to make your world view possible.
If you ever get into the Nay sayers like Dr. James Tour , scientist extraordinaire , you ( well not you blind atheists ) will have to spend the rest of your life screaming enraged at your monitor because this whole friggin universe takes uncountable miracles just to exist .
@@theodoremartin6153 lol. James Tour is the man you hold up here? Alrighty. Have a good day bud.
@@PurpleChevron ....well....I tried .(Bud crushes out cigar in super educated liberals forehead , twirls cane , strolls away)
@@theodoremartin6153 you realize your response to me had nothing at all to do with my comment, right? When you use words like "worldview" and "blind atheists" you lose people. My "worldview" is based upon a preponderance of evidence and scientific inquiry. All of us have to presume somethings in order to operate, but all I must presume is that my cognition is not the result of some fabrication and that reality is not just a great big subjective illusion. The rest I can either deduce, infer or observe empirically, or I cannot know. It's just that simple.
@@PurpleChevron More psychobable.
Look , science boy . Just go on youtube and do every demon calling , cat slaughtering , black mass ritual you can find . Do 2 a day for a whole year . Then once your life is destroyed you will know through cause and effect that materialism is false . Then you can call out to Jesus Christ to save you from yourself and He will .
So give it the old college try ! What could possibly go wrong .
And get rid of the psychobable .
Ironically, professing himself to be wise, he became a fool.
Joel Baden is one of the best to ever do it! This talk was a banger!!!
So basically, you’re saying that when it comes to the Bible that all of those 400+ contradictions are not contradictions but different viewpoints and that somehow by extension every splintered branch of Christianity has it right no matter which contradictions they hold to or ignore. And you wonder why people the world over just decide to drop kick this bullshit compilation over the fence and into the bonfire next door
What contradictions?
ruclips.net/video/kOKXv28GdD0/видео.html
@@d-vision2426 Jesus and Paul have contradictory paradigms.
Christianity is the lovechild of Paul. It fundamentally has nothing to do with Jesus.
Jesus saw potential in the individual. Paul saw potential only in Jesus.
Jesus said it is vital to clean the inside of the cup. Paul said it is vital to believe in Jesus to be clean, or pure. Paul saw the individual as fatally flawed and incapable. Jesus' words disagree, "Your faith has saved you."
Furthermore, even the gospels disagree with each other.
Ye are the temple.
Ye are the living scriptures.
Ye are the truth.
This resonates with Jesus. It does not resonate with Paul, the father of Christianity, the reason why it does not resonate with Christianity.
The Gnostics understood that the seeker must introspect to evolve spiritually.
Show me some contradictions
@@mikeq5807 Jesus saw people as flawed too. That's why he came. Once we put our faith in what Jesus did, God now sees us as perfectly righteous.
"There are many truths here." the start of a lie.
eerily similar to "alternative facts"
@@madsquid9943 No... every interpretation of any text is a "truth" of its own. There never has been only one truth. This is what life is like - not just the bible.
Wow I've got to use this twice in 15 minutes "boom shaka baka" plus I'm stealing it
@@graemeroberts3069 I don’t think you know what the word, truth, actually means. Sad. Many people like you. That is why the world is a mess.
I think the two text being different helps you learn how to think and interact with people. If you pay attention to what people say and things start to contradict each other then that person is lying and there is more under the surface that is being hidden,you may or may not be ready for the actual truth or disclosing everything would be detrimental because evil can get a leg up on you. I also think every situation isn’t black and white and you have to contend with your thought to come to a conclusion.
A creation story that begins with light and God's reflection or image and ends with the declaration: "...and God saw EVERYTHING he had made and behold it was very GOOD." Compare that with the account of creation that originates in dust, eventuates in sin, and ends with alienation from God. Which account is at the core of your theology and self-understanding. Which is likely to lead one out of the wilderness?
It depends on whether you feel you are in a wilderness to begin with. I think we're still in the Garden, the garden that is the Universe with all its wonders that science reveals. The Garden is neither good nor evil; there are lambs and lions, and they're in the food chain. The problem isn't theodicy, the problem is that we still look to a non-existent god with all of the confused and confusing scribblings that attends belief for explanations of our problems, while ignoring the very obvious but uncomfortable solutions that lie within our power.
I recall a very in-depth study of the Torah and Talmud by a group of Jewish and secular scholars. They found that when the Northern and Southern tribes were separate (Israel and Judah) they each had their own scribes and stories (texts). When the two reunited after a few centuries they combined their archives. The result is some of the variations in what we call the Old Testament. Another book that puts context to the events in the bible is Asimov's Bible.
The Dead Sea scrolls disprove you…
Well, first. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not disprove me. I still exist as me. The earliest of the DSS texts are from about 300 BC. The rejoining of the Northern and Southern tribes had already happened. No one is quite sure who wrote the DSS. It's possible it was a sect in conflict with another sect. All interesting. Doesn't actually prove or disprove many things. And I still exist as me, so the Dead Sea Scrolls definitely don't disprove me or anyone else. :D Blessings.
@@WolfQuantum where and what are these variations you speak of? Some texts have been lost but not altered? During that time It was still one religion. The amount of detail I. Prophecy, the way and reason Christ is not welcomed in the the inn… spoken about in II Samuel. There is mo way Rabbis would preserve the stories speaking to Jesus’s birth. And 1 Ezekiel’s 4 beast speak to the 4 nature of Christ, a Lion King, Bull servant/sacrifice, a man to take the place of a man…. There is no way that much detail can be collaborated if people changing stories…. People who don’t know the Bible think they know the Bible
Did God put us on this earth with the deliberate intention of confusing us ?
After all he supposedly confused the languages lmao
yes
I apologize for this taking 2 years to answer, but I just saw this video and your question and felt inspired to reply, which is non-typical in my case as I will not engage in theological debate, but your question seemed earnest and you appear to believe in God. Hopefully, you have already discovered this and made your decision, but if not, here you go. If you are not a lover of the truth, if you will not believe the truth, then this Book will never make sense to you and the heretical and blaspemous utterings of a fool who thinks himself wise will make sense to you. The fool cannot discern what he is reading because he does not believe, so he makes fantastic claims that are untrue, unless you are an unbeliever. The Book says it it is written so that those who do not believe will not understand, by design, as they do not have the Spirit in them, that is the reason for confusion. I understand this as I have lived it. The sinner loves his/her sin, so they chose not to believe, or worse, to change. Atheists have nothing to lose as they never really believed or they changed their mind but probably never really believed, but an agnostic should make a choice if they believe in a creator as they have everything to gain. That is the question you have to answer for yourself, does He exist and do you want to change. The question is always why does He let this happen or that happen, why, why, why. The answer is completely elementary to me, this is a test and you have free will, there are 10 rules you must follow, now chose. Not chosing is an option for the agnostic, it is also a choice. The Book says those that believe and receive the Son, seek redemption and follow the 10 rules will not suffer the second final death, and baptism will cause the spirit to flow into you enabling discernment and preventing delusion, look around you...
God Bless
@@Nunya_Business_ Thank you.
If you know who God is, you'll know that the answer is yes.
The two rabbis story sounds like the Certs commercial from decades ago:
"Certs is a candy mint." "No, Certs is a breath mint." "No, Certs is two mints in one."
I didn't realise, at the time, that the narrator for the commercial was actually 'God' (moonlighting, doing voice-overs?)
It's all made up and its purpose is to sell something (something you probably don't want or need.)
Ford v. Chevy... Coke v. Pepsi... tribalism...
@@butlernov2006 Will I get another if I remind you that onions, although not candy, serve a dual purpose too? :D
in the German unified bible translation, a footnote (yes, footnotes in the bible...) elaborates on the discrepancies between both creation accounts, stating that the second is the older one.
The next talk. How interesting is it that there’s three stories about a list of rules to follow and the list everyone knows and calls the commandments isn’t the same as list in the Bible that the Bible calls the commandments. It’s a fascinating book.
Fascinating as a source to understand how stone/bronze age societies tried to make sense of the world, and mostly failed.
A couple of the audience look like they're going to pull a pitchfork out from under their chair and rush the stage
I think you're crediting the differentiated stories with more intention than is probably the case.
I agree. The implication is that mankind was told how it all began but that God either couldn't remember how he did it and told different things to different scribes or he intentionally told a lie so that people would doubt everything he said. Neither make sense but if the bible are his words then it is one of them.
Look up the definition of chiasm. It explains the grammatic structure of the two creation accounts. The revelation is written in chiastic structure as well.
Saving Jesus from the Christians is what I think of. That's a tough one.
Yes Jesus came down to preach love for all mankind - but Christians have used him to preach division and hate. "Heaven only if you follow Jesus"
That means billions of Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists will find themselves as Jews in Nazi Germany in the after life. Condemned for their beliefs & dumped into gas chambers in hell!
And they can PROMOTE SUCH NAZI IDEAS OPENLY!
That is what is really frightening!
Sad thing is the plot twist that's to come, the so called anti christ that comes will be the next sage for the next age of involution for humanity and the "Christians" are going to kill that person due to ignorance
@@l_cuzzo_l1214 Amazing to see grown adults discussing the Cinderella story as if it is real
Sir, you need to live in the REAL WORLD that God made for us - a REAL WORLD with real problems that need ordinary humans to step up and solve - not hope for a magic knight in shining armor to come save us damsels in distress
@@ramaraksha01 who said i believe in the cinderalla story lol. I do live in the real world there is no knight in shining armor coming on a damn cloud to save us i know this already
@@ramaraksha01 yep that's the way it goes. If you have complaints bring it up with Jesus on judgment. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
No one else.
Takes 5 days to create this huge planet and only ONE day (day 4) to create the sun, moon, and stars.
That make sense.
A classic example of religion's egocentrism.
@Brandon Johnson The sun, moon, and stars are dead?? Not quite..
@Brandon Johnson So there's no other life anywhere else?
It does if you're bigger than the universe and you live outside of time space and matter... And have total control and a master plan... Makes a lot more sense than a giant explosion from nothing... creating everything,..🤣🤣🤣
@@jimhughes1070 You have been indoctrinated... seek help. Your ideas are childish and silly.
I'm watching this for the third or fourth time because in the new speaker of the house's first remarks he said he looked up in the balcony and saw Moses. I wonder what we're in store for.
What did god do on day 8 that it did not do on day 7? Are we supposed to be resting on all days after our own day 6?
Ummm, he played a little game with the 2 Samuel quote that he was not called on. The Original quote included "two women", meaning his two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail. I am not sure this had any sexual connotation.
I'm sure it certainly didn't.
@@vedinthorn , would you like that sourced? So, lets start with the Targum. Secondly, he seemed to suggest that there was erotic or homosexual connotations to this verse, an opinion that is supported by other facts.
@@brianfree7675 supported by pure imagination, frankly.
@@vedinthorn like the whole bible. If you like it you might like the story of King Arthur and the knights of the round table, that's a good yarn too.
@@tonycook7679 thanks for saying one of the more ignorant things I've read this week.
imperfect person explaining the writings of imperfect people in front of an imperfect audience and being judged by imperfect commenters on youtube
I'm glad you have that self awareness...what day did God create obviousness though?
@@field369 I too am glad that you also have the self awareness to point out the obvious that it was obvious. I'm not sure when God created obviousness though. I'm not even sure if God even exists.
@@ahyaok100 live your life...i know for a fact though...when you seek ethereal energy humbly, shit happens. Do you though.
What's your point exactly?
Imperfect people are capable of writing, explaining and or understanding things just fine. That much is obvious surely!
Having the audacity to judge God who created everything, who is perfect (divine) omnipresent, omnipotent, unchanging and eternal.
My family is very divided by the different beliefs they get from their different denominations. It has separated my family, it has NOT united my family.
Excellent thoughts and presentation.
Once people stop thinking the Bible is a history book, you`ll start to understand what those stories really mean.
(Edit) Those stories are not of history, but of deep consciousness.
Yes. They will simply understand, that these stories are just a work of fiction as found in many other books.
@@adamturowski3765 - If you think they are works of fiction that is your right to think so. Those stories are not of history, but of deep consciousness. To bring light and balance to people's lives. Those that believe those stories are made up, usually live unbalanced lives.
@@OUigot Do you realize that fiction means made up stories?
EDIT: Pressed send button too quickly. You claim that people who think that these are made up stories have unbalanced lives. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
@@adamturowski3765 - Sure, right after you show me evidence that these stories are works of fiction. I'll be generous and give you a year or two in your search.
Even if it isn’t exact history is doesn’t refute the New Testament
He made a perfect argument for atheism.
Yes , yes he did... With lies, straw man, Misquotes, and sleight of hand by attempting to appear as "an angel of light"...(did you get that hint ?)
@@jimhughes1070 Mr. Jim Hughes...you are a goddamn genius
You will believe in Christ
@@NC-bs6yi I know right!!
@@user-wn8mc1yc1g yes , yes they will...
The opening chapters of Genesis are not "dialogue" as Joel Baden says, rather, it is revelation, which is necessarily monologue. If you want dialogue, go to the Psalms and read some of the prayers of the Psalmists and the way God answers them or the Gospels where God Himself engages personally in dialogue. In fact the great arch of the Biblical message is a dialogue of sorts, with the final word being given by God, namely His Son Jesus Christ, where God the Son says, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".
For those sincerely wishing to find the real answers to Joel Badens attack upon the Word of God, (which he, being a Hebrew Scholar should be well acquainted with) there is an article specifically written to rebutt such accusations. However I am unable to state it openly in a link as the post will be deleted. All I can say is that the main subject of this video is "creation". And if one should directly append to this word, using the phonetic alphabet, Delta Oscar Tango Charlie Oscar Mike, you will end up in the right place. A safe place, a good place. You should then search for the article using the key words "genesis" and "contradictions". Take the first search hit.
Hear the Word of God:
He who is estranged seeks pretexts to break out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. When wickedness comes, contempt comes also; and with dishonor comes disgrace. The words of a man's mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a gushing stream. It is not good to be partial to a wicked man, or to deprive a righteous man of justice. A fool's lips bring strife, and his mouth invites a flogging. A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself.
(Proverbs 18:1-7 RSV)
Back in *the day,* I was really arrogant and claimed that "day" meant a literal 24 hour period.
Now that I'm not so arrogant, I realize "the day" can mean a period of time when an event or events occurred.
No, I think day means a day. I'm not sure why it's arrogant to favor a certain interpretation over another, as long as you have good reasons. If you don't have good reasons, it's bigoted, but not arrogant.
@@michaellowe5558 Like I said, "Back in the day..." I claimed differently than I do now. The key to understand the words I used in my post is to ask me what they meant. You cannot accurately interpret them. Only I can. So feel free to ask me what I meant by "Back in the day..." The same goes for ANYTHING in the Bible. If you wish to know what a particular passage means, you should permit the Author to interpret it FOR you. But who today does that??
Back in the day I was really arrogant and claimed that the Bible was logically consistent.
It constantly amazes me that people actually believe this kind of rubbish.
Just look outside, and you will see it's not rubbish, it's happening as we speak.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa Ridiculous superstition.
@@hawaiisidecar To think it's a superstition is to assume that almost all of our ancestors were idiots, and that the only ones who wrote anything down were fantasy novelists. Is that a theory you are confident in?
@@PhilosophyOfNoa We are still very much idiots, but the ones who wrote the Bible only lived about half as much, so we must be smarter about some things.
Also the authors of the Bible didn't have the same goals as fantasy novelists: if anything, they'd be more accurately described as a propaganda bureau than a literary clique.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa I would say they were more susceptible to bad rhetoric.
Also it would be like assuming all people from that time were completely honest.
Sneaky bit of religious apologism here. Lol. "The bible should still be the authority, but let's be careful with it" Also the 80 percent belief in bible figure is misleading at best, "None" is the fastest growing answer in polling in the US when the question is "What religion are you?".
@XICODECOPA while I agree with you, perhaps you should spellcheck your comment before cut/pasting it all over the threads.
"...and that multivocality is imbedded in the text, right from the word go.... it's almost like a statement of intent: 'Here is what this book is'." ✔
No two people have ever seen the same movie. No two people have ever read the same bible. Statement of intent or not, that just seems to be the way it works.
In recent years I am drawn more & more to those Old Testament texts that lament the vain striving of man.
Man should relegate himself to menial labor in service of his superiors, right?
The words of men, not the words of any God.
@B D I would love to see concrete evidence. Where is it? I’m not being snide, as I actually want to see it. I want to see something that I can actually feel, not something that I can merely have faith in.
@B D hey, I asked you a question, so why haven’t you answered me? I’ve looked in many places but there is no evidence. The only claims that I found were merely faith-based, meaning it is not proof. So tell me, where is the proof?
It seems to me that the speaker is pushing some sort of post-modern relativistic approach to scripture. I agree with his view that the bible is contradictory, but not his conclusion. It is impossible for 2 incompatible statements to be simultaneously true, but it is possible that both are false when a perfect dichotomy is not present. The bible has too many logical, scientific, historical, and moral contradictions to be anywhere near truth. Truth is 'that which is consistent with reality.' The bible is not consistent with reality, and therefore not true.
The speaker is pushing some sort of ancient Jewish approach to scripture, an older traditional approach to scripture. Our notions of factual history, of "facts", is what is new, of actual reality rather than mutable memory (that changes every time we bring up a particular memory and fades if we don't), of verifiable information that has given us computers and cars and vaccines and weather satellites. Myths were never ment to taken that way, as literal truth.
Wholly agree... The account of the Resurrection in the 4 Gospels just cannot be reconciled..! How can a single event has four different versions? Either one is correct and if so, which one? Or all four are just mere fairy tales..
Actually... I don't think 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 is the one who can read. I'll be quoting from the NKJV since that's the Bible I have open right now but I'm pretty sure other translations should be quite similar:
Genesis 2:8;
"The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."
Just this passage alone shows us that the narrative has now shifted from the Creation account in the broad and general sense found in the earlier chapters of Genesis towards a more focused in-depth illustration of what exactly transpired during the 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘯.
PART 1: "The LORD God planted 𝐚 𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 . . ."
Scripture now isn't referring to the Creation story of the 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡. It's referring to the creation of 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 on a now 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐝 Earth. An Earth that is no longer void and without form ie, an Earth that now has waters and [ 𝘥𝘳𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 ].
PART 2: ". . . and there He put the man whom He 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝."
𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 = [ 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 ] . . . Whatever events proceeded from Genesis 2:8 𝐨𝐧𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 happened 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 the Creation of the Earth and the first Man. Scripture is clear. The events to follow are now occurring in a specific place on the Earth, ie. THE GARDEN. This explains why the narrative now jumps from a "watery chaos" to that of "dry dust". The Earth was no longer a chaotic watery mess. We are now looking at the events that transpired in the Garden [ 𝘥𝘳𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 ]. This also explains the change in the order of Creation. The events that transpired 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 are not the same events that transpired earlier in the Creation story - 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝. And because this is now a closer, more in-depth re-telling of the creation account 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘯
, Genesis 1:26 - 31 serves as the 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐄 for Genesis 2:8. This is why Man is now first instead of last in the Creation account from Genesis 2:8 onwards as opposed to the earlier verses of Genesis . . .
But why the change in order . . . ?
PERHAPS, one of many possible reasons could be the fact that God wanted Adam to witness His work in action. Which explains why Eve fell for the Serpent's temptation first having failed to witness God at work first-hand (her faith and therefore surety in God's Word was weaker than Adam's - it's hard to believe in something or someone that you have not seen with your own eyes, in this case what Eve failed to witness was the Lord's COMPETENCE as God allmighty - and as an extension, the integrity of His Word. Interesting how Jesus mentioned, "blessed are those who have NOT SEEN and yet BELIEVE).
That doesn't mean Adam is without fault. I don't know, this is just my personal conjecture from Scripture. But it is an interesting after thought . . .
Genesis 3:6
". . . She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."
Adam was 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 Eve when the temptation happened and he just stood idly by and allowed whatever happened soon after to happen . . .
Moral of the Story: Read the Bible 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲. I will agree with Joel Baden on one thing and that is the title he had chosen for the topic of his talk. The Bible Doesn't Say What You Think it Does.
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧.” ― Charles Spurgeon
@@sunluenng3475 Reading the bible carefully is what changed me from a 40-year evangelical into an atheist.
I respect your opinion. I believe, however, that the Bible is a spiritual Rorshach test given to us by a more advanced sentient intelligence (I'm not saying it's aliens, but...).
Testament = Test a mentis (Latin disambiguation for mental or mind). Test a mind.
Atonement = At one mind or made whole
Government = Rulers of the mind
These might not be an entirely accurate reflection of their etymology. But I can't ignore the symbolic significance that interpreting these words as such have for me. Their subsequent meanings fairly reflect reality if one looks closely enough.
One of the best examples of what he's getting across is the 10 Commandments. There are really four mentions of them (two are complete), and this gets even more to the point of expected human behavior than the example cited (The Creation of the Universe). It was a great talk, but it should have been emphasized at the end that this "multiple story" situation continues throughout both the Bible and the New Testament, right up to and after Jesus' death. Endless contradictions that can't be explained away by "Biblical scholars." And all can be read by people with open minds and they can then try to understand what each version might have meant to those who wrote it and whether or not those readings have meaning with us today.
So how do you get "endless contradictions" from a finite source?
Care to name a few les contradictory than your statement?
Mercy... I would have thought he had already done enough damage with his BS... I've heard a lot of Bible scholars.. they're not very scholarly... But I haven't read many contradictions in the many times that I've read it over the past 35 years... I have learned a bunch though... It all seems to revolve around cause and effect though... Reaping and sewing baby... The truth of the world
I find it very compelling that the very first thing created is time: with the emergence of light, there for the first time is a difference between "before" and "after", the first change, hence: time. And with the simulataneous separation (of light and dark), there is: space.
That´s some brilliant writing and contemplation, to realize that without time & space, there can be nothing. And that time and space are probably restricted to the realm of the creation, not the creator...
Yea but you think light can exist without space ?
@@briannjoroge1033 no, why? that´s exactly why light, and the first change from chaos, implies space and time. Pretty similar to what the popular understanding of modern cosmology is. And as I said elsewhere, I do not think the text was ever meant to be an account of history or causality, or the physical world, merely an exercise in logic to establish fundamental relations
@@paavobergmann4920 yea i get what you are saying but it’s different from our current understanding of the Cosmos esp from what you said in the first reply that from the separation of light and day we get space which should be Vice-versa but as you said it’s not about causality or scientific accuracy but the logic behind it and I agree it’s somewhat brilliant esp considering the time
@@briannjoroge1033 Yeah, I think that´s what I meant. I didn´t want to say "Oh, look, that´s what the bible told all along", I wanted to say, that, for a text that, in my opinion, is an invitation to contemplate one´s own constitution and relation to the cosmos, and, as you correctly pointed out, in it´s time, it is surprisingly close in its fundamental aspects.
Isn´t it that time and space as we know them originated in the BigBang? One wonders, where that image came from. Ok, yes, sure, the early universe was opaque, light could propagate only some time later.
It´s just that I think someone really thought about that.
@@paavobergmann4920 yes that’s the unanimous view in Cosmology, it’s funny that you get such a deep verse then some years later the church believes we’re the center of everything until Copernicus 😂
No one had to firmly believe that both stories had to be included. To me, it sounds like a political decision. Two early Yahweh cults merged and part of the understanding was the inclusion of their competing creation myths.
Interestingly, Yahweh is not mentioned in Genesis 1, only in Genesis 2. God is called Elohim in chapter 1. The Yahweh cult could have come later and included the possibly older Elohim story in their compilation, for whatever reason.
@@singfree88 Works for me. I'd be fine with finding out they were two similar, but different cults who created Yahweh at some point in the merger, or later. It's tribal cults coming together, either way.
Interesting though that one of the gnostic gospels has Yawhew as an evil angel who created the world because he loved violence and chaos, the early church thought they had destroyed all of the gnostic texts but a cache was found no wonder they destroyed them though. Reading the gnostic gospels makes the church redundant really especially the wisdom of Sophia however the creation story as well as other myths were plagerised from the earlier religion of the Sumerians
@@firebyrd437 I think you're talking about the Book of Judas, where Yahweh comes from The Bardo, as does the "Devil", but in the guise of the foolish god (the Devil) and the malicious god (Yahweh) and they made heaven and earth to screw around with, basically. But where they come from is the True God and Jesus came from there, The Bardo, and he rejected Yahweh. Yep, fun book.
@@OneMoreJames Love what you did with those thunderwords!
Day one: Let there be light. Day four: I'll make the sun, stars and moon. So how was there a day before the sun and moon, and how was there light?
Light I think means truth. The orthodox Christian church has a better understanding of creation.
go read psalm 104 or rev 21 and you'll get your answer
Magic!
@@peruviandude8258 (1) How do you know "light" meant "truth"? (2) Since nobody was around at the time light was created, who was the truth for? Bazinga.
@@glenhill9884 Because God is the creator of everything the visible and the invisible. The visible means matter and invisible means the metaphysical.
The Bible doesn't say what you think it does, except it absolutely does, except it absolutely doesn't.
11:51 What is that look?
Another retrofitting to appeal to the ever changing demands of humanity. As always, ignoring the irony of the final warning in Rev. 22: 18
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Whatever you do, don't breed. Please.
Sincerely,
The World
@@mbellizia75 well you have to admit that the claims in the video are just injecting his current day morals. No?
I don't often use this while the church service is going on, but..."boom shakalaka".. well said
So all the attendees of the First Council on Nicaea should be cursed+?
@@jessefitzgerald1292 as soon as you change the words.. and or the laws of God.. you are in danger of the judgment... Let's just say I'm glad I didn't take part...
The speaker himself, while saying that others do not know what they are reading, does not know himself what he is reading in the creation story. What a superficial speech.
Any evidence for your superficial speech?
Genesis chapter 1 doesn't match any specific detail in chapter 2. Literally.
@@rabokarabekian409 You should look up Documentary Hypothesis regarding the Old Testament.
Comparing Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 and looking for differences like this speaker is, is simply an indication of his ignorance and lack of Old Testament rudimentary knowledge. The two chapters come from two different documents and chapter 2 is simply a retelling of the story in chapter 1, with a bit of a different angle to it.
This is the same as comparing the gospel of John to any of the synoptics, and pointing out certain differences in the narrative.
It doesn’t require any type of theological knowledge to realize that this presenter, while accusing Christians of not understanding what they are reading, is guilty of the very thing he is accusing them of.
Just LOL.
He can't dazzle them with brilliance, he is baffling them with boochit
In short: liars have to lie.
@XICODECOPA Jesus would not be OK with slavery the way we understand it today. While I personally do not agree with slavery or other practices in ancient Israel, Greece, Roman Empire, etc., slavery in Rome was quite different than what we are used to reading in our recent history books or, for example, in Alex Hailey’s “Roots”.
In reality, slavery back then was very much part of the culture and often a way out of poverty or death for many. Some slaves ended up saving their families in the process. I don’t mean to give you a history lesson, but you are misunderstanding how slavery, or at least some cases of slavery worked in 1st century Rome, Greece, and Israel.
Jesus also did not free John the Baptist from jail, and John ended up being beheaded at the whim of a teenage dancer … Does that mean that Jesus abandoned John and did not care for him? Of course not.
I like the message. Took me a while to follow where you were going with this, but it reminds me of the Shakespearean quote from The Merchant of Venice: "Even the devil can site Scripture for his purpose."
Another way to think about it is that, by definition, God and anything pertaining to the popular belief of what the afterlife actually is must operate in the infinite. We, in our physicality, are inherently finite, and so if the book is supposed to tell us what heaven and God are, it can't do that in a precise way. Not because of any limitations by God, but because of our limitations. Therefore, it makes sense that the flavor of the Bible isn't precision, but stories, fables, poems, etc., that focus on what God and heaven (etc.) are like as opposed to what they absolutely, which can't very well be known without experiencing it.
I believe the Bible should be used as an exploratory tool of spirituality, not a book of absolutes or answers. I'd guess that if it was, our humanity would prevent us from comprehending such a thing anyway.
Or maybe the Bible is just a fallible book of human literature, pretending to be far greater than the sum of its parts.
@@cajunboy67 Of course it's fallible. There is human influence. Most people who take that position don't understand their own religion, or are part of a faith that is a bit too fundamental for my taste. What many religions contend is that the bible is infallible in its message when it comes to human salvation. I'm not trying to make an argument for or against, but even if it is, that doesn't mean that message is often clear, is the point.
I think you may be missing the point if the discussion. You don't believe--that is fine, but isn't really the point.
Using it as a prop? Outrageous! Who would do such a thing?
televangelists
Bef. 14:41 In fact, 1-1=0.
If two things oppose and are equal, they cancel. Suppose you have a temperature of 5° C. Then you get two factors, one would by itself pull it down to -5 ° C, another raise it to 15° C, simultaneously, and obviously, if they are equally strong, they cancel out, temperature stays 5° C, and the change in temperature is +-0.
The point in its entirety here is that there are two ways to create fundamentally if two descriptions of it can somehow true. That’s easy: two different types of creation are described.
@@joshuasiefring5810 It so happens, while God could have created in more than one way, He did in fact create the way He did.
It also so happens, the accounts do not contradict. The Bible does not follow a strict chronological order in its narrative, and the Genesis 2 account doesn't come after and is also not an alternative to the Genesis 1 account, it is a _closeup_ on the part of it that concerns man.
Two half nothings equal a whole nothing
That’s literally the secret in it. It’s about Christ and how that occurs if we seek to know with every ounce of your soul until you see it. Christ is about you being taught by Jesus as he attempts to teach it.
You cain't halve nothin' come from nothin' AND EQUAL NOTHIN-SOMETHIN' !!!!!!!
Nothing plus nothing DOES NOT equal NOTHING-SOMETHING !!! do you feel me .............................................................?????????????..................................................
@@joshuasiefring5810 So reading the Bible and believing in God isn't enough. You have to understand the Bible in the right way. Now which of those 100 denominations follows the right path?
@@joshuasiefring5810 See what?
That having blind faith is something that has never been proven to be real or true.
If religion is so true, why are their so many secrets and riddles in them.
Especially yours.
@@theresawilliams4296 Comparatively, all of the major religions were inspired by previous masters that walked the earth. To see through what you refer to as blind faith you must realize that you must have facilitated a high level of discernment through raising your awareness. You start to see how the words Jesus uses have an arrived at understanding given an etymology and exegesis surrounding them. This shows us we generally don’t have that awareness unless we’ve spent a lifetime devoted to reading and comparing all sacred texts. There is an evolution of conscious that results in developing a vision beyond sight. I’ve used many experts’ opinions and built upon their combined work to arrive at a cosmology that seems to satisfy many ideologies, sciences, religions, etc. Self realization is at the core of all of these including Jesus’ teachings.
He miss titled his video. It should have been, “The Bible Doesn’t Say What I Think It Does.”
soooooo good
About 45 seconds in, I was compelled to think: whenever any human being gives an exposition like this, rather blithely throwing out 'statistics ' and instant extrapolation, people should remember....take all such speeches, first, with a grain of salt
The statistic is what presenters call a hook (journalists call it a lede) which gives the audience something compelling to keep them listening.
Sure, take any data with some salt. But don't discount what he's saying because he didn't use a whitepaper to explain his opening premise for a 20 min presentation.
Big grain.
@@cyrenedomogalla5127 Agreed. Some people will attempt to hide behind a grain of salt to avoid accepting their beliefs are inaccurate.
Or, you could read the same passages he did and come to very similar conclusions...
"We lost the ability to read the bible more carefully". Very true. Less than a minute later he steps into this very same trap by mentioning the "apple" of the creation story. Now, the apple is part of our folkloristic tradition of bible reception, it is part of our religious iconography, therefore everybody is sure it is mentioned in Gen 2. - in fact it is not. We literally read things INTO the bible that are not in there.
NO apple at all in the text.
(Though it is a possibility, who knows, maybe a pomegranate, which is often referred to as a Chinese apple, but never the less, NO apple in the text.)
Yes, he trapped himself with his own snarkiness and erred even more.
Yes, he is guilty of exactly what he is criticizing.
@@revdavemapes No, he just highlighted how we have interpreted these things and added in our own words and understandings. In a throwaway comment, he shows how the narrative of 'Adam & Eve' has been (can we say) 'culturally appropriated' since an apple is a very 'European' fruit. Nothing snarky or errant in that.
@@thealternativeulsterman I think you are right save the apple came from Asia as well.
@@theslimecrew4827 Thanks for clarifying. 👍🏻
We need the earth to see the words whole relationship as we kneel and trace its whole image from gathering the shape.
I don't know what that means but it sounded pretty... Awaiting clarification
A lot of people who are now religious skeptics, but who used to be "true believers" say that their great moment of awakening came when someone came along and pointed out to them all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible. And this isn't just the creation story in Genesis or just the Hebrew Bible; it extends to the New Testament as well, and even into the gospels. You can find anything you want in the Bible, someone once told me, and everybody has their own cherry picked "proof texts" for this or that belief of theirs. I once saw two conflicting bumper stickers on the rear bumper of a born again Christian's car: One said "Fear not!" and the other one said "Fear God!" - and both were from Bible verses!
Unless one thinks as a child, he/she is not fit for the kingdom of heaven!
I'm not a bad bible apologist but when ch 2 uses the phrase "on the day..." I always understood it to be simply using the word day in a different way and not a reference to any particular fore mentioned creative day. So on day one I bought bread, day two I bought wine. (Now let's say Much later I would tell the story thus): Many years ago, on the day when I bought the wine and bread and we lived life so freely and we married and had children. Oh what a day that was.... It's a little silly for an academic to pretend he doesn't know this, even worse if he really doesn't know this. It's about tense. In what tense was the word day used in ch 1 vs the tense it was used in ch 2.
May I just add this little thought... He is not an intellectual,.. at least in the sense of being intelligent.... It's just me personally but I think he knew exactly what he was doing... Destroying the credibility of the Bible by making up lies and setting up straw Men to tear down to make himself look smart... And then brought in the devil's doctrines to complete the picture of "an angel of light"
Truth isn't a thought. You can't think the truth, you can only ' know ' it.
His perspective on the Bible is shaped by his Jewish faith. He doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. That makes a pretty large difference in how he and a Christian will perceive the Bible. Just FYI.
The fiction seems quite clear to me.
So... secularist viewpoint -- this is not divine truth, this isn't even a coherent message, chuck it? I am in your camp.
I like most of his points, but at the end he talks about "reading it" - I agree, but at what point do we start to "question it?" If "god" gave us brains then they were invented not to just absorb info, but to delve into it and test it against everything else. Also, this is only based on one sacred text. There are many many sacred texts, unmentioned in this talk
How are we able to test the text sir?
@XICODECOPA was human slavery the bondage that Jesus came to save people from? Is that the bondage that has many bound today? How was He supposed to free the slave from the powerful Romans?
@XICODECOPA I don't agree with slavery. Slavery is more alive today than ever before they just changed the name and rebranded sell it to you something else like employment at a slave plantation corporation instead of a community of equal standing members. Try free a slave and You might know how difficult it is. The difficulty isn't so much the freeing, but even getting them to recognize what they are in the first place and not kill you themselves instead from the cognitive dissonance of all let alone the masters who will definitely protect their property against you with no regard to your life.
It is wrong, but it's also wrong to force someone to be free If they choose to be a slave instead. The Logistics, reality and psychology of it all are much more complex and difficult then you could ever expect, not to mention all the necessities and realities that need to come after instead of just putting them in the desert and leaving them to die of hunger and thirst.
The homeless problem today is a direct response to a modern day exile and resistance to slavery. Slavery is a job today that you need to prostitute yourself out for.
Before you jump to a conclusion and attack a man's character for not forcing himself on to other people and in to their lives wile making demands and claims as to how they need to live their life and then Even if that works what one would do afterwards to make sure it doesn't just go back to the way it was. Maybe ask yourself how ridiculous and difficult such a thing might have ever been in the first place and how wrong your assumption truly is in the simplicity of your belief in it to accomplish such a thing.
Are you okay with corporations and people today being forced to work as debt slaves? I'm not going into it, but You're probably a slave yourself and don't even realize it yet. Then again I hope you never do, because you're ignorant might be bliss to you to never know the truth of who you are especially in the minds of other people.
@@derrickhahn3469
You can determine whether its broader message is still culturally relevant, for a start.
Really? "Creation is the story of who we are and why we're on this planet, Who we are to God and our relationship with all other living things." - And there's the problem with all religions, is so much of what they believe just isn't so.
Why is it that people who don't believe the Bible feel compelled to try and teach it? And you would think that a Hebrew scholar would recognize the Hebrew concepts and constructs in Genesis when he sees them. Apparently not.
Every culture on earth has a creation myth. Why can we not accept this as a creation myth? It is a myth that explains human consciousness. There is nothing good or bad about it. It is merely the attempt of an early people to explain to themselves why they have self-awareness.
Exactly. The Garden of Eden story is when humans realized their personal mortality. It's about evolving self awareness and personal responsibility.
Believe what you want. I find the Bible and it's not always easy to understand Teachings to be a comfort in MY Life. Life can get very difficult and I believe God Jesus is looking over all of us and died for our sins. His Love Mercy and Grace are there for us. Bless the Lord 🙏❤️ Amen
I always thought the two stories told more about the development of the human consciousness, and the relation of humans to their environment, than about the structure and development of the physical world. I think it never even aimed at providing a physical account of how the physical world came about. And the two stories are about different aspects of what goes on inside humans/humanity
@@davidahlers4324 It's not easy to0 understand because it contradicts itself and is full of false claims which cannot be tested.
Just because it makes you feel good doesn't mean it's right. Sugary treats make you feel good too. But they rot your teeth and destroy your body.
The answer to your question: people cannot accept it as mere myth when their eternity depends on believing it to be something more than mere myth.
What an illuniating and interesting thought. Thank you for your inspiring presentation.
considering that the video presents: "the a-p-p-l-e and the snake" shows that the presenter is full of ignorance and most definitely not reliable source of information (6:20)
* illuminating ?
Also wondering how the plants grew before sunlight.
Creation is just one of many "faithful" (ie, non-sensical) biblical stories. But that it's the beginning, the foundation of the doctrine, it should inform us about the rest of the equation.
When were plants made, Day #3?
And the "sun" was made when? Day #4?
Yeah, I don't know how the plants could survive without sunlight for one day.
It doesn't make sense at all. 24 hours is TOO long for a plant to be without sunlight.
@@rusosure7
A single day for your deity is a thousand years for humans.
So, no, the plants couldn't live a thousand years without sunlight.
Thanks for proving Baden's point, that most people who believe in the Bible don't actually read it.
But lemme guess: "In God, all things are possible," right? Lol
@@2get2Terrapin Is that what you believe? Well okay then. Far be it from *me* to say that you're ignorant.
But, whoa... doesn't this deity of whom you speak also consider a thousand years to be like a day?
HA! It's like it cancels out. COOL! But seriously. If you have to take something THAT FAR out of context, tsk tsk.
And here I was thinking your quote means that this deity exists outside of time. Uh, wouldn't this deity of whom you speak have to exist OUTSIDE of time, space, AND matter? Seeing as this deity CREATED all three on the very first verse? This deity of whom you speak MUST exist outside of time, space & matter to be able to create them. So what's your point?
Anyway, *yom* still generally means a night and a day in the physical realm. And as far as plants and light are concerned, that IS what we're talking about, right? The "physical realm"? I mean really, that chapter is about the creation of the physical realm, not the creation of this deity of whom you speak. Wow, that sounds so ridiculous. Creation of deity. Wow.
AAAaahhhh, but who am I kidding. You already know everything Armstrong. You don't mind me calling you *Armstrong,* do you? 'Cause that's quite a stretch you made. Of all chapters from which to quote, you picked the wrong one. Hmmm...checking out your chapter now. Let's just say that *"I"* am not calling you ignorant. lmao
@@rusosure7
Leave it to nut bags who believe in invisible men in the sky informing their brains to go on unintelligible rants.
Arguing based on the authority of the Bible is like arguing that 2+2=5 and therefore the rest of the equation is worth discussing.
I have known a few crazy loons who like to laugh. As long as you're a good person and not filled with the hate, murder and genocide that the Bible undeniably preaches and inspires.
Good luck, and be kind to others.
@@2get2Terrapin I must object lest you think your claims are accurate. Your first reply to me ends with "lol", so the crazy loon of whom you speak is the guy in the mirror, right?
And secondly, I never claimed this "deity" or "invisible men" in the sky as you stated. YOU are bringing them up.
Is it too hard for you to stay on point for that chapter? Really, is it? Stay on point. Day 3 plants. Day 4 sun.
What is amazing is that most Judeo-Christian churches combine and teach Creation making it a seven day event with man created on the last day followed by plants, animals and woman.
If Seth Green went to Divinity School....(you'll never unsee it.....)
HAA HAA ! True
No
Of course it's a problem;
No Intelligent creator god would ever convey its most important message to humanity in such a manner. (Not if this deity is supposedly benevolent as well, that is).
correct God/s could be malevolent but whos to judge if God is real. Though I know one thing - no one will be correct about their idea of God when they meet it.
@@mnm8818 _"Who's to judge_ (whether or not a god is malevolent) _if god is real"_ ? We are, of course. Or are you saying that might makes right?
Said: _"I know one thing - no one will be correct about their idea of God when they meet it."_ To _know_ that you need to know every god-idea ever conceived of by any human that ever existed _and_ know that this god isn't that, right? How could you know that? (or maybe you mean we could never have a complete picture of every characteristic of this god, which would make it a platitude, cause we don't even have such an extensive picture of _ourselves_ as a human being).
@@BorisNoiseChannel Yeah the judge God thing is more of a expectation from my thinking or its just a word not too say you can't negotiate/ discuss with God. Can't judge God and get a sentencing on his "bad" "good" behaviour unless we are more powerful then it and control what's "right". Bible God could be Lucifer since he's the ultimate deceiver king of Earth. As you sort of implied, how can we trust our own brain, feelings, life etc
(This might be more for God believers) well as all religious texts seem to be made by man or atleast written by them. So you have to believe man not God... Exactly like a salesman selling a car neither of yous have seen. You have to trust that they are selling you a red sports car but in the end you get a white van. Still a vehicle but none of you saw it Maybe read a vague poster about it.
@@BorisNoiseChannel I guess I'm the person if there's proof of God that isn't all goodie I'd believe it still. Eg. after I die I won't be telling that God off if I'm not punished. Cause truth is truth no matter what I or anyone believes. Ofcourse Christians believe a hungry death, torture, blood God without solid proof even...
@@mnm8818 We weren't talking about believing in this god (of course I'd believe so too if there's sufficient evidence for it); we were talking about _judging_ this god's benevolence/malevolence, right?
thanks you for sharing. There must be some reason these educated people are doing it.
Apart from what you share. I can easily see that the first story gives a place and a basis for the imagination to understand its indirect environment, space. the second gives a basis on terrestrial relational principles as well as in space. The part where Eve comes into the picture writes the Earth / Moon / Sun relationship. a relationship between living beings and probably for atoms too, but I don't know anything about it. Then there are other tricks in the stories but in general it's "a I tell you what was done and said and here are the result". I should of read it web i was young.
It's actually none of that brother... This guy is a complete moron he's never actually studied Genesis at all... It's one continuing story... Written so that if you don't believe it you won't get it... As soon as you believe it it's plain as day... Sorry.. HINT: THE SUN THE MOON AND THE STARS ARE NOT LIGHT... Men and women are created on the sixth day... Adam and Eve later after the 7th Day...
I wonder could you comment on the verse that says that men will be “ever learning” yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. For some reason that seems to be important to me.
the bible represents clarity? What? It represents many things but clarity is not one of them. Aristotle wrote in style that represented clarity. He explained everything in detail. That is clarity.
And we all forget about John 14:26 which affirm that is the Holy Spirit who will teach us all things and bring to our remembrance all things. Even the things that are written in the bible.
This man is a NUT JOB.
@D Sullivan The guy doing all the lying in the video who hasn't a clue about the scriptures except the way he is twisting it.
@D Sullivan He has no clue about scripture. The first mention of creation is an overview. The second is the creation explained in more detail. He mocks the scriptures to get a laugh out of the audience. He stated Leviticus as a solution to gay marriage. Then he misrepresented 2 Samuel 1-26 inferring that David and Jonathan were involved in homosexuality, which is 100% wrong. There was NOTHING sexual in their relationship, yet he erroneously implies that there was. That was a LIE.. Men expressed themselves more appreciatively toward each other at that time. It has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. When anyone tells one lie, nothing else they say has any credibility. The man is an IDIOT .
@@classickruzer1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed
@D Sullivan this is not rhetoric this 2 Peter 2:1-2 and is talking exactly about this type of teaching. Real preaching is by the Holy Spirit, so if the holy Spirit is NOT involved it is a False preaching.
Well done
I tend to doubt the statistics from the beginning! Where do the numbers come from? Which ppl were choosen? Did you ask in the amish stronghold etc.? For Germany or western europe the numbers would definetly look very different, i guess at least.