With this I have now watched all of of Sean's interview videos. Thank you Sean for creating this channel! It has helped immensely and introduced me to the world of apologetics. God bless you and your family!
@@SeanMcDowell One of the main reasons I was drawn to you was your humility, which is really lacking with Christians nowadays unfortunately and really troubles me. Question. Are you still able to do discounts on the certificate program? I'd like to sign up for it now but I noticed you don't advertise the deal anymore.
@@sarahsays194 YES! There’s info in the video description along with a discount. If you can’t find it, email me thru seanmcdowell.org and I’m happy to help.
Has it occurred to you that if your god wants you to understand him he would make his messages CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. How is it possible that the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE has to rely on us MERE HUMANS to tell the other humans WHAT GOD REALLY MEANS. Is god INCAPABLE of making his message CLEAR. Also, HOW CAN MERE HUMANS UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN THE MIND OF AN ALMIGHTY GOD? Are these people ACTUALLY READING GODS MIND? and how do they KNOW that their explanations are WHAT GOD REALLY MEANS. The answer is of course THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN GODS MIND. Don’t listen to these FOOLS, THEY’RE LYING TO YOU.
@@oldedwardian1778 is coming in HOT with this comment, but they're making some good points. It's interesting that apologists like this will on one hand wax poetically about how the Bible is God's love letter to the world, that it is God's perfect inerrant word, and that this is the ultimate source of morality without which we would be lost. They also presumably subscribe to some sort of "sola scriptura" doctrine. And then on the other hand say, well actually you need to read my SECOND ~300 page book to really understand what God means, those words on the page don't actually mean what they say. God didn't do that good of a job making sure his word got transmitted accurately to us, here's what he really meant to say, according to me and my friends. Sola scriptura + my book.
Portuguese is my first language so whatever I learn here I share with my family and friends in Brazil. My husband is American and he is agnostic. So slow in the flow I am able to answer his questions. 😅 Big shout out to your channel!! I could not do that by myself. God bless you dear brother in Christ. I also follow Melissa and Pastor Mike Winger and Cross Examination. I also bought your book “ The Evidence that demands a verdict” Josh McDowell & Sean McDowell My wish is that everyone read this book. 🙏
@@SeanMcDowell Thank you but I would like to understand if anyone is having this dilemma how do I KNOW if/when I get to heaven God the Father isn’t going show his Old Testament scary nature why would we even have faith all will be good. I am at the point sometimes if someone said you can be turned off forever (no hell) or go to heaven given the the day, hour or minute I would pick off. My biggest compelling reason to choose heaven is meet Jesus.
Another thing about the OT a pastor I once had said that was very helpful. Unlike the NT where the moral commentary is usually not far from a story, the OT often tells an event, saying, or story and leaves the interpretation up to *other* (otherwise unconnected) passages that address moral matters. In short, it assumes such knowledge without always having to immediately point it out.
13:35 Either Dr. Copan heard my sermon a few weeks ago, which I choose to believe, or we came to the same conclusion here! :-P Thank you, Dr. Copan, for doing this interview!
David's heart question is a good question and to expound on what Paul was saying we have to look at what the Father had been saying what He wanted of His people up to this point. That is He wanted someone with a humbled heart, a repentant heart, and a heart not hardened to the Fathers will. Every time David sinned, and there were many grievous sins that he committed, he always fell on his face with humility and a sincere yearning of repentance that the Father accepted and forgave him. It doesn't mean that the Father let David off the hook as far as punishment was concerned, but He forgave him none the less.
I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian to the majority of the comments here and say that Dr Copan’s responses to the difficult passages were lacking for me. By my estimation, I don’t think he did enough to show that these laws were indeed good laws, instead resorting to almost sounding like providing cop outs for the laws (eg, “people weren’t usually put to death, etc”). I don’t say these things to be nasty, because he’s clearly done more work on the topic than a lay Christian like myself, but I was really anticipating getting to listen to a robust defence of God’s Old Testament laws and other controversial stories. God Bless, Dr McDowell and Dr Copan for your work to advance the Kingdom, and I pray this feedback is received with the grace, truth, and love I intended.
Just read the New Testament, don't even bother reading the Old Testament. His defense is bad, he straight up lied about Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which talks about rape, not seduction.
@@DipsAndPushupshave you ever done a word study, or read one, on the word translated as rape? It is a softer word than the word translated as rape earlier in the passage. The scope of use of the word has been shown to be from holding a tissue type grasp through to holding a sword. Swords are not gripped all that powerfully because to do so reduces manoeuvre ability. This sort of a word study, and consideration of the preceding verses, is why most scholars deny the idea it refers to rape.
QUESTION: I several questions in response to Dr Copan’s argument starting at 39:10 that the killing of all the firstborn Egyptian children was justified because the Egyptians took part in or were complicit with the killing the Israelite baby boys, and that God referred to Israel as his firstborn, so killing the Egyptian firstborn was a justified response. 1. He at least implies that ALL Egyptians were to blame because they took part in the killing or were at least culpable and repeatedly refers to “the Egyptians” as though they are a monolith. Not only is it nonsense to assume every single Egyptian played a role, but the Bible also explicitly tells us some Egyptians resisted Pharaoh’s order to kill the Israelite boys. The midwives refuse to kill the baby boys and then lie to Pharaoh when he asks why they did not do it (Exodus 1:17-19, NIV), and Pharaoh’s own daughter sheltered Moses when she found him in the basket in the river (Exodus 2:5-10, NIV). We know that Pharaoh's daughter knew baby Moses was an Israelite because the Bible quotes her as saying “This is one of the Hebrew babies” (Exodus 2:6, NIV); so she would’ve known that her father had decreed that Moses be killed, and yet she protected him. 2. Sean makes the analogy at 41:48 between the Egyptians and citizens of Nazi Germany “it wasn’t just Hitler, there were thousands of prison guards, thousands of snitches, thousands of other people who were also complicit.” But there also were thousands of Germans who resisted, and sheltered the Jews and other victims, and helped them escape, all at great risk to their own lives. To follow Sean’s analogy to its end, one should argue that killing every German first born child, including the children of those who resisted would be an appropriate punishment for the Holocaust. A. If you narrowed the scope to only the prison guards and other directly responsible for the killings, would it be morally justified to kill their children as punishment for what they did to God's firstborn? B. What if Hitler had a son? Would killing only his son and sparing all others children be a morally justified response to punish him for his crimes? 3. I think we should also assume that there were many people who were not at all involved or could not be held responsible for what was done to the Israelites. For example, poor Egyptians who did not have any power and slaves of other ethnicities. These people would also have had their first born killed because the Angel of Death only passed over the houses of those who had the blood crosses painted on their door frames. There is no other indication that anyone else besides the Israelites would have known the very specific formula of blood prescribed to save their house from the Angel. 4. At 41:00 Dr. Copan says “this is a last Resort measure, God wasn’t able to get Pharaoh’s attention as it were through these other plagues, so finally is in this severe judgement that finally that Pharaoh gives up and says ‘OK, take your people and go.’” But this is not true; after the plagues of Locust and Darkness that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that is why he did not let the people go (Exodus 10:20 and 10:27). The scripture states the reason that Pharaoh did not release the Israelites after the last 2 plagues was because of God’s intervention. 5. Foremost, even if it were true that every Egyptian were responsible for what was done to the Israelites, the punishment was against their children. I don’t see any way that killing a person’s newborn, infant, or child is a justified punishment for anyone's actions regardless of the crime. It also runs contrary to what Dr Copan argues at 31:30 when he argues that God doesn’t punish children for their father’s sins. “It is not as though there is guilt imputed to those who are being judged by God because of what the parents have done” (33:15). Unless I am completely missing his point, this seems to be inconsistent. Thank you again for addressing these issues!
_"To follow Sean’s analogy to its end, one should argue that killing every German first born child, including the children of those who resisted would be an appropriate punishment for the Holocaust."_ Wow, this would make a great standalone question. _"the punishment was against their children... runs contrary to what Dr Copan argues at __31:30__ when he argues that God doesn’t punish children for their father’s sins."_ Good catch!
QUESTION: More of a critique than a question, and I apologize in advance for the length, I will try to make it as concise as I can while explaining my points. There is a very striking disconnect between the title of this video and what arguments are being made in the content. The title asks, “Is God a Vindictive Bully” but the video, and presumably Dr Copan’s forthcoming book, seems to be addressing a question more along the lines of “are God’s actions and laws in the OT justifiable?” Throughout the course of Dr Copan’s defense of God’s actions and laws in each troubling passage, his argument’s answer to the title question seem to be “Yes, God is a Vindictive Bully, but it's ok.” This is most clear to me in the discussions of the killing of the firstborn children of Egypt. At 40:25 Dr Copan states “you have God saying, ‘if you’re going to do this to Hebrew babies, if you’re going to do this to my firstborn, the Nation of Israel, then something is going to happen to your firstborn.’” This is definitionally vindictive and the actions of a bully. Telling someone that you are going to hurt them because they hurt you is vindictive and purely retaliatory. Furthermore, hurting them by hurting (in this case killing) their child is, in my estimation, one of the most vengeful and ruthless acts imaginable. Throughout his defense, Dr Copan doesn’t argue that this is not vindictive, only provides reasons why God was justified in the indiscriminate killing of every firstborn child in Egypt. Sean remarks at 42:00 “I had not made the connection of the Israelites children being sacrificed and killed, in a sense God is bringing justice back onto the new Pharaoh what had been done to Israel. Very, very fair.” Even if one accepts all of Dr Copan’s justifications for this action, what you’re accepting is “Yes, God is vindictive, but he was justified, the Egyptians deserved it.” Dr Copan also paints God as a bully when he describes God’s desire to use the plagues and destruction of the Egyptians in the Exodus story to demonstrate his power and might. He states at 38:35 that “God will show how much greater he is, how much more powerful He is than the gods of Egypt, and He will deliver His enslaved people out of that land.” We see God state His desire clearly after the Israelites left Egypt, before the parting of the Red Sea. God told Moses “Pharaoh will think, ‘The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.’ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” (Exodus 14:3-4, NIV). How does God bring glory to himself and show he is powerful? Through plagues and widespread killing. Dr Copan argues that these 10 plagues were demonstrations of God’s dominance over the world’s current superpower in their “showdown.” Asserting your dominance over others using violence, death, and destruction is bullying. Bullies pick on those weaker than them, in this case the alleged omnipotent creator of the universe showed his power by destroying finite beings who are totally defenseless to him, and besting the “Egyptian gods” who are non-existent, fictional beings. Instead of indiscriminately killing every Egyptian first born, bringing 9 other plagues, and drowning the Egyptian army in Red Sea, do you think that God (who the same apologists will say spoke the entire universe into being and finely tuned every force to perfectly suit our existence) would be able to show himself and his might through love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness? Would he instead be able to demonstrate power through love in a way that would allow the Egyptians to repent, ask for forgiveness, and be redeemed instead of destroyed? If his love, wisdom, creatively, and grace is limitless, I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have done this. Can you argue that his actions are justified? Sure. Are they the actions of a bully? Yes, these two are not mutually exclusive. We also see this in the story at 46:00 of God killing Uzzah when he failed to follow the proper protocol for carrying the ark and grabbed it to prevent it from falling. Dr Copan pontificates that Uzzah might have become too familiar with the arc and too lax with its rules. Is God justified in killing Uzzah? Sure. You can argue, as Dr Copan does, that God made the rules and told them, and they chose to not follow them so he as justified in taking corrective action. But “you didn’t follow my protocols, so now I have to smite you” seems extremely petty, vindictive, and arbitrary. If you‘re carrying something and it slips and begins to you’re your natural reaction is to reach out and try to grab it without thinking (at least mine is). Surely the tri-omni God could have come up with a less lethal way to remind Uzzah to keep his hands off the arc, maybe a shock or a flash of light causing temporary blindness, or he could’ve turned Uzzah into a snake for a week. There are nearly limitless less than lethal options that would’ve made a point. God’s emotions are clear in the passage though, “the Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.” (2 Samuel 6:7, NIV). But the point is clear, follow my rules or die. That is vindictive and what a bully would do. Is God a Vindictive Bully? “Yes, God is vindictive, but he was justified, he made the rules, and they choose not to follow them, so God killed them to send a message put them back in their place.” There are plenty of other examples of God acting in this same way through the OT, but the one that sticks out most in my memory is the short story of the Bronze Snake in Numbers 21:4. I won’t editorialize any further than to ask you to ask yourself as you read, not can a being with the attributes of God be justified in doing this taking into consideration the time and place and cultural backdrop and yada yada yada; but rather the question that this video title asks, “Is God a Vindictive Bully?” Is this action vindictive, and is the actor behaving like a bully? “But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.” (Numbers 21:4-9, NIV)
For me as an older person and seeing how fallen the world is and full of degeneracy, I see that God seeking such high standards as refreshing. The Snake episode is an example. The people were literally whining about being saved .. they were complaining!! They had food sent miraculously daily to them and water supplied.. yet they were always ungrateful… imagine complaining about being given food in desert conditions. The snakes a reminder of how fragile life was for them.. they had the provisions of life literally given to them yet they complained?? God was providing for them in every way. I see it as God reminding them .. he also made the way for them to be healed.
@@hereweare9096 I use to see your point until it happened to me, when you believe you are being rescued you are looking for a COMPLETE deliverance. Here’s a modern day example we all just went through the pandemic aren’t you grateful it subsided why are you grumbling about everything costing sooo much you lived didn’t you? Your ungrateful let me smite you. It’s easy to think the Israelites are being ungrateful but when it is you walking through it and not just words on a page it is oh so different.
@@lisajones7756 I disagree. The pandemic wasn’t that hard.. my life hasn’t been an easy one. I was already and still am dealing with quite a lot. I see the world around me today.. people are ungrateful for life.. people that live in first world countries care more about a handbag than children who are starving. The politicians do not care and we see this in the fact we have the UN yet people still live in slums and poverty.. no medical care and starvation. That is why when I read the Bible I see that Gods way is right.. mankind living by human rule is what we have today ..
@@hereweare9096 “I see God’s way as right”, do you also see him as all knowing? So did he or didn’t he know what was going to happen? Sorry the operative verse seems to be I will have mercy on whom I shall have mercy. After what has happened to me (I have been in a magicians wonderland) I can’t believe what I see is truth and not the deception of Satan, you know he is the ruler of this world.
QUESTION: I have several questions/critiques on Dr. Copan’s arguments around the death penalty in OT law starting at 25:50. 1. How does Dr. Copan harmonize specific stoning deaths for offenses other than murder, such as the story of the man caught picking up sticks on the sabbath in Numbers 15:32-36 or the blasphemer in Leviticus 24:10-23, with his argument? In particular, Numbers 15 (I’ll put the reference in a comment) seems unambiguous that: a. the crime committed was not murder (it was collecting sticks on the Sabbath) thereby seemingly contradicting the claim at 26:50 that only murder could not be commuted. b. The man was actually, physically stoned to death; thereby seemingly contradicting the claim at 17:30 at 28:20 that stoning was “simply not taken literally” and was instead hyperbole to serve as a wakeup call. c. This was directly commanded by God, therefore not a misinterpretation of His word. 2. What passages or evidence support the claim at 26:50 that of all potentially capital offences, the only one that could not be commuted to payment was “cold blooded murder”? There are many passages that contain offences in which the perpetrator must be put to death (ex: Leviticus 20:1-27) but there doesn’t seem to be an exemption for payment. However, Exodus 21:29-30 has a specific provision that states the owner of an ox who gores another can redeem himself from his death penalty through payment if it is demanded. Why do the other passages that could be commuted to a payment not have similar language? 3. If it is true that all crimes except for “cold blooded murder” could be commuted to a payment, it seems to me that this means that wealthy people who could afford payment could simply pay a fine, but poor people who did not have enough money (or was indentured due to their inability to pay off debts) could not pay and therefore would be subject to the penalty (in many cases death). This seems to be both unjust and contradictory to Dr. Copan’s argument at 23:40 that the law of Moses was egalitarian and had the same punishments for all people regardless of status. 4. For the argument that the death penalty could be commuted to a payment to the "aggrieved parties", what determined who this was? For the example of adultery at 27:55, who would be the "aggrieved party" and who would be the one paying them? Also for other crimes that don't seem to have a specific victim, such as homosexual acts in Leviticus 20:13, who is the "aggrieved party" that the men would offer payment to to avoid the prescribed death penalty?
Numbers 15:32-36 (NIV) “ 32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.”
Good questions. (I'm on my phone and don't like typing. I'll added more details when I get to a real keyboard) 1. The sabbath breaker is flagrantly disobeying with rebellion in his heart. We know this because the broader context is rebellion of various kinds (Start with ch 12). BTW, the aggrieved parry is first and foremost always God. Is 51:5
QUESTION: Dr. Copan argues at 44:10 that God sends the flood as judgement because “the picture is of irretrievability, there’s just not coming back, there’s no redemption, there is no help, for those who have sunk so low, so God says ‘I will finish what they begun.’” Isn’t this antithetical to the Christian message that everyone can be redeemed by grace alone through the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit, no matter what acts one as committed because we have all fallen short? How does Dr. Copan square this line of reasoning with (at least my understanding of) orthodox Christian doctrine? ... Sean makes a point when talking about God hardening Pharaoh's heart at 39:00 that “hardening [Pharaoh's] heart doesn’t mean that he is beyond salvation or repentance.” In what way was everyone living before the flood different or worse than Pharaoh so they they were beyond salvation? ... If the answer is an Old Covenant vs. New Covenant type defense, why was God willing and/or able to redeem the sins of all mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross 2,000 years ago, but at the time of the flood his only option was annihilation?
Contrast the statement at 44:10 to that at 7:00 when discussing his “Golden Rule of Charitability” where Dr Copan says “also understanding how God is also at work meeting people where they are, trying to meet them, accommodate them, but also move them in a redemptive direction”. Why was God unable or unwilling to do this pre-flood?
You seem angry. Who or what are you angry at - God, the Bible, Dr Copan, or something else? If the Bible is true and we just have a hard time understanding it , then what is the point of being angry? That's like a scientist being angry at the universe because there is something he cannot understand. Instead, the scientist keeps searching for answers. If the Bible is false, then what is the point of being angry? That's like someone being angry at Santa Clause. So, why are you so angry?
Because they are not really explanations. They are using backwards logic, they start with the assumption the Bible is 100% correct, so every passage MUST be moral
QUESTION: Which translation of the Bible does Dr. Copan use? He argues at the 29:30 mark that Deut 22:28 talks about seducing and doesn't use seize or the "r" word. Looking at about 40 parallel passages on Bible Hub and Bible Gateway, I don't see any that say seduce, all except for the NLT use either "seize", "lay ahold of', the "r" word, or similar language that implies force. What translation is he using for his arguments that talks about seduction or a willing relationship?
Hes a Christian that is making things up. Thats all Christians do, is make things up Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
To be more concise: Dr. Copan say at 30:02 “In the Deuteronomy passage it says ‘if he seduces her’ it’s not ‘seize her’ or so forth, it’s a much milder term”. What translation does he use to get this reading? I can only find translations of Deut 22:28 that use “sieze”, “r”, “lay ahold of”, or similar language. I find none that use “seduce” or any language that indicates a consensual act or seduction.
New International Version If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, New Living Translation “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, English Standard Version “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, Berean Study Bible If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, New American Standard Bible “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, NASB 1995 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB 1977 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, Amplified Bible “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and is intimate with her and they are discovered, Christian Standard Bible If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, Holman Christian Standard Bible If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, Contemporary English Version Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man forces her to have sex with him. If he is caught, Good News Translation "Suppose a man is caught raping a young woman who is not engaged. GOD'S WORD® Translation This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is discovered, International Standard Version "However, if a man meets a girl who isn't engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out, NET Bible Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. King James Bible If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; New King James Version “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, King James 2000 Bible If a man find a young woman that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; New Heart English Bible If a man find a woman who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; World English Bible If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; American King James Version If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; American Standard Version If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; A Faithful Version If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found, Darby Bible Translation If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, English Revised Version If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Webster's Bible Translation If a man shall find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
He is deliberately lying. Deuteronomy 22:28 and 22:29 talks about rape, not seduction. What else do you expect from someone who said "they had slaves, but they treated them nicely" in order to defend slavery? What else do you expect someone who argues that modern values came from Judeo-Christian values (when in reality modern world was built on fighting the reprehensible Jewish Old Testaments values). Old Testament is as bad as it gets. God from the Old Testament is as bad as it possibly gets, Hitler wasn't as bad as the God from the Old Testament. Anyone who wants the laws of our society or morality of our society to have anything to do with the Old Testament must be fought by any means necessary.
QUESTION; concerning animal suffering. “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood ...." ~ Leviticus 16:15. God is love. God loves. These are innocent animals. Why would God set up a system where innocent animals have to suffer and die for the sins of mankind? Seems very counterintuitive, especially to a young child.
QUESTION: Hi. I see l am a bit late to join this discussion, but l find Apologestics very fascinating. I previously read The Secret Book of John(The Apocryphon of John) and was very surprised, not knowing what to make of this. But as l read, l got the impression that Yaldabaoth, and what is said about him, explained why there was so much "bullying" in the Old Testament. May l please ask what do you think about this..... can this perhaps explain what this book of Paul Copan is all about?
I see God as a loving teacher, in that everything He does is to guide us and help us grow closer to him. Sometimes the lessons are hard, but the outcome is worth it otherwise He wouldn't allow it. Now I prefer to learn by counsel, than consequence, both of which I have experienced, but were ultimately my decisions. So yeh, a loving teacher and shepherd, who is slow to anger and quick to forgiveness. It's a journey of discovery people. Thanks be to God for the opportunity to experience life and just exist in His loving presence.
Thank you guys for this video. God bless you always 🙏❤. My thoughts are God is God and God is supreme. God is so far above us and our thinking. God created man in his own image and God has the right to say and do whatever he chooses. I don't question what it says in the Bible. Bottom line is God is over all. His ways are higher than our ways
Some good points and a lot of weak points, I thought, that would not satisfy most fair-minded critics from without or within. To many of the questions, Paul Copan put forth some facts most of us are unaware of, which have to do with the context of the issues, and seemed to think that would overcome objections to the "traditional" reading of the texts. I would hope his book BUILDS cases for his conclusions rather than hoping some new-to-us information will cloud our rational centers enough to satisfy us.
He straight up lied that Deuteronomy 22 talks about man who seduced a woman being forced to marry her. Deuteronomy 22:28 and 22:29 talk about rape, not seduction. Victims of rape are forced to marry the very person who raped them. I did not expect anything but shameless lies from a person who tells his audience that Judeo-Christian values are what made modern societies. When of course, in reality, fighting against the reprehensible, evil, Jewish Old Testaments values is what makes our society much better than the reprehensible Jewish bronze age society.
@@grantbartley483 Tell me you hate reality, without even mentiuoning the word. Please, as a basis for further discussion: a) Define your gawd? b) Do you think your scripture is true cover to cover and which of the versions of Mein Kampf is your favorite? Not, to this day ALL christians have been too affraid to answer.
@@bladerunner3314 God is creator. I'm more of a socialist. If Jesus was not resurrected the witness would have admitted that under persecution. But they didn't. So you're wrong.
@@grantbartley483 "God is creator." Many religions have and do claim that - do you have evidence besides your fairy tale? "I'm more of a socialist." Nobody asked. "If Jesus was not resurrected the witness would have admitted that under persecution. But they didn't." And by what metric do you have evidence ANYTHING in tzhat story ever happened or ANYBODY existed? Because your fairy tale says so? Look, There are weekly comics of Spider-Man, people say they've seen Spider-Man. Spider-Man must be real! "So you're wrong." No, so you claim. Your definition of gawd is very weak and you failed miserably. Like I said, no christian ever was honest enough, same goes for you.
If any other being, in any story, did what the OT god does or commands , then Christians would condemn them, and rightfully so. But they believe these acts are of an all loving, all powerful god. Christians, I’d like you to really think about why this is.
QUESTION: 1. Curious what Dr Copan thinks of genesis 19 and the sequence of events surrounding Lot. First offering his daughters up and then sleeping with them (even if it said he didn't know he was doing it). Then he is credited as being righteous in 2 Peter 2:7-8. Through the lens of our modern day this is hard to understand.
You identify the problem. It is because the modern lens says "at least I am better than Lot" and it allows you to chose the aspects you judged on. If you do it correctly there will never be need to humble yourself and there will always be someone worse to compare to.
“Righteous” in the Bible CLEARLY does NOT mean *perfect or without sin* when talking about humans. It refers mainly to a persons devotion to God and his statutes/rules. No one except Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life on this earth. And the Bible doesn’t try to hide that fact either. It bares the shortcomings and sins of its human characters for all to see. So, just because someone is called “righteous” in the Bible, doesn’t mean they were “always good” or “never sinned or did wrong”.
That’s the wonderful thing about the bible, you can make it say whatever you want. All god had to do was wait until RUclips was invented so his word could be explained
When we look into the scriptures for ourselves and examine it carefully the notion of it being made to say whatever one wants falls into small pieces. It's those that take spot samples out of the fuller context that make such claims .
I do wonder how many people argue AGAINST the notion that God is a vindictive bully because they do in fact believe this in their own heart of hearts but are too terrified to admit it to Him. the inward nature of sin and the pervasive nature of unbelief as connected to the inward nature of sin make this question at least relevant, and even IMO crucial
QUESTION: In Deut 21:13-14, after the month of mourning the Israelite can have sex with the female captive and marry her. Then if she doesn't please the Israelite, he can kick her out of the house but can't sell her for money since she isn't a virgin anymore. Am I reading that right? "And put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." Deuteronomy 21:13-14 NIV
QUESTION: Please address the concept of "alternative moralities--" ways of thinking that have their own internal logic, yet conform neither to our contemporary moral standards nor, we would believe, to the Lord's preferred plan.
QUESTION: If you answer any question on slavery can you answer this? “Is it, or was it ever, morally acceptable to own another person as property?” I’m not asking how nicely anyone was treated. I’m not asking what protections were put in place for their eyes and teeth. I’m not asking what modern English word best describes the situation in the Bible. I’m not asking how a certain system compares to the pre-Civil War South or other neighboring systems. I’m not asking if they entered voluntarily into the arrangement because of their financial situation. I’m only asking, “Is it, or was it every morally acceptable to own another person as property?”
The answer is unequivocally yes it is. Look no further than the modern day workplace. If you work for a company, then (for the time that you are on their property or on the clock) they own you. We accept this without question
If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the men who wrote the Bible fell short of the glory, then how can the Bible be the perfect words of God if it was written by men? Romans 3:23-24 NIV for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
David being called a man after God’s heart, David was called that according to God’s heart even though David was a sinner like us. It's God's call and it did not depend on David's goodness. Two points from me. 1. If we are not considered people after God's own heart, why would He send Jesus for us? God wants us to do His will as he wanted David to. 2. After Jesus' arrival, we who love Jesus and want to and do His will and works, we are also people of God's own heart though our names are not recorded in the Bible. But our names are recorded in the Book of Life.
QUESTION: I strongly disagree with the explanation of "after my own heart" means that David was like Cyrus by doing what God wanted done in a prividential sense and not a spiritual sense. I think that this just sidesteps the real issue. I contend that David's heart for God is seen throughout the Bible and the tension with this and his grave sin (compare to Ahab's similar circumstance with Nadab's vineyard) cannot be just ignored. Bible Verses: In 1 Samuel 13:13-14, it is associated with David in contrast to Saul's disregard of God's commands (like Nadab and Abiyu). Compare this to what Samuel said to Saul about being small in his own eyes and that later when Samuel goes to David, God told him that He looks "at the heart" not the appearance. In Jeremiah 3:14-16, it says "faithless Israel" will be forgiven and given "shepherds after my own heart" that would spiritually guide Israel. Sample verses of how David is referred to: 1 Kings 3 1 Kings 9:4 "And as for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules," 1 Kings 15:5 mentions Urriah as an exception. Later the census is also brought up. Neither of these two seem brought up again in Scripture, unless I missed it. David is referred to multiple times to compare or contrast the way that his descendants kept God's commandments. This is despite Nathan saying that David did evil in God's sight and despised his commandments.
QUESTION: How do you interpret passages like Hebrews 6 & 10 which speak about followers of Christ falling away and reconcile that with the faithfulness of God in holding fast His own?
I think maybe the difference is that God Himself won’t ever let us go or abandon us. However we always have the choice to say “I’m walking away from this, and I don’t want Him anymore.” Not totally sure though
QUESTION: Responding the argument at 26:50 that all capital crimes except for “cold blooded murder” could be commuted to a payment the "aggrieved parties". Can Dr. Copan explain who the “aggrieved parties” are and who would pay them in these examples of non-murder cases that demand the death penalty? 1. "23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.” (Deuteronomy 22:23-27, NIV) - Who is the “aggrieved party” that the woman in the town in verses 23-24 would pay to avoid her death sentence? - Who is the “aggrieved party” that the man would pay to avoid his death sentence in either case? And if it is to the woman’s father or husband, why is not to the woman? 2. ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13, NIV) - Who is the “aggrieved party” that each man would pay to commute their death penalty? 3. For the example of adultery at 27:55, who would be the "aggrieved party"? Would both the man and woman have to pay, and who would they make the payment to?
Just for now I think there is grounds to believe that her sacrifice was one of servitude as she was mourning not being able to be married and not that she would be killed by her own father.
QUESTION: When I think about the character of God in both the New and Old Testaments, I don't see any conflicts with His nature. This brings me to my question. When talking about God's nature, is it safe to state that his character is multi-dimensional just like our flawed character is. There are times where we are loving, there are times when we need to fight, there are things that make us angry, there are things that make us jealous. Just because we exhibit one characteristic, does mean those others don't exist. What is being exhibited is what is needed in response to a situation. Can you unpack this though and let me know if this is something you have considered? Thanks! Great information and I really appreciate the topic. God Bless!
Everything you said makes no sense when it comes to Biblical studies. You are trying to compare God to a flawed being. This is an argument Atheists use to prove God is a man made invention. It is also not safe to state he is a multi dimensional being. No where in the Bible is anything like that said. You are making things up that arnt Biblical and any Atheist who has actually read the Bible will point this out to you. You are literally comparing God to a human. Trying to compare your emotions to Gods emotions. Admitting with out admitting God is indeed a human invention.
God is love, but God is first holy. Holy, holy, holy, in fact. This holiness is what we willfully are blind to. This allows us to produce a god in our own image, an idol. Does God seem to judgy, to wrathful? We just image God according to our own standards of love and viola, Boyfriend Genie Jesus is born. God's wrath is also against what violates His love which thereby places His love of extreme value since it's connected to the most valuable thing, "life and relationship with God". It's no different than a loving husband and father that will bring down the hammer on anyone that were to harm his wife and kids. Abosulte rage is necessary to protect love. Anyone that is going to harm your family is doing so necessarily by breaking God's commandments and our own wrath demonstrates the disposition needed to protect that which is Holy. Holiness is living in obedience to God's commandments. Hope this helps. RC Sproul's teaching on the Holiness of God is outstanding in teaching this concept.
@@toddcote4904 Thanks for the feedback, Todd. Don't get me wrong in that I am not trying to make God into our own standards, but simply making a comparison, not an equivalency, to what we know about us and like we have many aspects that make up our character, God, too, has many facets to His character.
@@troyjhinkle I'm not saying you were trying to make an idol, nor did I think you were I was trying to unpack the character traits of God, showing that all His traits are first and foremost rooted in His holiness. That's what we're missing, holiness. That's why our characters are flawed.
@@toddcote4904 I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I totally understand that our character is flawed and God's isn't. That was why I called out our flawed character in the comparison. Thanks for the conversation. It's always good to discuss God and His character. Have a blessed day!
Is there a possibility that Abraham saw the surrounding offering their sons, he had this wish to offer God the best he has, his only son. And from his depth of his heart felt that God is ordering him to do so.?
QUESTION: Back to polygamy in the OT. I understand the answer that you gave in this video re. Gen 1 and 2, man and wife, one flesh etc. However, in Deut 17, God states that the kings of Israel should not acquire too many horses or too many wives. The wording of this seems to clearly suggest that having more than one wife is OK, just don't have "too many." (The reason for not having "too many wives" is clearly stated in the very same verse so that is not my question). God could have said that the king should not marry more than one wife, or not to marry a foreign wife, but that is not how God worded it. Thanks for this great video and all the other very informative videos that you put out that strengthen our faith and help us to defend it with more knowledge, confidence and grace. Best regards.
To me I would naturally translate "too many" as not more than one at a time.. sometimes wifes can die for example at childbirth or some other reason, Abraham married Keturah after Sarahs death and so on. But there can be consideration how many is too many, it's not a number. Also I think it was important to point that out, Jacob for example had two wifes and two concubines and that was not really ideal I assume. Kings should not have too many (not more than one) even some forefathers had.
QUESTION: Why was Cain's offering not looked on with favor? Both Cain and Abel brought offerings from what they worked to produce, and at this time, there is no documentation of God requesting any specific offering.
My guess is that the life of the animal is what is required for a sacrifice. The life is in the blood. Produce was insufficient for sacrifice because vegetables don’t have blood/life in them.
There is evidence in Cain's life that suggests God refused Cain's offering because he used farming methods with no regard for how they would impact the soil. God probably didn't request a specific offering from either man because He was was more concerned with whether or not their offering was produced in a selfish manner.
Hi Sean, Thank you for all that you do. Your interviews are always very enlightening. Please how can one get hold of you? I would like to speak with you directly. Thank you Lawrence
Question: In 2 Samuel 21, David takes seven sons of Saul and hands them over to be hanged by the Gibeonites to pay for the sins of Saul who killed the Gibeonites during his reign. The Bible says that the sins of the father will not fall upon his sons. How is it just to kill seven innocent sons of Saul for the sins of Saul?
BTW, if Pharaoh (fully *wanting* to rebel against God *aside* from God’s *recent* role in “hardening” his heart-see comments in the video, though much more could be said) it’s ultimately this desire towards rebellion that led to the doom of Egypt’s first born. (Though a million other theological things are wrapped up in understanding that more fully as well.)
In the story of the almost sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, I wonder if this story was a way for God to let people know that he didn't want child sacrifice. It looks like he wants Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and then he tells him No! and provides a ram instead. I imagine the impact of a story like that on the surrounding child sacrificing nations could be profound.
Two questions that were instrumental my journey out of Christianity. The first caused my loss of faith, the second is one of the better arguments I see for moving away from religions in general. 1.) It seems to me that the slavery, genocide, etc. of the Old Testament are better explained by naturalistic evolution of culture than by an all-powerful, all-loving God. I'm curious how Sean and Paul would respond to this. 2.) If we assume that the apparently vindictive parts of the OT were context-dependent, isn't it still dangerous to have those passages in what many call "the perfect Word of God"? If 99% of Christian read the Bible believing it has the weight of God behind it, but don't have don't have time or expertise to go into the historical context, can you see how these passages could be used to justify positions that seem anti-Biblical to you? One example is the preachers who used the Bible to justify slavery in the pre-war South.
If God is supposed to be about love and caring than he is a very peculiar way of showing it. When he is said to have sent a flood to kill all living persons except one small family who survived on an Ark, God was willing not only to kill indiscriminately but even to kill babies and young children. When he travelled the length of Egypt, killing all the first-born just to prove that he was the LORD, he was not being all-loving. When he ordered Joshua to commit multiple acts of genocide, he may have held some love for the Israelites, but not for anyone else. Simply to excuse these things by saying that they never really happened is simply to concede that God probably does not even exist. Non-existence is another way of not being all-loving.
@@Bugsy0333 If there is no God, then all of morality is nonsense. Your opinion versus my opinion, or might makes right, become the only avenues to morality. If Man is ontologically equal to animals, then we may behave as animals, and if you don’t like it, TOUGH! I refuse to believe that there is no objective moral code, and the only way to have a moral code is for there to be God.
@@sliglusamelius8578 You're doing the equivalent of saying, "I'm right because the big guy says so" that isn't a moral code. It's an appeal to an authority, worse yet it's an appeal to an authority that we can't actually consult. Your "morality" gets us no further than before (it arguably takes us backwards), people who want to do good still need a system to stop those who don't, our courts aren't filled with angels or prophets, only people and those people have to figure out what is and isn't fair amongst themselves.
@@patientfirbolg3299 No, I am saying that there has to be an OBJECTIVE moral standard of morality. That objective moral standard is God. It is not ME, I never said that it was me! It is not you, it is not any human being, it is God. Otherwise there is only one person’s opinion versus another person’s opinion. God is the supreme judge, he makes the Law. Our job is to comport ourselves to that law as best as we can.
@@patientfirbolg3299 What human courts do is not necessarily directly related to objective moral truth. The Aztecs did human sacrifice, as did other cultures, but that was objectively morally wrong. Likewise, Germans had laws that targeted Jews, that was also objectively morally wrong. Mankind is imbued with a sense of Natural Law which guides us to the moral laws of God, but we can ignore those laws if we want to. We also disagree about them! But, at the time of our individual judgment, we will find out if we obeyed the moral laws of God or not. You can’t fashion a moral code without appeal to God as the author of a universal moral code. I believe that you can’t do better than Christianity, which teaches that “whatsoever you do to others, that you do unto Him”, paraphrasing a quote by Jesus. Jesus, the final Judge, will judge us as though everything we do to others, we did unto Him”. So your job is to put that into practice as best as you can. It’s a bracing thought, to know that you will face Him as your judge one day. What moral code could be better than that? There is no arguing with Jesus, no excuses, just straight up “you did this, you didn’t do that…., this was wrong, that was wrong….”.
oh yes, that thousand year reign that ends with this god working with Satan, and setting him loose on the christians left after this god kills everyone else so this god gets one more blood bath.
As a former believer, now agnostic, I am so very glad I no longer have to engage in the inventive apologetics necessary to redeem the supposed actions and commands of the biblical deity - but if it works for Copan, that's his prerogative I suppose.
QUESTION: At 26:38 Dr Copan says that only murder couldn’t have capital punishment commuted to payment; but where is this possibility/option indicated in the actual text? Wouldn’t it be a sin for the Israelites to adjust the Law of God to be less severe, when several places indicate the capital punishment is meant to be preventative (such as Deut 13:11, 17:13, 19:20, 21:21)? For example, we are commanded to keep the whole Law as part of the Greatest Commandment (Matt 22:37-38 referencing Deut 10:12-13), and then in the Law itself (Deut 11:8, 28:58, 29:9, 29:29). Therefore, given the most frequent commandment (and first of the Ten Commandments) is against idolatry, wouldn’t it have been disobedient for the Israelites to not apply the death penalty for idolotry (Deut 13:6-18, Deut 29:17-26)?
Jesus spoke more about 'hell' than anybody?? What translation, dispensation, etc? If the consuming fire is the love of the good news conforming us to his image with our free-will still in tact as is his in his own image, you can call that hell. Anything else is injustice. Love is just. Justice is not unequal punishment with no forgiveness and reform. If it is that God is as cruel as this, what a horror.
I suggest everyone take a look/listen to Marty Solomon’s podcast BEMA. Start with the introduction episode and at least listen to the first 3 or 4. It will help to reframe this discussion, I promise. Shalom.
QUESTION: isn’t the idea of inherited sin ingrained in Christian theology? Our sinful nature and the guilt associated with it are inherited from Adam. We are born with inherited sin. What good does it do to explain away earthly punishments to the 3rd and fourth generation when all generations are inheriting eternal punishments. Optional follow up: if God judges at the level of the individual why does he condemn entire nations (Canaanites, Amalekites) even commanding their infants to be put to death. Is this not judging at a national level as opposed to an individual level? Unless infants were individually guilty I can’t make any sense of this. (32:00 for context)
Currently reading the Exodus and have been trying to better understand some of God's words and actions. For instance, when Israel ends up building that false idol, and God tells Moses to leave Him alone and he will take them out and bless Moses offspring. Then Moses pleads with God. Was God testing Moses by saying that?. Also, I don't fully understand the dealing of punishment when Moses goes back down. Moses says "all who are with God, come to him", and it says the Levites did. What about all of the others? Was it only the Levites? And basically told them to take up their swords, and go entrance to entrance throughout the camp and cut down their brother, companion, and neighbor. Then it said about 3,000 men were killed. Why only 3,000 men? Then it said God plagued the people for the golden calf. • Why were the sons of Levi the only ones who came to Moses? • Why were only 3,000 men slain? • Why did everyone else not receive the same punishment? • Is it possible that the 3,000 men were the primary group who instigated the whole calf ordeal, or were they the elders or people that Moses had appointed to oversee groups, as stated earlier when they first got to the Mountain?
question: if mark 12:30 is the greatest commandments, how can believers follow the other mosaic laws/commands that break the golden rule. see numbers 31
QUESTION: Is it likely that sometimes it was impossible to get the exact meaning from the original biblical languages and that as our scholars study new ancient writings, customs, beliefs from that time period they will be better at getting the proper context and a more precise meaning of certain words and phrases?
This questions just shows that anyone asking it has never read Exodus 21. 21:12-14 already prescribes death as the punishment for murder. 18-19 says that the punishment for injuring someone so that they are unable to work is monetary: they must pay them their daily wage and care for them during their recovery. 20 and 21 are a qualification of this provision. Since the slave owner already provides for the well being of his slaves and does not pay them a wage, the punishment for his mistreatment is the loss of the labor time. The text does not say "if they die after two days its fine", the Hebrew literally says "if they stand up after a day or two". Trying to get around the "day or two" limit clearly runs afoul of verse 14 regarding premeditation. 26 and 27 describe further punishment for the slave owner for severe beatings. The slave is to go free for severe injuries such as the loss of an eye or minor injuries such as the loss of a tooth. It is not only saying the slave will go free if you damage an eye or knock out a tooth and if you think so I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was a common phrase in the ANE that referred to Reciprocal Justice.
QUESTION: After the Fall, did the nature of humanity change to become “bad” rather than “good” as it was pronounced in the creation account? Does our depravity mean total inability and spiritual blindness, as the Calvinist views it? Essentially, what is the biblical view of our nature post-Fall?
From the fall on, humans contain the capacity to sin, but only actions that are at odds with God's will are "bad". That capacity to sin is the "sin nature" that passes down through generations. The sin nature would be considered "bad" meaning that humans went from being only good to being mixed up with badness, but never became entirely "bad". I am an atheist, but this is cannon unless I am corrected.
He tackled those tough questions WITH ANSWERS THAT ARE LIES. But then again I have never met one single Christian who cared about the TRUTH all they are about are any old garbage that props up the MYTHS AND FAIRY TAKES OF JESUS AND HIS DAD. WAKE UP YOU FOOLS.
Question: did Satin want to be man? So many passages that talk about this. Ezekiel 28:13-14. Satin was there witness to creation Job 38:4-7. God said in Gen. 1:26 make man in our image. Thank you
Excusing God for drowning the entire human population by saying his heart was "greived" and he was just "finishing what they were doing anyway" would be like excusing a father for beating his disobedient teenage daugher to death by saying he was "greived" and she was on a downward spiral anyway. That man would be prosecuted for murder in most modern secular societies. Only religion can take such a heinous act and somehow call it fair or good. My journey away from Christianity began with some of these stories in the old testament and the farther I get from it, the more laughable become the contortions that Christians put themselves in to somehow make it palatable.
I used to have the same questions. I believe there is more to some of these stories in the old testament. Look up LA Marzulli and Rob Skiba. What was going on during this time? The Nephilim were on the earth. They were not human but were hybrid creatures. The “people” that were driven out of the promised land were giants! I think instead of explaining away or making excuses for why God did these things we need to ask Him and let Him show us. Also just because someone did something wrong in the old testament doesn’t mean God approved of it. It just means they did it. Like having many wives. I don’t think God said for them to have many wives, I think they just did it because they wanted to or because they were influenced by a different culture at the time.
QUESTION Paul is asked, "Is there ANYTHING that could show up in the Bible that is so immoral [based on our moral instincts], that you wouldn't give a pass to it?". His answer was unclear to me. He says "if these basic intuitions are to be overridden, they are to be for morally justifiable reasons being issued by a God who is good, wise, loving, [and] holy." Here's my question: Is he answering "No, nothing could appear in the Bible that I wouldn't give a pass to, because God is good, and is therefore assumed to have a morally justifiable reason". Or is he saying "We should only give a pass IF we can demonstrate that there is a SPECIFIC morally justifiable reason to override our moral intuitions"? I ask this, because I've seen many apologists use the first strategy. This is extremely disturbing to me, since it could be used to justify literally anything. --------------- Other Questions, if you have the time: 1. Regarding a woman marrying her rapist: Paul says "in the Deuteronomy passage, it says 'if he seduces her'. It's not 'seizes' her, it's a much milder term." This isn't true. The relevant Deteronomy passage (22:28) uses "seize". Perhaps Paul was thinking of Deuteronomy 22:23 or Exodus 22:16? There is no indication of consent from the woman, either in the original act, or in the following marriage. Why does Paul feel justified in asserting that there is? 2. Regarding God punishing or rewarding children for the actions of their parents: Paul says that this is just describing the natural consequences that children suffer when parents make bad decisions. But the passage attributes these consequences directly to God, due to his jealosy or mercy (Exodus 20:5). Why does Paul feel justified in asserting that these are natural consequences, when the passage seems to suggest the exact opposite? 3. Regarding God hardening Pharoah's heart: Paul claims that Pharoah had already hardened his own heart first. But the text doesn't suggest this at all. From the very beginning of the exchange, God repeatedly says that he will harden Pharoah's heart. The first time Pharoah's heart was hardened (Exodus 7:13), it says it happened "just as the LORD had said." What did God say a few verses prior? That He would harden Pharoah's heart, not that Pharoah would harden his own heart. Paul claims that the final plague was a last resort attempt to get Pharoah's attention. This is obviously not true. Pharoah repents before the final plague (9:27), but God explicitly claims responsibility for hardening his heart a final time so that he can show off some more (10:1). Even if it's true that Pharoah first hardened his own heart, this still seems strange. If Pharoah's original hardening of his own heart justified all the plagues, why force him to sin more? The signs and wonders are already justified. If God is just using Pharoah's hard heart so that the public will see each plague as justified, then it seems like God is being deceitful. Paul also justifies the death of the Egyptian children by pointing out that the Egyptians killed the Israelite children first. But how is this justice? If a murderer kills your child, we don't punish them by killing the murderer's child. This is insane. 4. Regarding slavery: Paul claims that it was indentured servitude, with a maximum length of six years. This is only true of Israelite servants, not foreign slaves. Leviticus 25:39-46 makes a clear distinction between the two. Verse 46 explicitly says you can treat foreign slaves as inherited property, and make them slaves for life. Paul appeals to Leviticus 25:47. I don't understand his point. He seems to think that this verse implies that foreign slaves had a way to work themselves out of slavery, but it doesn't. The verse refers to "foreigners", not "foreign slaves". He seems to think all "foreigners" were in the category of slaves/servants described in the previous passage, but this simply isn't true. The previous passage says that you can buy slaves _from the families_ of foreigners. That means some foreigners were slaves, and some weren't. I think he is just misreading the passage. Paul appeals to Exodus 21:5 to claim "you can actually love the person you are working for" and that lifetime slavery was a choice. But, he leaves out two very important details. First, this choice was explicitly for Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves aren't given this choice. Second, regardless of the slave's choice, his family would remain in slavery. He was therefore in a position to choose between staying in slavery, or leaving his family. This puts the choice in a VERY different light: blackmail. Paul appeals to Deuteronomy 23:15, to say that a foreign slave could run away if they were being mistreated. I think this is a decent point. It's a strange verse to have in the context of all the other verses about slavery. But, there's still a few problems. First, it dosen't specify that the slave is a "foreigner". Scholars think it applied to foreign slaves from foreign lands fleeing into Israel, precisely because the verse doesn't make much sense if it applied to local slaves. Not only would it undermine slavery as an institution, it would also undermine indentured servitude as an institution, which even Paul thinks actually existed. Even if taken to apply as broadly as possible, this verse puts a perverse incentive on slaveholders: to limit the freedom of their slaves even more than would otherwise be necessary. He claims that the slavery described in Leviticus 25 doesn't imply mistreatement... but it does. This passage has two parts, describing the status of Israelite servants (39-43) and foreign slaves (44-46). It explicitly urges masters to not mistreat Israelite servants. Does it do the same for foreign slaves? No! In fact, there is a strong contrast between the two. The part about Israel servants ends with "Do not rule over them ruthlessly". What does the part about foreigners end with? "You can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow ISRAELITES ruthlessly". This is a direct snub, and implies that the author knew that the foreign slaves WERE in a ruthless situation. ------------- I have issues with other points as well, but I think this has gone well beyond "succinct". Sorry. I appreciate your willingness to take follow-up questions.
Fantastic questions, you hit on a lot of the points that jumped out at me as well. I also was wondering about your initial question, Sean asked it sort of rhetorically, but I would be interested in hearing how they would answer it. "Is there ANYTHING that could show up in the Bible that is so immoral [based on our moral instincts], that you wouldn't give a pass to it?"
QUESTION - Sarah allowed Abraham to sleep with her servant to have a child. Not only does it seem wrong for Sarah to allow this but also for Abraham to agree with it. Did the servant girl get a say in it, seems like she got know say in the matter??
Answer, 1) this was a common culture practice at the time when a wife couldnt bear children. 2) Bringing Hagar into it wasn’t God’s idea. 3) If God doesn’t exist, where do you get a moral standard to call what happened right or wrong? What is that based on? Opinion? Can you even have moral truth without a standard beyond humanity?
David wholeheartedly repented for his adultery and murder of Uriah. Killing in battle is not murder. David was fulfilling God’s will in the battles. Also, the Bible never said that polygamy is a sin. About Pharoah, the Bible says both. Pharoah hardened his heart; therefore, God hardened Pharoah’s heart.
It never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics Christians will use to try to justify the unjustifiable. Your explanations make sense if the Bible is a flawed book written by flawed men, not if it was written/ inspired by a perfect God. Lots of dishonest half explanations. For example, you address the slavery issue by justifying the rules for fellow Hebrew slaves, but completely leave out the distinctive laws for foreign slaves. And as for the "war rape" justification, do you really think it is okay because you marry them after you rape them? If someone just killed your entire family, do you really think they would willingly/happily have sex with the people who did that? Do you really think that is a consensual relationship? Of course it wasn't and the fact that you try to justify it by calling it mercy is absolutely disgusting...do better
Oh You really have done your homework well, you better get ready to stand before God and accuse him of his hypocrisy and trumpet your self righteousness before his face
Re: hardening of Phar.'s heart. God could be showing Egypt that He, not Anubis, weighed and judged hearts and that Phar.'s heart failed the test against "Maat's feather", really God's standards.
Every ancient culture had child sacrifice, so the “command” to sacrifice Isaac may not have been necessarily surprising. Or rather, unusual. Like Copan said, Abraham knew his line would continue thru Isaac, So there may have been confusion, but it wasn’t an anomaly given the culture around him. Obviously, we know human sacrifice is abhorrent to our God, but again….it wouldn’t have been unusual to Abraham’s ears, I don’t think.
How do you explain the eighth chapter of John. I can see only see it as a. totally different concept of God as loving Father compared to the Yahweh of the Old Testament
One of the biggest problems in a believers view of the Old Testament is their ignorance of Scripture. I'm not saying a person is stupid, but rather there is a lack of contextual knowledge that allows one to more fully understand the deeper meanings of the Scripture. I found that the best weapons against my own Scriptural ignorance is not to discount the Old Testament as though it doesn't apply to me today. Additionally, I have found two incredible teachers in Joseph Good and Rico Cortez. If you really want to learn what things mean in the Old Testament these two men will open you eyes.
@@cardcounter21 I don't think so. Tovia speaks against, not only the New Testament, but Jesus as well. He tries to debunk the writings of the New Testament in a way that is reminecent of Roman Catholic replacement theology which is a false belief and misinterpretation of scripture.
@@cardcounter21 I don't think so. Tovia speaks against, not only the New Testament, but Jesus as well. He tries to debunk the writings of the New Testament in a way that is reminiscent of Roman Catholic replacement theology which is a false belief and misinterpretation of New Testament scripture.
@@cardcounter21 I'm not sure what this has to do with Tovia being anit New Testament and anti Yeshua. Not to mention how most believers don't dig deep enough to find the contextual information that validates the Old and New Testaments to each other.
@@cardcounter21 anti Old Testament? Not at all. I am pro Old Testament. Yeshua taught it and obeyed it and so do I. But again, I still won't listen to teachings from Tovia. He denies Yeshua as the Messiah.
QUESTION: Dr Copan’s characterization on the skeptic’s objections to slavery in the OT is completely misleading and defangs the actual steel man version of the argument. 7:25 “When they read Leviticus 25 and it talks about being able to take those who are from foreign nations to be your servants and they think ‘oh you can mistreat them, this is like the Pre-Civil War era.’” This characterization implies that the assumption that you can mistreat them comes from the fact that they can be taken from foreign lands, however the argument made about Leviticus 25 is the distinction between Hebrew “servants” and foreign “slaves” (those are the terms used) and how Hebrew servants are distinctly treated better with the strong implication that foreign slaves can be ruled over ruthlessly. It also seems to imply that this passage is the only “troubling” mention of slavery, slavery is systemic throughout the OT. There are many other passages that provide a stronger basis and more cumulative case for the claim that slavery in the OT was immoral such as Exodus 21. Although it’s a bit crazy some people argue there are moral versions of slavery. Both passages I mentioned are here for reference: “39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25 39-46, NIV) “20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.” (Exodus 21-20-27, NIV)
[apologies for the long post, but I enjoyed reflecting on my first experience with Copan’s work] True story and I mean no offense. For what it’s worth, Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster is the book that started my path to atheism (or agnosticism- basically I don’t believe in any gods named among men) back in 2008 after 25 years walking with God (Moody Bible Inst grad). WL Craig had mentioned Copan’s book in his debate with Sam Harris. As a Christian who struggled with these issues, I immediately ordered it. Sadly, I found his arguments wholly unconvincing. He relies way too much on stylistic hyperbole, skirted around some slavery issues (focused on the “indentured servitude” of Hebrew slavery while ignoring some of the more severe issues with enslaving of those from other cultures). I didn’t feel his treatment if some of God’s brutishness in the institution of some laws (like Lev 21:9 “burn the sinful daughters of priests alive, for example) and actions (such as drowning children) was remotely adequate. I understood why Craig said in his endorsement, “I don’t agree with everything Copan argues” (of course not all scholars agree on anything, but I felt there was more behind that statement than simple disagreement). Apologists, like Turek, like to say things like atheists have to borrow from god’s moral nature in order to accuse him (or sit in his lap to slap him). I think that’s rather silly and a bit of a dodge. What if there is a real unknown god that exists upon whom all morality and rightness is based? Perhaps the atheist along with everyone else is judging Bible god by the Unknown Goodness’s nature. In that case the atheist is perfectly fair to judge baby drowning, head bashing, and daughter burning- among so many other actions- as evil. Apologists like to say Yahweh moved humanity forward and is different from other Levantine gods. But nah, that’s not true. He’s only shades different. In some ways better, some ways worse and in many ways the same (even to the point of adopting practices instituted by his predecessors such as sacrifice). Rather odd. I have no need to convince Christians to stop believing. My only point is Christians should stop saying we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18ff). That’s just one more silly inaccuracy of the Bible (when taken literally and absolutely). I highly recommend Christian apologist, Randal Rauser’s book “Is the Atheist My Neighbor?” I once had the privilege of giving one to Sean McDowell in person. I hope he read it. It’s rather tiring being accused of leaving Christianity because I want to “be my own god,” live a life of sin,” etc. Rauser also wrote a book about God’s atrocities and has debated and discussed it here on YT. I think his treatment is an nice counterpoint to Copan’s as he does not try to gloss over these important issues.
Hello, Big Idea Seeker. [Pardon my length post as well!] Thank you for your honest reflections. I appreciate your going into detail about your journey. Although people have been helped in their faith through my (and Matt Flannagan's) work on Old Testament ethical challenges, I know that the OT presents plenty difficulties that require honest examination. I myself continue to learn in this process. In my forthcoming Vindictive Bully book, I go into more detail on the humanizing worldview differences and assumptions that exist between the Mosaic Law and other ancient Near Eastern law collections. (You can get a good idea of these in the book by David L. Baker, *Tight Fists or Open Hands?* [Eerdmans], which is devoted to looking at worldview differences and similarities. I've also done some modifying from my Moral Monster book, including addressing the nature of punishments. Actually, scholars like J.J. Finkelstein, John Goldingay, Joe Sprinkle, and other scholars have persuaded me that these punishments (stoning, burning, etc.) were to serve as warnings about the badness of certain actions and were generally not taken as literal in the ancient Near East. I've also responded to criticisms about servitude in the Old Testament, including three additional chapters on Leviticus 25. And I do interact with Rauser’s recent book as well. Although Bill Craig didn't endorse the Moral Monster book on the back cover and spoke only positively of it at the Harris debate, we have disagreed on whether, say, 1 Sam 15 is hyperbolic. Matt Flannagan and I--based on the text of 1 Sam. 15 and later in 1 Sam. 27 and 30 itself, make a fairly substantive case for it, in my estimation At any rate, I expand on this and other warfare texts in my Vindictive Bully book-especially in light of the hyperbolic device common in ancient Near Eastern war texts. We have another hyperbolic literary device which includes (a) a localized battle (which we have in 1 Sam. 15:5) and then (b) universal conquest (Saul’s battling from Arabia to Egypt-and then David does the same against the Amalekites at the end of the book.) Oeste and Webb have written extensively on this in *Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?*--and they argue persuasively for a hyperbolic view. More and more scholars seem to be doing this, whom I cite in my book. Actually, as I continue to study the text and read scholars on this, I grow more and more convinced of it. As I said, in the process of studying and interacting with scholars about these questions, I continue to learn and recognize complete-or completely satisfying-answers may elude us. That said, stay tuned for more surprises in my forthcoming book. Drop me a note and let me know what you think. Challenges remain, as I said, and I acknowledge these in my book. I have three chapters at the end for the “critics from within” and for “critics from without.” I'd be happy to interact with you further if you'd like. I’d would appreciate hearing more of your story. Feel free to email me through my website, and we can connect beyond that if you would be interested. Best wishes to you-and thanks again for giving your reflections. Paul
I have Two questions for you: 1) are the objections you raise about certain things in the OT based on objective moral principles? Or are they merely based on your own subjective moral values? 2) are there sins you started to make a habit of committing once you denounced God and denied the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, such as porn (lust), or sexual immorality (premarital sexual relations), or any other sins? Thank you and best regards
@@apracity7672 funny how christians have only subjective moral values like everyone else. Christians make up what morals they want to pretend their god has, and surprise, it matches their own. Since you folks can't agree on what your imaginary god considers a "sin", no reason to believe that any of you have the "right" answer, and since many of you have no problem with your god doing horrible things, you show your morality is entirely subjective, based on who or what the actor is and not the objective morality of an action itself. Your morals are often no more than might equals right. I do love you making the same usual lies that BIS pointed out that chrisitans love to do.
Prof. Copan's responses seem to me, for lack of a better term, weaselly. In particular, his response to the problem of god killing the Egyptian's first-born children is a slick side-step, much like a Republican congressperson's response when asked about Trump having stolen classified documents. And then Prof. McDowell chimes in with a Nazi Germany comparison, so you know that rational discourse has flown out of the window. The two of them assert that because Pharaoh had ordered the death of Hebrew infants, it was just for god to kill Egyptian first-born children, adding that of course the average Egyptians were complicit in Pharoah's evil, just as the average German was complicit with Hitler in the Final Solution. Are they kidding? Let's look at the argument - Pharaoh and a lot of Egyptian adults were guilty of killing Hebrew infants, therefore it is fair that god kill innocent Egyptian children. This completely ignores that the Egyptian children hadn't done anything wrong, and ignores that god is supposed to be the god of all people, not merely the Hebrews? Aren't the innocent Egyptian children god's creatures too? Prof. McDowell then throws out the relatively easy question of Uzzah being slain for touching the Ark in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 (the Israelites weren't following god's protocols says Prof. Copan in justifying this), and not the more difficult question of god killing fifty thousand and seventy men of Bethshemesh because some of them had looked into the ark that the Philistines had returned to the town. Clearly not all of those 50,070 men were treating god and his ark casually, as Prof. Copan claims is the justification for god doing these things. They could scarcely all have known that the ark had even shown up in Bethshemesh. Nonetheless, Professors Copan and McDowell appear to agree that this sort of thing is a reasonable response on the part of a just god. Prof. Copan keeps saying that, yes, god judges, but he shows compassion in greater measure. That is clearly hogwash. Prof. Copan then tries to whitewash the discussion in Leviticus 25:44-46 which explicitly explains that one can buy slaves from non-Israelites living in Israel and own them forever - 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." He first tries to employ the usual apologist sidestep by claiming that Israelite slavery was not like slavery in the antebellum South, but more like indentured servitude, which is flatly false. The indentured servitude discussion occurs elsewhere in the Bible and has to do with Israelites selling themselves to other Israelites, and there were various limitations regarding this arrangement. That has nothing to do with the slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46, the enslavement of non-Israelites, which was very much like the enslavement of blacks in the antebellum South, and to suggest otherwise is very close to a lie, as both of these professors clearly know better, but use the argument anyway. And the two professors fail to address the incident that I think most clearly adumbrates the broad, deep and foul stream of vindictiveness one can find in the Bible, which is god’s direction to Saul with respect to the Amalekites as set out in First Samuel 15:3 - "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both men and women, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." In my view, this passage pretty much sums up the god of the Israelites. What had the Amalekites done to warrant genocide? They had attacked Moses and his flock when they were leaving Egypt generations earlier. Does this response seem appropriate after the passage of perhaps hundreds of years? God carries a grudge for a long time. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, weren't the Amalekites god's creatures too? I understand that both Professors McDowell and Copan are believers in what the Bible says, and in the the god of the Bible, and they cannot accept a god that is fundamentally cruel and unjust, so they have to whitewash him. The problem is, and this is a fundamental problem with the concept of the Trinity, the god of the Hebrew Bible is not the god of the Gospels. He is frequently vindictive for no good reason, or at least no good reason that might be obvious to the average person, and often cruel, and if one is honest, needlessly cruel. It seems to me to be a problem when an obviously learned and sincere man such as Prof. Copan has to employ weaselly arguments in order to justify the behavior of the god he believes in.
@@kaiju1618 You’re probably right but I’d like to remain optimistic. Hopefully Sean will ask him in their next live stream. Engaging in an honest debate could do a lot to strengthen his position. It mostly seems like he’s promoting ways you could look at a troubling passage but aren’t likely to be historically accurate ways to look at the passage. I’d really like to see him try to defend in a debate format that the evidence actually supports his position as opposed to it just being a plausible option that Christian’s can take to ease cognitive dissonance.
QUESTION: the flood to punish humans would have maimed and drowned in pain and terror, millions of sentient, non-human animals. How is this morally praiseworthy?
There are a number of flood stories that predate the Biblical flood story. It’s likely not a literal account but meant to teach a larger truth, as much of the Biblical narrative does. IMO
Those ppl were warned by Noah for 100 years that God would flood the planet if they didn't repent, and they laughed at Noah. Gen. 6 describing the total depravity that was present in the world is what makes it morally praiseworthy. God being a Judge requires Him to punish ppl for living morally bankrupt lives.
With this I have now watched all of of Sean's interview videos. Thank you Sean for creating this channel! It has helped immensely and introduced me to the world of apologetics. God bless you and your family!
Wow,I’m impressed you’ve seen them all. So glad they’re helpful!
@@SeanMcDowell One of the main reasons I was drawn to you was your humility, which is really lacking with Christians nowadays unfortunately and really troubles me. Question. Are you still able to do discounts on the certificate program? I'd like to sign up for it now but I noticed you don't advertise the deal anymore.
@@sarahsays194 YES! There’s info in the video description along with a discount. If you can’t find it, email me thru seanmcdowell.org and I’m happy to help.
Has it occurred to you that if your god wants you to understand him he would make his messages CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS.
How is it possible that the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE has to rely on us MERE HUMANS to tell the other humans WHAT GOD REALLY MEANS.
Is god INCAPABLE of making his message CLEAR.
Also, HOW CAN MERE HUMANS UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN THE MIND OF AN ALMIGHTY GOD?
Are these people ACTUALLY READING GODS MIND? and how do they KNOW that their explanations are WHAT GOD REALLY MEANS.
The answer is of course THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN GODS MIND.
Don’t listen to these FOOLS, THEY’RE LYING TO YOU.
@@oldedwardian1778 is coming in HOT with this comment, but they're making some good points. It's interesting that apologists like this will on one hand wax poetically about how the Bible is God's love letter to the world, that it is God's perfect inerrant word, and that this is the ultimate source of morality without which we would be lost. They also presumably subscribe to some sort of "sola scriptura" doctrine. And then on the other hand say, well actually you need to read my SECOND ~300 page book to really understand what God means, those words on the page don't actually mean what they say. God didn't do that good of a job making sure his word got transmitted accurately to us, here's what he really meant to say, according to me and my friends. Sola scriptura + my book.
A delight to listen to Paul Copan talk! Love 'Is God a Moral Monster?'. Amazing book!
Thank you so much for taking your time to answer so many tough questions. God bless you both!
You bet. These are questions I have too!
Yes!
Portuguese is my first language so whatever I learn here I share with my family and friends in Brazil. My husband is American and he is agnostic. So slow in the flow I am able to answer his questions. 😅 Big shout out to your channel!! I could not do that by myself. God bless you dear brother in Christ. I also follow Melissa and Pastor Mike Winger and Cross Examination. I also bought your book “ The Evidence that demands a verdict” Josh McDowell & Sean McDowell My wish is that everyone read this book. 🙏
tough questions but these are bogus answers and a blatant attempt to whitewash the bible
@@SeanMcDowell Thank you but I would like to understand if anyone is having this dilemma how do I KNOW if/when I get to heaven God the Father isn’t going show his Old Testament scary nature why would we even have faith all will be good. I am at the point sometimes if someone said you can be turned off forever (no hell) or go to heaven given the the day, hour or minute I would pick off. My biggest compelling reason to choose heaven is meet Jesus.
Another thing about the OT a pastor I once had said that was very helpful. Unlike the NT where the moral commentary is usually not far from a story, the OT often tells an event, saying, or story and leaves the interpretation up to *other* (otherwise unconnected) passages that address moral matters. In short, it assumes such knowledge without always having to immediately point it out.
13:35 Either Dr. Copan heard my sermon a few weeks ago, which I choose to believe, or we came to the same conclusion here! :-P Thank you, Dr. Copan, for doing this interview!
Yes
David's heart question is a good question and to expound on what Paul was saying we have to look at what the Father had been saying what He wanted of His people up to this point. That is He wanted someone with a humbled heart, a repentant heart, and a heart not hardened to the Fathers will. Every time David sinned, and there were many grievous sins that he committed, he always fell on his face with humility and a sincere yearning of repentance that the Father accepted and forgave him. It doesn't mean that the Father let David off the hook as far as punishment was concerned, but He forgave him none the less.
I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian to the majority of the comments here and say that Dr Copan’s responses to the difficult passages were lacking for me. By my estimation, I don’t think he did enough to show that these laws were indeed good laws, instead resorting to almost sounding like providing cop outs for the laws (eg, “people weren’t usually put to death, etc”). I don’t say these things to be nasty, because he’s clearly done more work on the topic than a lay Christian like myself, but I was really anticipating getting to listen to a robust defence of God’s Old Testament laws and other controversial stories. God Bless, Dr McDowell and Dr Copan for your work to advance the Kingdom, and I pray this feedback is received with the grace, truth, and love I intended.
Just read the New Testament, don't even bother reading the Old Testament. His defense is bad, he straight up lied about Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which talks about rape, not seduction.
@@DipsAndPushupshave you ever done a word study, or read one, on the word translated as rape? It is a softer word than the word translated as rape earlier in the passage. The scope of use of the word has been shown to be from holding a tissue type grasp through to holding a sword. Swords are not gripped all that powerfully because to do so reduces manoeuvre ability. This sort of a word study, and consideration of the preceding verses, is why most scholars deny the idea it refers to rape.
Thank you, I was always wondering the man of his heart.
Dr. Michael Heiser gives excellent insights into the mocking males meet bear story.
Do you have a link to his comments on this passage? Please share!
Could you please share the link of Michale Heisers? Thanks
The fear of God is the beginning of understanding. I believe that God like Jesus had righteous anger. God does not think like we think either.
Thank you for this
QUESTION: I several questions in response to Dr Copan’s argument starting at 39:10 that the killing of all the firstborn Egyptian children was justified because the Egyptians took part in or were complicit with the killing the Israelite baby boys, and that God referred to Israel as his firstborn, so killing the Egyptian firstborn was a justified response.
1. He at least implies that ALL Egyptians were to blame because they took part in the killing or were at least culpable and repeatedly refers to “the Egyptians” as though they are a monolith. Not only is it nonsense to assume every single Egyptian played a role, but the Bible also explicitly tells us some Egyptians resisted Pharaoh’s order to kill the Israelite boys. The midwives refuse to kill the baby boys and then lie to Pharaoh when he asks why they did not do it (Exodus 1:17-19, NIV), and Pharaoh’s own daughter sheltered Moses when she found him in the basket in the river (Exodus 2:5-10, NIV). We know that Pharaoh's daughter knew baby Moses was an Israelite because the Bible quotes her as saying “This is one of the Hebrew babies” (Exodus 2:6, NIV); so she would’ve known that her father had decreed that Moses be killed, and yet she protected him.
2. Sean makes the analogy at 41:48 between the Egyptians and citizens of Nazi Germany “it wasn’t just Hitler, there were thousands of prison guards, thousands of snitches, thousands of other people who were also complicit.” But there also were thousands of Germans who resisted, and sheltered the Jews and other victims, and helped them escape, all at great risk to their own lives. To follow Sean’s analogy to its end, one should argue that killing every German first born child, including the children of those who resisted would be an appropriate punishment for the Holocaust.
A. If you narrowed the scope to only the prison guards and other directly responsible for the killings, would it be morally justified to kill their children as punishment for what they did to God's firstborn?
B. What if Hitler had a son? Would killing only his son and sparing all others children be a morally justified response to punish him for his crimes?
3. I think we should also assume that there were many people who were not at all involved or could not be held responsible for what was done to the Israelites. For example, poor Egyptians who did not have any power and slaves of other ethnicities. These people would also have had their first born killed because the Angel of Death only passed over the houses of those who had the blood crosses painted on their door frames. There is no other indication that anyone else besides the Israelites would have known the very specific formula of blood prescribed to save their house from the Angel.
4. At 41:00 Dr. Copan says “this is a last Resort measure, God wasn’t able to get Pharaoh’s attention as it were through these other plagues, so finally is in this severe judgement that finally that Pharaoh gives up and says ‘OK, take your people and go.’” But this is not true; after the plagues of Locust and Darkness that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that is why he did not let the people go (Exodus 10:20 and 10:27). The scripture states the reason that Pharaoh did not release the Israelites after the last 2 plagues was because of God’s intervention.
5. Foremost, even if it were true that every Egyptian were responsible for what was done to the Israelites, the punishment was against their children. I don’t see any way that killing a person’s newborn, infant, or child is a justified punishment for anyone's actions regardless of the crime. It also runs contrary to what Dr Copan argues at 31:30 when he argues that God doesn’t punish children for their father’s sins. “It is not as though there is guilt imputed to those who are being judged by God because of what the parents have done” (33:15). Unless I am completely missing his point, this seems to be inconsistent.
Thank you again for addressing these issues!
_"To follow Sean’s analogy to its end, one should argue that killing every German first born child, including the children of those who resisted would be an appropriate punishment for the Holocaust."_
Wow, this would make a great standalone question.
_"the punishment was against their children... runs contrary to what Dr Copan argues at __31:30__ when he argues that God doesn’t punish children for their father’s sins."_
Good catch!
@@incredulouspasta3304 Good idea! I'll break it out into it's own question and expand on it a little bit too.
Wow. All said with straight faces. Impressive.
QUESTION: More of a critique than a question, and I apologize in advance for the length, I will try to make it as concise as I can while explaining my points.
There is a very striking disconnect between the title of this video and what arguments are being made in the content. The title asks, “Is God a Vindictive Bully” but the video, and presumably Dr Copan’s forthcoming book, seems to be addressing a question more along the lines of “are God’s actions and laws in the OT justifiable?” Throughout the course of Dr Copan’s defense of God’s actions and laws in each troubling passage, his argument’s answer to the title question seem to be “Yes, God is a Vindictive Bully, but it's ok.”
This is most clear to me in the discussions of the killing of the firstborn children of Egypt. At 40:25 Dr Copan states “you have God saying, ‘if you’re going to do this to Hebrew babies, if you’re going to do this to my firstborn, the Nation of Israel, then something is going to happen to your firstborn.’” This is definitionally vindictive and the actions of a bully. Telling someone that you are going to hurt them because they hurt you is vindictive and purely retaliatory. Furthermore, hurting them by hurting (in this case killing) their child is, in my estimation, one of the most vengeful and ruthless acts imaginable. Throughout his defense, Dr Copan doesn’t argue that this is not vindictive, only provides reasons why God was justified in the indiscriminate killing of every firstborn child in Egypt. Sean remarks at 42:00 “I had not made the connection of the Israelites children being sacrificed and killed, in a sense God is bringing justice back onto the new Pharaoh what had been done to Israel. Very, very fair.” Even if one accepts all of Dr Copan’s justifications for this action, what you’re accepting is “Yes, God is vindictive, but he was justified, the Egyptians deserved it.”
Dr Copan also paints God as a bully when he describes God’s desire to use the plagues and destruction of the Egyptians in the Exodus story to demonstrate his power and might. He states at 38:35 that “God will show how much greater he is, how much more powerful He is than the gods of Egypt, and He will deliver His enslaved people out of that land.” We see God state His desire clearly after the Israelites left Egypt, before the parting of the Red Sea. God told Moses “Pharaoh will think, ‘The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.’ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” (Exodus 14:3-4, NIV). How does God bring glory to himself and show he is powerful? Through plagues and widespread killing. Dr Copan argues that these 10 plagues were demonstrations of God’s dominance over the world’s current superpower in their “showdown.” Asserting your dominance over others using violence, death, and destruction is bullying. Bullies pick on those weaker than them, in this case the alleged omnipotent creator of the universe showed his power by destroying finite beings who are totally defenseless to him, and besting the “Egyptian gods” who are non-existent, fictional beings. Instead of indiscriminately killing every Egyptian first born, bringing 9 other plagues, and drowning the Egyptian army in Red Sea, do you think that God (who the same apologists will say spoke the entire universe into being and finely tuned every force to perfectly suit our existence) would be able to show himself and his might through love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness? Would he instead be able to demonstrate power through love in a way that would allow the Egyptians to repent, ask for forgiveness, and be redeemed instead of destroyed? If his love, wisdom, creatively, and grace is limitless, I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have done this. Can you argue that his actions are justified? Sure. Are they the actions of a bully? Yes, these two are not mutually exclusive.
We also see this in the story at 46:00 of God killing Uzzah when he failed to follow the proper protocol for carrying the ark and grabbed it to prevent it from falling. Dr Copan pontificates that Uzzah might have become too familiar with the arc and too lax with its rules. Is God justified in killing Uzzah? Sure. You can argue, as Dr Copan does, that God made the rules and told them, and they chose to not follow them so he as justified in taking corrective action. But “you didn’t follow my protocols, so now I have to smite you” seems extremely petty, vindictive, and arbitrary. If you‘re carrying something and it slips and begins to you’re your natural reaction is to reach out and try to grab it without thinking (at least mine is). Surely the tri-omni God could have come up with a less lethal way to remind Uzzah to keep his hands off the arc, maybe a shock or a flash of light causing temporary blindness, or he could’ve turned Uzzah into a snake for a week. There are nearly limitless less than lethal options that would’ve made a point. God’s emotions are clear in the passage though, “the Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.” (2 Samuel 6:7, NIV). But the point is clear, follow my rules or die. That is vindictive and what a bully would do. Is God a Vindictive Bully? “Yes, God is vindictive, but he was justified, he made the rules, and they choose not to follow them, so God killed them to send a message put them back in their place.”
There are plenty of other examples of God acting in this same way through the OT, but the one that sticks out most in my memory is the short story of the Bronze Snake in Numbers 21:4. I won’t editorialize any further than to ask you to ask yourself as you read, not can a being with the attributes of God be justified in doing this taking into consideration the time and place and cultural backdrop and yada yada yada; but rather the question that this video title asks, “Is God a Vindictive Bully?” Is this action vindictive, and is the actor behaving like a bully?
“But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.” (Numbers 21:4-9, NIV)
This was very well said, and I 100% agree with you. I hope this is touched upon in the next video (I haven't seen it yet).
For me as an older person and seeing how fallen the world is and full of degeneracy, I see that God seeking such high standards as refreshing.
The Snake episode is an example. The people were literally whining about being saved .. they were complaining!!
They had food sent miraculously daily to them and water supplied.. yet they were always ungrateful… imagine complaining about being given food in desert conditions.
The snakes a reminder of how fragile life was for them.. they had the provisions of life literally given to them yet they complained?? God was providing for them in every way.
I see it as God reminding them .. he also made the way for them to be healed.
@@hereweare9096 I use to see your point until it happened to me, when you believe you are being rescued you are looking for a COMPLETE deliverance. Here’s a modern day example we all just went through the pandemic aren’t you grateful it subsided why are you grumbling about everything costing sooo much you lived didn’t you? Your ungrateful let me smite you. It’s easy to think the Israelites are being ungrateful but when it is you walking through it and not just words on a page it is oh so different.
@@lisajones7756 I disagree. The pandemic wasn’t that hard.. my life hasn’t been an easy one. I was already and still am dealing with quite a lot.
I see the world around me today.. people are ungrateful for life.. people that live in first world countries care more about a handbag than children who are starving.
The politicians do not care and we see this in the fact we have the UN yet people still live in slums and poverty.. no medical care and starvation.
That is why when I read the Bible I see that Gods way is right.. mankind living by human rule is what we have today ..
@@hereweare9096 “I see God’s way as right”, do you also see him as all knowing? So did he or didn’t he know what was going to happen? Sorry the operative verse seems to be
I will have mercy on whom I shall have mercy. After what has happened to me (I have been in a magicians wonderland) I can’t believe what I see is truth and not the deception of Satan, you know he is the ruler of this world.
QUESTION: I have several questions/critiques on Dr. Copan’s arguments around the death penalty in OT law starting at 25:50.
1. How does Dr. Copan harmonize specific stoning deaths for offenses other than murder, such as the story of the man caught picking up sticks on the sabbath in Numbers 15:32-36 or the blasphemer in Leviticus 24:10-23, with his argument? In particular, Numbers 15 (I’ll put the reference in a comment) seems unambiguous that:
a. the crime committed was not murder (it was collecting sticks on the Sabbath) thereby seemingly contradicting the claim at 26:50 that only murder could not be commuted.
b. The man was actually, physically stoned to death; thereby seemingly contradicting the claim at 17:30 at 28:20 that stoning was “simply not taken literally” and was instead hyperbole to serve as a wakeup call.
c. This was directly commanded by God, therefore not a misinterpretation of His word.
2. What passages or evidence support the claim at 26:50 that of all potentially capital offences, the only one that could not be commuted to payment was “cold blooded murder”? There are many passages that contain offences in which the perpetrator must be put to death (ex: Leviticus 20:1-27) but there doesn’t seem to be an exemption for payment. However, Exodus 21:29-30 has a specific provision that states the owner of an ox who gores another can redeem himself from his death penalty through payment if it is demanded. Why do the other passages that could be commuted to a payment not have similar language?
3. If it is true that all crimes except for “cold blooded murder” could be commuted to a payment, it seems to me that this means that wealthy people who could afford payment could simply pay a fine, but poor people who did not have enough money (or was indentured due to their inability to pay off debts) could not pay and therefore would be subject to the penalty (in many cases death). This seems to be both unjust and contradictory to Dr. Copan’s argument at 23:40 that the law of Moses was egalitarian and had the same punishments for all people regardless of status.
4. For the argument that the death penalty could be commuted to a payment to the "aggrieved parties", what determined who this was? For the example of adultery at 27:55, who would be the "aggrieved party" and who would be the one paying them? Also for other crimes that don't seem to have a specific victim, such as homosexual acts in Leviticus 20:13, who is the "aggrieved party" that the men would offer payment to to avoid the prescribed death penalty?
Numbers 15:32-36 (NIV) “ 32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.”
While the commandments include 30 odd capital offences: there is no case example in the entire Hebrew Bible of such ever been carried out.
So much explaining! This just doesn't' hold water
Good questions. (I'm on my phone and don't like typing. I'll added more details when I get to a real keyboard)
1. The sabbath breaker is flagrantly disobeying with rebellion in his heart. We know this because the broader context is rebellion of various kinds (Start with ch 12).
BTW, the aggrieved parry is first and foremost always God. Is 51:5
QUESTION: What is there to say about David's and Bathsheba's child being struck down by God at seven days old?
A new commandment I give unto you…
“For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
I get tired of Atheists objections
QUESTION: Dr. Copan argues at 44:10 that God sends the flood as judgement because “the picture is of irretrievability, there’s just not coming back, there’s no redemption, there is no help, for those who have sunk so low, so God says ‘I will finish what they begun.’” Isn’t this antithetical to the Christian message that everyone can be redeemed by grace alone through the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit, no matter what acts one as committed because we have all fallen short? How does Dr. Copan square this line of reasoning with (at least my understanding of) orthodox Christian doctrine?
...
Sean makes a point when talking about God hardening Pharaoh's heart at 39:00 that “hardening [Pharaoh's] heart doesn’t mean that he is beyond salvation or repentance.” In what way was everyone living before the flood different or worse than Pharaoh so they they were beyond salvation?
...
If the answer is an Old Covenant vs. New Covenant type defense, why was God willing and/or able to redeem the sins of all mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross 2,000 years ago, but at the time of the flood his only option was annihilation?
Contrast the statement at 44:10 to that at 7:00 when discussing his “Golden Rule of Charitability” where Dr Copan says “also understanding how God is also at work meeting people where they are, trying to meet them, accommodate them, but also move them in a redemptive direction”. Why was God unable or unwilling to do this pre-flood?
You seem angry. Who or what are you angry at - God, the Bible, Dr Copan, or something else?
If the Bible is true and we just have a hard time understanding it , then what is the point of being angry? That's like a scientist being angry at the universe because there is something he cannot understand. Instead, the scientist keeps searching for answers.
If the Bible is false, then what is the point of being angry? That's like someone being angry at Santa Clause.
So, why are you so angry?
@@timg1770 He doesn't look angry, he is stating facts.
❤ MERCIIIII Oui le discernement est vital
I wish these explanations clicked in my head more.
Because they are not really explanations. They are using backwards logic, they start with the assumption the Bible is 100% correct, so every passage MUST be moral
QUESTION: Which translation of the Bible does Dr. Copan use? He argues at the 29:30 mark that Deut 22:28 talks about seducing and doesn't use seize or the "r" word. Looking at about 40 parallel passages on Bible Hub and Bible Gateway, I don't see any that say seduce, all except for the NLT use either "seize", "lay ahold of', the "r" word, or similar language that implies force. What translation is he using for his arguments that talks about seduction or a willing relationship?
Hes a Christian that is making things up. Thats all Christians do, is make things up
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
To be more concise: Dr. Copan say at 30:02 “In the Deuteronomy passage it says ‘if he seduces her’ it’s not ‘seize her’ or so forth, it’s a much milder term”. What translation does he use to get this reading? I can only find translations of Deut 22:28 that use “sieze”, “r”, “lay ahold of”, or similar language. I find none that use “seduce” or any language that indicates a consensual act or seduction.
New International Version
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
New Living Translation
“Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered,
English Standard Version
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
Berean Study Bible
If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,
New American Standard Bible
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered,
NASB 1995
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
NASB 1977
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
Amplified Bible
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and is intimate with her and they are discovered,
Christian Standard Bible
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered,
Holman Christian Standard Bible
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered,
Contemporary English Version
Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man forces her to have sex with him. If he is caught,
Good News Translation
"Suppose a man is caught raping a young woman who is not engaged.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is discovered,
International Standard Version
"However, if a man meets a girl who isn't engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out,
NET Bible
Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.
King James Bible
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
New King James Version
“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
King James 2000 Bible
If a man find a young woman that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
New Heart English Bible
If a man find a woman who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
World English Bible
If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
American King James Version
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
American Standard Version
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
A Faithful Version
If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found,
Darby Bible Translation
If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,
English Revised Version
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Webster's Bible Translation
If a man shall find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
He is deliberately lying. Deuteronomy 22:28 and 22:29 talks about rape, not seduction. What else do you expect from someone who said "they had slaves, but they treated them nicely" in order to defend slavery? What else do you expect someone who argues that modern values came from Judeo-Christian values (when in reality modern world was built on fighting the reprehensible Jewish Old Testaments values). Old Testament is as bad as it gets. God from the Old Testament is as bad as it possibly gets, Hitler wasn't as bad as the God from the Old Testament.
Anyone who wants the laws of our society or morality of our society to have anything to do with the Old Testament must be fought by any means necessary.
Interesting Sean and Paul👍
Brilliant, fascinating. Dr Sean McDowell does it again. Great guest, great interview.
Thank you so very much 🙏🧡!
descriptive vs. prescriptive is super helpful!
Really?
QUESTION; concerning animal suffering. “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood ...." ~ Leviticus 16:15.
God is love. God loves. These are innocent animals. Why would God set up a system where innocent animals have to suffer and die for the sins of mankind? Seems very counterintuitive, especially to a young child.
QUESTION:
Hi. I see l am a bit late to join this discussion, but l find Apologestics very fascinating.
I previously read The Secret Book of John(The Apocryphon of John) and was very surprised, not knowing what to make of this. But as l read, l got the impression that Yaldabaoth, and what is said about him, explained why there was so much "bullying" in the Old Testament.
May l please ask what do you think about this..... can this perhaps explain what this book of Paul Copan is all about?
I see God as a loving teacher, in that everything He does is to guide us and help us grow closer to him. Sometimes the lessons are hard, but the outcome is worth it otherwise He wouldn't allow it. Now I prefer to learn by counsel, than consequence, both of which I have experienced, but were ultimately my decisions. So yeh, a loving teacher and shepherd, who is slow to anger and quick to forgiveness. It's a journey of discovery people. Thanks be to God for the opportunity to experience life and just exist in His loving presence.
Thanks, awesome stuff
Thank you guys for this video. God bless you always 🙏❤. My thoughts are God is God and God is supreme. God is so far above us and our thinking. God created man in his own image and God has the right to say and do whatever he chooses. I don't question what it says in the Bible. Bottom line is God is over all. His ways are higher than our ways
Some good points and a lot of weak points, I thought, that would not satisfy most fair-minded critics from without or within. To many of the questions, Paul Copan put forth some facts most of us are unaware of, which have to do with the context of the issues, and seemed to think that would overcome objections to the "traditional" reading of the texts. I would hope his book BUILDS cases for his conclusions rather than hoping some new-to-us information will cloud our rational centers enough to satisfy us.
Very interesting. Can you give me some examples of what you mean? Not necessarily disagreeing, just really curious.
He straight up lied that Deuteronomy 22 talks about man who seduced a woman being forced to marry her. Deuteronomy 22:28 and 22:29 talk about rape, not seduction. Victims of rape are forced to marry the very person who raped them.
I did not expect anything but shameless lies from a person who tells his audience that Judeo-Christian values are what made modern societies. When of course, in reality, fighting against the reprehensible, evil, Jewish Old Testaments values is what makes our society much better than the reprehensible Jewish bronze age society.
It never ceases to amaze me what mental gymnastics believer will get pretzeld into, to defend their favorite psychopath.
Who, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens?
@@grantbartley483 Tell me you hate reality, without even mentiuoning the word.
Please, as a basis for further discussion:
a) Define your gawd?
b) Do you think your scripture is true cover to cover and which of the versions of Mein Kampf is your favorite?
Not, to this day ALL christians have been too affraid to answer.
@@bladerunner3314 God is creator. I'm more of a socialist. If Jesus was not resurrected the witness would have admitted that under persecution. But they didn't. So you're wrong.
@@grantbartley483 "God is creator." Many religions have and do claim that - do you have evidence besides your fairy tale?
"I'm more of a socialist." Nobody asked.
"If Jesus was not resurrected the witness would have admitted that under persecution. But they didn't." And by what metric do you have evidence ANYTHING in tzhat story ever happened or ANYBODY existed? Because your fairy tale says so? Look, There are weekly comics of Spider-Man, people say they've seen Spider-Man. Spider-Man must be real!
"So you're wrong." No, so you claim.
Your definition of gawd is very weak and you failed miserably. Like I said, no christian ever was honest enough, same goes for you.
If any other being, in any story, did what the OT god does or commands , then Christians would condemn them, and rightfully so. But they believe these acts are of an all loving, all powerful god.
Christians, I’d like you to really think about why this is.
QUESTION: 1. Curious what Dr Copan thinks of genesis 19 and the sequence of events surrounding Lot. First offering his daughters up and then sleeping with them (even if it said he didn't know he was doing it). Then he is credited as being righteous in 2 Peter 2:7-8. Through the lens of our modern day this is hard to understand.
You identify the problem. It is because the modern lens says "at least I am better than Lot" and it allows you to chose the aspects you judged on. If you do it correctly there will never be need to humble yourself and there will always be someone worse to compare to.
“Righteous” in the Bible CLEARLY does NOT mean *perfect or without sin* when talking about humans. It refers mainly to a persons devotion to God and his statutes/rules. No one except Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life on this earth. And the Bible doesn’t try to hide that fact either. It bares the shortcomings and sins of its human characters for all to see. So, just because someone is called “righteous” in the Bible, doesn’t mean they were “always good” or “never sinned or did wrong”.
And the answer is faith.
That’s the wonderful thing about the bible, you can make it say whatever you want. All god had to do was wait until RUclips was invented so his word could be explained
When we look into the scriptures for ourselves and examine it carefully the notion of it being made to say whatever one wants falls into small pieces. It's those that take spot samples out of the fuller context that make such claims .
I agree on all points; God is balanced, like a dove, love and justice...the dove needs both wings to fly.
Balanced? He’s homicidal!
Fortunately, there’s no proof the God of the Bible exists
I see peanut butter cups when I hear about the great flood. Considering the commercial for Reece's.
I do wonder how many people argue AGAINST the notion that God is a vindictive bully because they do in fact believe this in their own heart of hearts but are too terrified to admit it to Him.
the inward nature of sin and the pervasive nature of unbelief as connected to the inward nature of sin make this question at least relevant, and even IMO crucial
QUESTION: In Deut 21:13-14, after the month of mourning the Israelite can have sex with the female captive and marry her. Then if she doesn't please the Israelite, he can kick her out of the house but can't sell her for money since she isn't a virgin anymore.
Am I reading that right?
"And put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
Deuteronomy 21:13-14 NIV
QUESTION: Please address the concept of "alternative moralities--" ways of thinking that have their own internal logic, yet conform neither to our contemporary moral standards nor, we would believe, to the Lord's preferred plan.
QUESTION: If you answer any question on slavery can you answer this? “Is it, or was it ever, morally acceptable to own another person as property?”
I’m not asking how nicely anyone was treated.
I’m not asking what protections were put in place for their eyes and teeth.
I’m not asking what modern English word best describes the situation in the Bible.
I’m not asking how a certain system compares to the pre-Civil War South or other neighboring systems.
I’m not asking if they entered voluntarily into the arrangement because of their financial situation.
I’m only asking, “Is it, or was it every morally acceptable to own another person as property?”
Yep, I need this question answering as well.
The answer is unequivocally yes it is. Look no further than the modern day workplace. If you work for a company, then (for the time that you are on their property or on the clock) they own you. We accept this without question
If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the men who wrote the Bible fell short of the glory, then how can the Bible be the perfect words of God if it was written by men?
Romans 3:23-24 NIV
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
QUESTION: Does a Calvinistic interpretation of God’s sovereignty always ultimately lend itself to a view of God as being the author of evil?
David being called a man after God’s heart, David was called that according to God’s heart even though David was a sinner like us. It's God's call and it did not depend on David's goodness.
Two points from me.
1. If we are not considered people after God's own heart, why would He send Jesus for us? God wants us to do His will as he wanted David to.
2. After Jesus' arrival, we who love Jesus and want to and do His will and works, we are also people of God's own heart though our names are not recorded in the Bible. But our names are recorded in the Book of Life.
QUESTION: I strongly disagree with the explanation of "after my own heart" means that David was like Cyrus by doing what God wanted done in a prividential sense and not a spiritual sense.
I think that this just sidesteps the real issue. I contend that David's heart for God is seen throughout the Bible and the tension with this and his grave sin (compare to Ahab's similar circumstance with Nadab's vineyard) cannot be just ignored.
Bible Verses:
In 1 Samuel 13:13-14, it is associated with David in contrast to Saul's disregard of God's commands (like Nadab and Abiyu).
Compare this to what Samuel said to Saul about being small in his own eyes and that later when Samuel goes to David, God told him that He looks "at the heart" not the appearance.
In Jeremiah 3:14-16, it says "faithless Israel" will be forgiven and given "shepherds after my own heart" that would spiritually guide Israel.
Sample verses of how David is referred to:
1 Kings 3
1 Kings 9:4 "And as for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules,"
1 Kings 15:5 mentions Urriah as an exception. Later the census is also brought up. Neither of these two seem brought up again in Scripture, unless I missed it.
David is referred to multiple times to compare or contrast the way that his descendants kept God's commandments. This is despite Nathan saying that David did evil in God's sight and despised his commandments.
Thanks!
QUESTION: How do you interpret passages like Hebrews 6 & 10 which speak about followers of Christ falling away and reconcile that with the faithfulness of God in holding fast His own?
I think maybe the difference is that God Himself won’t ever let us go or abandon us. However we always have the choice to say “I’m walking away from this, and I don’t want Him anymore.” Not totally sure though
QUESTION: Responding the argument at 26:50 that all capital crimes except for “cold blooded murder” could be commuted to a payment the "aggrieved parties". Can Dr. Copan explain who the “aggrieved parties” are and who would pay them in these examples of non-murder cases that demand the death penalty?
1. "23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.” (Deuteronomy 22:23-27, NIV)
- Who is the “aggrieved party” that the woman in the town in verses 23-24 would pay to avoid her death sentence?
- Who is the “aggrieved party” that the man would pay to avoid his death sentence in either case? And if it is to the woman’s father or husband, why is not to the woman?
2. ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13, NIV)
- Who is the “aggrieved party” that each man would pay to commute their death penalty?
3. For the example of adultery at 27:55, who would be the "aggrieved party"? Would both the man and woman have to pay, and who would they make the payment to?
Question: in the king James it refers to Satin as a organic Instrument. Ezekiel 28:13-14.
QUESTION: Could you explain Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter?
Great one, thanks!
Just not rn lol xD
Just for now I think there is grounds to believe that her sacrifice was one of servitude as she was mourning not being able to be married and not that she would be killed by her own father.
@@honeybadger2115 And so, her sacrifice is holy?
QUESTION: When I think about the character of God in both the New and Old Testaments, I don't see any conflicts with His nature. This brings me to my question. When talking about God's nature, is it safe to state that his character is multi-dimensional just like our flawed character is. There are times where we are loving, there are times when we need to fight, there are things that make us angry, there are things that make us jealous. Just because we exhibit one characteristic, does mean those others don't exist. What is being exhibited is what is needed in response to a situation. Can you unpack this though and let me know if this is something you have considered? Thanks! Great information and I really appreciate the topic. God Bless!
Everything you said makes no sense when it comes to Biblical studies. You are trying to compare God to a flawed being. This is an argument Atheists use to prove God is a man made invention. It is also not safe to state he is a multi dimensional being. No where in the Bible is anything like that said. You are making things up that arnt Biblical and any Atheist who has actually read the Bible will point this out to you.
You are literally comparing God to a human. Trying to compare your emotions to Gods emotions. Admitting with out admitting God is indeed a human invention.
God is love, but God is first holy. Holy, holy, holy, in fact. This holiness is what we willfully are blind to. This allows us to produce a god in our own image, an idol. Does God seem to judgy, to wrathful? We just image God according to our own standards of love and viola, Boyfriend Genie Jesus is born.
God's wrath is also against what violates His love which thereby places His love of extreme value since it's connected to the most valuable thing, "life and relationship with God". It's no different than a loving husband and father that will bring down the hammer on anyone that were to harm his wife and kids. Abosulte rage is necessary to protect love. Anyone that is going to harm your family is doing so necessarily by breaking God's commandments and our own wrath demonstrates the disposition needed to protect that which is Holy. Holiness is living in obedience to God's commandments.
Hope this helps.
RC Sproul's teaching on the Holiness of God is outstanding in teaching this concept.
@@toddcote4904 Thanks for the feedback, Todd. Don't get me wrong in that I am not trying to make God into our own standards, but simply making a comparison, not an equivalency, to what we know about us and like we have many aspects that make up our character, God, too, has many facets to His character.
@@troyjhinkle
I'm not saying you were trying to make an idol, nor did I think you were
I was trying to unpack the character traits of God, showing that all His traits are first and foremost rooted in His holiness. That's what we're missing, holiness. That's why our characters are flawed.
@@toddcote4904 I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I totally understand that our character is flawed and God's isn't. That was why I called out our flawed character in the comparison. Thanks for the conversation. It's always good to discuss God and His character. Have a blessed day!
Is there a possibility that Abraham saw the surrounding offering their sons, he had this wish to offer God the best he has, his only son. And from his depth of his heart felt that God is ordering him to do so.?
QUESTION: What is the origin of evil? Did God create evil, or is evil the “lack” of God?
QUESTION: Back to polygamy in the OT. I understand the answer that you gave in this video re. Gen 1 and 2, man and wife, one flesh etc. However, in Deut 17, God states that the kings of Israel should not acquire too many horses or too many wives. The wording of this seems to clearly suggest that having more than one wife is OK, just don't have "too many."
(The reason for not having "too many wives" is clearly stated in the very same verse so that is not my question). God could have said that the king should not marry more than one wife, or not to marry a foreign wife, but that is not how God worded it.
Thanks for this great video and all the other very informative videos that you put out that strengthen our faith and help us to defend it with more knowledge, confidence and grace.
Best regards.
To me I would naturally translate "too many" as not more than one at a time.. sometimes wifes can die for example at childbirth or some other reason, Abraham married Keturah after Sarahs death and so on. But there can be consideration how many is too many, it's not a number. Also I think it was important to point that out, Jacob for example had two wifes and two concubines and that was not really ideal I assume. Kings should not have too many (not more than one) even some forefathers had.
QUESTION: Why was Cain's offering not looked on with favor? Both Cain and Abel brought offerings from what they worked to produce, and at this time, there is no documentation of God requesting any specific offering.
GREAT question!
Agreed, great question
My guess is that the life of the animal is what is required for a sacrifice. The life is in the blood. Produce was insufficient for sacrifice because vegetables don’t have blood/life in them.
@@robertdelisle7309 Canon: God requires blood sacrifice.
There is evidence in Cain's life that suggests God refused Cain's offering because he used farming methods with no regard for how they would impact the soil. God probably didn't request a specific offering from either man because He was was more concerned with whether or not their offering was produced in a selfish manner.
Hi Sean,
Thank you for all that you do. Your interviews are always very enlightening.
Please how can one get hold of you? I would like to speak with you directly.
Thank you
Lawrence
Question: In 2 Samuel 21, David takes seven sons of Saul and hands them over to be hanged by the Gibeonites to pay for the sins of Saul who killed the Gibeonites during his reign. The Bible says that the sins of the father will not fall upon his sons. How is it just to kill seven innocent sons of Saul for the sins of Saul?
BTW, if Pharaoh (fully *wanting* to rebel against God *aside* from God’s *recent* role in “hardening” his heart-see comments in the video, though much more could be said) it’s ultimately this desire towards rebellion that led to the doom of Egypt’s first born. (Though a million other theological things are wrapped up in understanding that more fully as well.)
In the story of the almost sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, I wonder if this story was a way for God to let people know that he didn't want child sacrifice. It looks like he wants Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and then he tells him No! and provides a ram instead. I imagine the impact of a story like that on the surrounding child sacrificing nations could be profound.
Two questions that were instrumental my journey out of Christianity. The first caused my loss of faith, the second is one of the better arguments I see for moving away from religions in general.
1.) It seems to me that the slavery, genocide, etc. of the Old Testament are better explained by naturalistic evolution of culture than by an all-powerful, all-loving God. I'm curious how Sean and Paul would respond to this.
2.) If we assume that the apparently vindictive parts of the OT were context-dependent, isn't it still dangerous to have those passages in what many call "the perfect Word of God"? If 99% of Christian read the Bible believing it has the weight of God behind it, but don't have don't have time or expertise to go into the historical context, can you see how these passages could be used to justify positions that seem anti-Biblical to you? One example is the preachers who used the Bible to justify slavery in the pre-war South.
If God is supposed to be about love and caring than he is a very peculiar way of showing it.
When he is said to have sent a flood to kill all living persons except one small family who survived on an Ark, God was willing not only to kill indiscriminately but even to kill babies and young children. When he travelled the length of Egypt, killing all the first-born just to prove that he was the LORD, he was not being all-loving. When he ordered Joshua to commit multiple acts of genocide, he may have held some love for the Israelites, but not for anyone else.
Simply to excuse these things by saying that they never really happened is simply to concede that God probably does not even exist. Non-existence is another way of not being all-loving.
@@Bugsy0333
If there is no God, then all of morality is nonsense. Your opinion versus my opinion, or might makes right, become the only avenues to morality. If Man is ontologically equal to animals, then we may behave as animals, and if you don’t like it, TOUGH! I refuse to believe that there is no objective moral code, and the only way to have a moral code is for there to be God.
@@sliglusamelius8578 You're doing the equivalent of saying, "I'm right because the big guy says so" that isn't a moral code. It's an appeal to an authority, worse yet it's an appeal to an authority that we can't actually consult. Your "morality" gets us no further than before (it arguably takes us backwards), people who want to do good still need a system to stop those who don't, our courts aren't filled with angels or prophets, only people and those people have to figure out what is and isn't fair amongst themselves.
@@patientfirbolg3299
No, I am saying that there has to be an OBJECTIVE moral standard of morality. That objective moral standard is God.
It is not ME, I never said that it was me! It is not you, it is not any human being, it is God. Otherwise there is only one person’s opinion versus another person’s opinion. God is the supreme judge, he makes the Law. Our job is to comport ourselves to that law as best as we can.
@@patientfirbolg3299
What human courts do is not necessarily directly related to objective moral truth. The Aztecs did human sacrifice, as did other cultures, but that was objectively morally wrong. Likewise, Germans had laws that targeted Jews, that was also objectively morally wrong. Mankind is imbued with a sense of Natural Law which guides us to the moral laws of God, but we can ignore those laws if we want to. We also disagree about them! But, at the time of our individual judgment, we will find out if we obeyed the moral laws of God or not.
You can’t fashion a moral code without appeal to God as the author of a universal moral code. I believe that you can’t do better than Christianity, which teaches that “whatsoever you do to others, that you do unto Him”, paraphrasing a quote by Jesus. Jesus, the final Judge, will judge us as though everything we do to others, we did unto Him”. So your job is to put that into practice as best as you can. It’s a bracing thought, to know that you will face Him as your judge one day.
What moral code could be better than that? There is no arguing with Jesus, no excuses, just straight up “you did this, you didn’t do that…., this was wrong, that was wrong….”.
QUESTION: which kind of bear is best?
Gold 👆👆
This that they are talking about will be in play in the thousand years reign of Jesus
oh yes, that thousand year reign that ends with this god working with Satan, and setting him loose on the christians left after this god kills everyone else so this god gets one more blood bath.
As a former believer, now agnostic, I am so very glad I no longer have to engage in the inventive apologetics necessary to redeem the supposed actions and commands of the biblical deity - but if it works for Copan, that's his prerogative I suppose.
In Exodus it says you can beat your slave as long as he/she isn’t bedridden more than two days
QUESTION: At 26:38 Dr Copan says that only murder couldn’t have capital punishment commuted to payment; but where is this possibility/option indicated in the actual text? Wouldn’t it be a sin for the Israelites to adjust the Law of God to be less severe, when several places indicate the capital punishment is meant to be preventative (such as Deut 13:11, 17:13, 19:20, 21:21)?
For example, we are commanded to keep the whole Law as part of the Greatest Commandment (Matt 22:37-38 referencing Deut 10:12-13), and then in the Law itself (Deut 11:8, 28:58, 29:9, 29:29). Therefore, given the most frequent commandment (and first of the Ten Commandments) is against idolatry, wouldn’t it have been disobedient for the Israelites to not apply the death penalty for idolotry (Deut 13:6-18, Deut 29:17-26)?
Great video
Jesus spoke more about 'hell' than anybody??
What translation, dispensation, etc?
If the consuming fire is the love of the good news conforming us to his image with our free-will still in tact as is his in his own image, you can call that hell. Anything else is injustice. Love is just. Justice is not unequal punishment with no forgiveness and reform.
If it is that God is as cruel as this, what a horror.
I suggest everyone take a look/listen to Marty Solomon’s podcast BEMA. Start with the introduction episode and at least listen to the first 3 or 4. It will help to reframe this discussion, I promise. Shalom.
Viva Christo Rey.
In Christo Rege.
Christ the King.
QUESTION: isn’t the idea of inherited sin ingrained in Christian theology? Our sinful nature and the guilt associated with it are inherited from Adam. We are born with inherited sin. What good does it do to explain away earthly punishments to the 3rd and fourth generation when all generations are inheriting eternal punishments.
Optional follow up: if God judges at the level of the individual why does he condemn entire nations (Canaanites, Amalekites) even commanding their infants to be put to death. Is this not judging at a national level as opposed to an individual level? Unless infants were individually guilty I can’t make any sense of this.
(32:00 for context)
Currently reading the Exodus and have been trying to better understand some of God's words and actions.
For instance, when Israel ends up building that false idol, and God tells Moses to leave Him alone and he will take them out and bless Moses offspring. Then Moses pleads with God.
Was God testing Moses by saying that?. Also, I don't fully understand the dealing of punishment when Moses goes back down.
Moses says "all who are with God, come to him", and it says the Levites did. What about all of the others? Was it only the Levites? And basically told them to take up their swords, and go entrance to entrance throughout the camp and cut down their brother, companion, and neighbor. Then it said about 3,000 men were killed. Why only 3,000 men? Then it said God plagued the people for the golden calf.
• Why were the sons of Levi the only ones who came to Moses?
• Why were only 3,000 men slain?
• Why did everyone else not receive the same punishment?
• Is it possible that the 3,000 men were the primary group who instigated the whole calf ordeal, or were they the elders or people that Moses had appointed to oversee groups, as stated earlier when they first got to the Mountain?
question: if mark 12:30 is the greatest commandments, how can believers follow the other mosaic laws/commands that break the golden rule. see numbers 31
QUESTION: Is it likely that sometimes it was impossible to get the exact meaning from the original biblical languages and that as our scholars study new ancient writings, customs, beliefs from that time period they will be better at getting the proper context and a more precise meaning of certain words and phrases?
QUESTION: What of the treatment of slaves in Exodus 21:20-21?
This questions just shows that anyone asking it has never read Exodus 21.
21:12-14 already prescribes death as the punishment for murder.
18-19 says that the punishment for injuring someone so that they are unable to work is monetary: they must pay them their daily wage and care for them during their recovery. 20 and 21 are a qualification of this provision. Since the slave owner already provides for the well being of his slaves and does not pay them a wage, the punishment for his mistreatment is the loss of the labor time.
The text does not say "if they die after two days its fine", the Hebrew literally says "if they stand up after a day or two". Trying to get around the "day or two" limit clearly runs afoul of verse 14 regarding premeditation.
26 and 27 describe further punishment for the slave owner for severe beatings. The slave is to go free for severe injuries such as the loss of an eye or minor injuries such as the loss of a tooth. It is not only saying the slave will go free if you damage an eye or knock out a tooth and if you think so I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was a common phrase in the ANE that referred to Reciprocal Justice.
@@grantgooch5834 I'm a Christian, I was just curious what the answer would be.
QUESTION: After the Fall, did the nature of humanity change to become “bad” rather than “good” as it was pronounced in the creation account? Does our depravity mean total inability and spiritual blindness, as the Calvinist views it? Essentially, what is the biblical view of our nature post-Fall?
From the fall on, humans contain the capacity to sin, but only actions that are at odds with God's will are "bad". That capacity to sin is the "sin nature" that passes down through generations. The sin nature would be considered "bad" meaning that humans went from being only good to being mixed up with badness, but never became entirely "bad".
I am an atheist, but this is cannon unless I am corrected.
Questions Sean will Paul new book be available on Audible.
Despite the excusegists' best dishonest efforts, _yes._
I really enjoyed this. thank you so much for tackling these tough questions.
He tackled those tough questions WITH ANSWERS THAT ARE LIES.
But then again I have never met one single Christian who cared about the TRUTH all they are about are any old garbage that props up the MYTHS AND FAIRY TAKES OF JESUS AND HIS DAD.
WAKE UP YOU FOOLS.
Question: did Satin want to be man? So many passages that talk about this. Ezekiel 28:13-14. Satin was there witness to creation Job 38:4-7. God said in Gen. 1:26 make man in our image. Thank you
Excusing God for drowning the entire human population by saying his heart was "greived" and he was just "finishing what they were doing anyway" would be like excusing a father for beating his disobedient teenage daugher to death by saying he was "greived" and she was on a downward spiral anyway. That man would be prosecuted for murder in most modern secular societies. Only religion can take such a heinous act and somehow call it fair or good. My journey away from Christianity began with some of these stories in the old testament and the farther I get from it, the more laughable become the contortions that Christians put themselves in to somehow make it palatable.
The Biblical account of this is that by this time, humanity had fallen into total depravity and was fully deserving of this fate. Take it or leave it.
I used to have the same questions. I believe there is more to some of these stories in the old testament. Look up LA Marzulli and Rob Skiba. What was going on during this time? The Nephilim were on the earth. They were not human but were hybrid creatures. The “people” that were driven out of the promised land were giants! I think instead of explaining away or making excuses for why God did these things we need to ask Him and let Him show us. Also just because someone did something wrong in the old testament doesn’t mean God approved of it. It just means they did it. Like having many wives. I don’t think God said for them to have many wives, I think they just did it because they wanted to or because they were influenced by a different culture at the time.
You should have asked about the wood gather from Numbers 15. 32-36
Didn't they just throw some rocks at him?
QUESTION
Paul is asked, "Is there ANYTHING that could show up in the Bible that is so immoral [based on our moral instincts], that you wouldn't give a pass to it?". His answer was unclear to me. He says "if these basic intuitions are to be overridden, they are to be for morally justifiable reasons being issued by a God who is good, wise, loving, [and] holy."
Here's my question: Is he answering "No, nothing could appear in the Bible that I wouldn't give a pass to, because God is good, and is therefore assumed to have a morally justifiable reason". Or is he saying "We should only give a pass IF we can demonstrate that there is a SPECIFIC morally justifiable reason to override our moral intuitions"?
I ask this, because I've seen many apologists use the first strategy. This is extremely disturbing to me, since it could be used to justify literally anything.
---------------
Other Questions, if you have the time:
1. Regarding a woman marrying her rapist: Paul says "in the Deuteronomy passage, it says 'if he seduces her'. It's not 'seizes' her, it's a much milder term." This isn't true. The relevant Deteronomy passage (22:28) uses "seize". Perhaps Paul was thinking of Deuteronomy 22:23 or Exodus 22:16? There is no indication of consent from the woman, either in the original act, or in the following marriage. Why does Paul feel justified in asserting that there is?
2. Regarding God punishing or rewarding children for the actions of their parents: Paul says that this is just describing the natural consequences that children suffer when parents make bad decisions. But the passage attributes these consequences directly to God, due to his jealosy or mercy (Exodus 20:5). Why does Paul feel justified in asserting that these are natural consequences, when the passage seems to suggest the exact opposite?
3. Regarding God hardening Pharoah's heart: Paul claims that Pharoah had already hardened his own heart first. But the text doesn't suggest this at all. From the very beginning of the exchange, God repeatedly says that he will harden Pharoah's heart. The first time Pharoah's heart was hardened (Exodus 7:13), it says it happened "just as the LORD had said." What did God say a few verses prior? That He would harden Pharoah's heart, not that Pharoah would harden his own heart.
Paul claims that the final plague was a last resort attempt to get Pharoah's attention. This is obviously not true. Pharoah repents before the final plague (9:27), but God explicitly claims responsibility for hardening his heart a final time so that he can show off some more (10:1).
Even if it's true that Pharoah first hardened his own heart, this still seems strange. If Pharoah's original hardening of his own heart justified all the plagues, why force him to sin more? The signs and wonders are already justified. If God is just using Pharoah's hard heart so that the public will see each plague as justified, then it seems like God is being deceitful.
Paul also justifies the death of the Egyptian children by pointing out that the Egyptians killed the Israelite children first. But how is this justice? If a murderer kills your child, we don't punish them by killing the murderer's child. This is insane.
4. Regarding slavery: Paul claims that it was indentured servitude, with a maximum length of six years. This is only true of Israelite servants, not foreign slaves. Leviticus 25:39-46 makes a clear distinction between the two. Verse 46 explicitly says you can treat foreign slaves as inherited property, and make them slaves for life.
Paul appeals to Leviticus 25:47. I don't understand his point. He seems to think that this verse implies that foreign slaves had a way to work themselves out of slavery, but it doesn't. The verse refers to "foreigners", not "foreign slaves". He seems to think all "foreigners" were in the category of slaves/servants described in the previous passage, but this simply isn't true. The previous passage says that you can buy slaves _from the families_ of foreigners. That means some foreigners were slaves, and some weren't. I think he is just misreading the passage.
Paul appeals to Exodus 21:5 to claim "you can actually love the person you are working for" and that lifetime slavery was a choice. But, he leaves out two very important details. First, this choice was explicitly for Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves aren't given this choice. Second, regardless of the slave's choice, his family would remain in slavery. He was therefore in a position to choose between staying in slavery, or leaving his family. This puts the choice in a VERY different light: blackmail.
Paul appeals to Deuteronomy 23:15, to say that a foreign slave could run away if they were being mistreated. I think this is a decent point. It's a strange verse to have in the context of all the other verses about slavery. But, there's still a few problems. First, it dosen't specify that the slave is a "foreigner". Scholars think it applied to foreign slaves from foreign lands fleeing into Israel, precisely because the verse doesn't make much sense if it applied to local slaves. Not only would it undermine slavery as an institution, it would also undermine indentured servitude as an institution, which even Paul thinks actually existed. Even if taken to apply as broadly as possible, this verse puts a perverse incentive on slaveholders: to limit the freedom of their slaves even more than would otherwise be necessary.
He claims that the slavery described in Leviticus 25 doesn't imply mistreatement... but it does. This passage has two parts, describing the status of Israelite servants (39-43) and foreign slaves (44-46). It explicitly urges masters to not mistreat Israelite servants. Does it do the same for foreign slaves? No! In fact, there is a strong contrast between the two. The part about Israel servants ends with "Do not rule over them ruthlessly". What does the part about foreigners end with? "You can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow ISRAELITES ruthlessly". This is a direct snub, and implies that the author knew that the foreign slaves WERE in a ruthless situation.
-------------
I have issues with other points as well, but I think this has gone well beyond "succinct". Sorry. I appreciate your willingness to take follow-up questions.
Fantastic questions, you hit on a lot of the points that jumped out at me as well.
I also was wondering about your initial question, Sean asked it sort of rhetorically, but I would be interested in hearing how they would answer it. "Is there ANYTHING that could show up in the Bible that is so immoral [based on our moral instincts], that you wouldn't give a pass to it?"
@@3littlefonzies120 Yeah, I noticed that we both caught some of the same things, especially about Pharaoh! That topic irks me.
QUESTION - Sarah allowed Abraham to sleep with her servant to have a child. Not only does it seem wrong for Sarah to allow this but also for Abraham to agree with it. Did the servant girl get a say in it, seems like she got know say in the matter??
Answer, 1) this was a common culture practice at the time when a wife couldnt bear children. 2) Bringing Hagar into it wasn’t God’s idea. 3) If God doesn’t exist, where do you get a moral standard to call what happened right or wrong? What is that based on? Opinion? Can you even have moral truth without a standard beyond humanity?
Thank you for the insights!
David wholeheartedly repented for his adultery and murder of Uriah. Killing in battle is not murder. David was fulfilling God’s will in the battles. Also, the Bible never said that polygamy is a sin. About Pharoah, the Bible says both. Pharoah hardened his heart; therefore, God hardened Pharoah’s heart.
It never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics Christians will use to try to justify the unjustifiable. Your explanations make sense if the Bible is a flawed book written by flawed men, not if it was written/ inspired by a perfect God. Lots of dishonest half explanations. For example, you address the slavery issue by justifying the rules for fellow Hebrew slaves, but completely leave out the distinctive laws for foreign slaves. And as for the "war rape" justification, do you really think it is okay because you marry them after you rape them? If someone just killed your entire family, do you really think they would willingly/happily have sex with the people who did that? Do you really think that is a consensual relationship? Of course it wasn't and the fact that you try to justify it by calling it mercy is absolutely disgusting...do better
Oh You really have done your homework well, you better get ready to stand before God and accuse him of his hypocrisy and trumpet your self righteousness before his face
Re: hardening of Phar.'s heart. God could be showing Egypt that He, not Anubis, weighed and judged hearts and that Phar.'s heart failed the test against "Maat's feather", really God's standards.
Every ancient culture had child sacrifice, so the “command” to sacrifice Isaac may not have been necessarily surprising. Or rather, unusual. Like Copan said, Abraham knew his line would continue thru Isaac,
So there may have been confusion, but it wasn’t an anomaly given the culture around him. Obviously, we know human sacrifice is abhorrent to our God, but again….it wouldn’t have been unusual to Abraham’s ears, I don’t think.
How do you explain the eighth chapter of John. I can see only see it as a. totally different concept of God as loving Father compared to the Yahweh of the Old Testament
One of the biggest problems in a believers view of the Old Testament is their ignorance of Scripture. I'm not saying a person is stupid, but rather there is a lack of contextual knowledge that allows one to more fully understand the deeper meanings of the Scripture. I found that the best weapons against my own Scriptural ignorance is not to discount the Old Testament as though it doesn't apply to me today. Additionally, I have found two incredible teachers in Joseph Good and Rico Cortez. If you really want to learn what things mean in the Old Testament these two men will open you eyes.
@@cardcounter21 I don't think so. Tovia speaks against, not only the New Testament, but Jesus as well. He tries to debunk the writings of the New Testament in a way that is reminecent of Roman Catholic replacement theology which is a false belief and misinterpretation of scripture.
@@cardcounter21 already posted one
@@cardcounter21 I don't think so. Tovia speaks against, not only the New Testament, but Jesus as well. He tries to debunk the writings of the New Testament in a way that is reminiscent of Roman Catholic replacement theology which is a false belief and misinterpretation of New Testament scripture.
@@cardcounter21 I'm not sure what this has to do with Tovia being anit New Testament and anti Yeshua. Not to mention how most believers don't dig deep enough to find the contextual information that validates the Old and New Testaments to each other.
@@cardcounter21 anti Old Testament? Not at all. I am pro Old Testament. Yeshua taught it and obeyed it and so do I. But again, I still won't listen to teachings from Tovia. He denies Yeshua as the Messiah.
QUESTION: Dr Copan’s characterization on the skeptic’s objections to slavery in the OT is completely misleading and defangs the actual steel man version of the argument. 7:25 “When they read Leviticus 25 and it talks about being able to take those who are from foreign nations to be your servants and they think ‘oh you can mistreat them, this is like the Pre-Civil War era.’” This characterization implies that the assumption that you can mistreat them comes from the fact that they can be taken from foreign lands, however the argument made about Leviticus 25 is the distinction between Hebrew “servants” and foreign “slaves” (those are the terms used) and how Hebrew servants are distinctly treated better with the strong implication that foreign slaves can be ruled over ruthlessly. It also seems to imply that this passage is the only “troubling” mention of slavery, slavery is systemic throughout the OT. There are many other passages that provide a stronger basis and more cumulative case for the claim that slavery in the OT was immoral such as Exodus 21. Although it’s a bit crazy some people argue there are moral versions of slavery. Both passages I mentioned are here for reference:
“39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25 39-46, NIV)
“20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.” (Exodus 21-20-27, NIV)
[apologies for the long post, but I enjoyed reflecting on my first experience with Copan’s work] True story and I mean no offense. For what it’s worth, Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster is the book that started my path to atheism (or agnosticism- basically I don’t believe in any gods named among men) back in 2008 after 25 years walking with God (Moody Bible Inst grad). WL Craig had mentioned Copan’s book in his debate with Sam Harris. As a Christian who struggled with these issues, I immediately ordered it. Sadly, I found his arguments wholly unconvincing. He relies way too much on stylistic hyperbole, skirted around some slavery issues (focused on the “indentured servitude” of Hebrew slavery while ignoring some of the more severe issues with enslaving of those from other cultures). I didn’t feel his treatment if some of God’s brutishness in the institution of some laws (like Lev 21:9 “burn the sinful daughters of priests alive, for example) and actions (such as drowning children) was remotely adequate. I understood why Craig said in his endorsement, “I don’t agree with everything Copan argues” (of course not all scholars agree on anything, but I felt there was more behind that statement than simple disagreement).
Apologists, like Turek, like to say things like atheists have to borrow from god’s moral nature in order to accuse him (or sit in his lap to slap him). I think that’s rather silly and a bit of a dodge. What if there is a real unknown god that exists upon whom all morality and rightness is based? Perhaps the atheist along with everyone else is judging Bible god by the Unknown Goodness’s nature. In that case the atheist is perfectly fair to judge baby drowning, head bashing, and daughter burning- among so many other actions- as evil. Apologists like to say Yahweh moved humanity forward and is different from other Levantine gods. But nah, that’s not true. He’s only shades different. In some ways better, some ways worse and in many ways the same (even to the point of adopting practices instituted by his predecessors such as sacrifice). Rather odd.
I have no need to convince Christians to stop believing. My only point is Christians should stop saying we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18ff). That’s just one more silly inaccuracy of the Bible (when taken literally and absolutely). I highly recommend Christian apologist, Randal Rauser’s book “Is the Atheist My Neighbor?” I once had the privilege of giving one to Sean McDowell in person. I hope he read it. It’s rather tiring being accused of leaving Christianity because I want to “be my own god,” live a life of sin,” etc. Rauser also wrote a book about God’s atrocities and has debated and discussed it here on YT. I think his treatment is an nice counterpoint to Copan’s as he does not try to gloss over these important issues.
Hello, Big Idea Seeker. [Pardon my length post as well!] Thank you for your honest reflections. I appreciate your going into detail about your journey. Although people have been helped in their faith through my (and Matt Flannagan's) work on Old Testament ethical challenges, I know that the OT presents plenty difficulties that require honest examination. I myself continue to learn in this process.
In my forthcoming Vindictive Bully book, I go into more detail on the humanizing worldview differences and assumptions that exist between the Mosaic Law and other ancient Near Eastern law collections. (You can get a good idea of these in the book by David L. Baker, *Tight Fists or Open Hands?* [Eerdmans], which is devoted to looking at worldview differences and similarities.
I've also done some modifying from my Moral Monster book, including addressing the nature of punishments. Actually, scholars like J.J. Finkelstein, John Goldingay, Joe Sprinkle, and other scholars have persuaded me that these punishments (stoning, burning, etc.) were to serve as warnings about the badness of certain actions and were generally not taken as literal in the ancient Near East. I've also responded to criticisms about servitude in the Old Testament, including three additional chapters on Leviticus 25. And I do interact with Rauser’s recent book as well.
Although Bill Craig didn't endorse the Moral Monster book on the back cover and spoke only positively of it at the Harris debate, we have disagreed on whether, say, 1 Sam 15 is hyperbolic. Matt Flannagan and I--based on the text of 1 Sam. 15 and later in 1 Sam. 27 and 30 itself, make a fairly substantive case for it, in my estimation
At any rate, I expand on this and other warfare texts in my Vindictive Bully book-especially in light of the hyperbolic device common in ancient Near Eastern war texts. We have another hyperbolic literary device which includes (a) a localized battle (which we have in 1 Sam. 15:5) and then (b) universal conquest (Saul’s battling from Arabia to Egypt-and then David does the same against the Amalekites at the end of the book.) Oeste and Webb have written extensively on this in *Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?*--and they argue persuasively for a hyperbolic view. More and more scholars seem to be doing this, whom I cite in my book. Actually, as I continue to study the text and read scholars on this, I grow more and more convinced of it. As I said, in the process of studying and interacting with scholars about these questions, I continue to learn and recognize complete-or completely satisfying-answers may elude us.
That said, stay tuned for more surprises in my forthcoming book. Drop me a note and let me know what you think. Challenges remain, as I said, and I acknowledge these in my book. I have three chapters at the end for the “critics from within” and for “critics from without.”
I'd be happy to interact with you further if you'd like. I’d would appreciate hearing more of your story. Feel free to email me through my website, and we can connect beyond that if you would be interested.
Best wishes to you-and thanks again for giving your reflections.
Paul
Great post. Well said ~
I have Two questions for you:
1) are the objections you raise about certain things in the OT based on objective moral principles? Or are they merely based on your own subjective moral values?
2) are there sins you started to make a habit of committing once you denounced God and denied the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, such as porn (lust), or sexual immorality (premarital sexual relations), or any other sins?
Thank you and best regards
@@apracity7672 funny how christians have only subjective moral values like everyone else. Christians make up what morals they want to pretend their god has, and surprise, it matches their own. Since you folks can't agree on what your imaginary god considers a "sin", no reason to believe that any of you have the "right" answer, and since many of you have no problem with your god doing horrible things, you show your morality is entirely subjective, based on who or what the actor is and not the objective morality of an action itself. Your morals are often no more than might equals right.
I do love you making the same usual lies that BIS pointed out that chrisitans love to do.
@@Paul_Copan nice post, I hope everything works out for you~
God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. Min 37
About the law though, Jesus did say that at least part of it was because of our limitations.
Prof. Copan's responses seem to me, for lack of a better term, weaselly. In particular, his response to the problem of god killing the Egyptian's first-born children is a slick side-step, much like a Republican congressperson's response when asked about Trump having stolen classified documents. And then Prof. McDowell chimes in with a Nazi Germany comparison, so you know that rational discourse has flown out of the window. The two of them assert that because Pharaoh had ordered the death of Hebrew infants, it was just for god to kill Egyptian first-born children, adding that of course the average Egyptians were complicit in Pharoah's evil, just as the average German was complicit with Hitler in the Final Solution. Are they kidding? Let's look at the argument - Pharaoh and a lot of Egyptian adults were guilty of killing Hebrew infants, therefore it is fair that god kill innocent Egyptian children. This completely ignores that the Egyptian children hadn't done anything wrong, and ignores that god is supposed to be the god of all people, not merely the Hebrews? Aren't the innocent Egyptian children god's creatures too?
Prof. McDowell then throws out the relatively easy question of Uzzah being slain for touching the Ark in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 (the Israelites weren't following god's protocols says Prof. Copan in justifying this), and not the more difficult question of god killing fifty thousand and seventy men of Bethshemesh because some of them had looked into the ark that the Philistines had returned to the town. Clearly not all of those 50,070 men were treating god and his ark casually, as Prof. Copan claims is the justification for god doing these things. They could scarcely all have known that the ark had even shown up in Bethshemesh. Nonetheless, Professors Copan and McDowell appear to agree that this sort of thing is a reasonable response on the part of a just god. Prof. Copan keeps saying that, yes, god judges, but he shows compassion in greater measure. That is clearly hogwash.
Prof. Copan then tries to whitewash the discussion in Leviticus 25:44-46 which explicitly explains that one can buy slaves from non-Israelites living in Israel and own them forever - 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." He first tries to employ the usual apologist sidestep by claiming that Israelite slavery was not like slavery in the antebellum South, but more like indentured servitude, which is flatly false. The indentured servitude discussion occurs elsewhere in the Bible and has to do with Israelites selling themselves to other Israelites, and there were various limitations regarding this arrangement. That has nothing to do with the slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46, the enslavement of non-Israelites, which was very much like the enslavement of blacks in the antebellum South, and to suggest otherwise is very close to a lie, as both of these professors clearly know better, but use the argument anyway.
And the two professors fail to address the incident that I think most clearly adumbrates the broad, deep and foul stream of vindictiveness one can find in the Bible, which is god’s direction to Saul with respect to the Amalekites as set out in First Samuel 15:3 - "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both men and women, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." In my view, this passage pretty much sums up the god of the Israelites. What had the Amalekites done to warrant genocide? They had attacked Moses and his flock when they were leaving Egypt generations earlier. Does this response seem appropriate after the passage of perhaps hundreds of years? God carries a grudge for a long time. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, weren't the Amalekites god's creatures too?
I understand that both Professors McDowell and Copan are believers in what the Bible says, and in the the god of the Bible, and they cannot accept a god that is fundamentally cruel and unjust, so they have to whitewash him. The problem is, and this is a fundamental problem with the concept of the Trinity, the god of the Hebrew Bible is not the god of the Gospels. He is frequently vindictive for no good reason, or at least no good reason that might be obvious to the average person, and often cruel, and if one is honest, needlessly cruel.
It seems to me to be a problem when an obviously learned and sincere man such as Prof. Copan has to employ weaselly arguments in order to justify the behavior of the god he believes in.
I wonder whether anyone has noticed that it is in the OT that God is accused of being too merciful - by Jonah!
QUESTION: would Paul be willing to debate someone like Dr. Joshua Bowen about some of these moral issues in the Old Testament?
The last thing an apologist wants to do is debate an academic on the subject
@@kaiju1618 You’re probably right but I’d like to remain optimistic. Hopefully Sean will ask him in their next live stream. Engaging in an honest debate could do a lot to strengthen his position.
It mostly seems like he’s promoting ways you could look at a troubling passage but aren’t likely to be historically accurate ways to look at the passage. I’d really like to see him try to defend in a debate format that the evidence actually supports his position as opposed to it just being a plausible option that Christian’s can take to ease cognitive dissonance.
I've been on Josh's program already, and we had a very good discussion.
@@Paul_Copan I wasn’t aware! Would you be able to provide a link? I’m having trouble finding this.
@@kaiju1618 LOL 😆
A LOT of verbal dancing!
QUESTION: the flood to punish humans would have maimed and drowned in pain and terror, millions of sentient, non-human animals. How is this morally praiseworthy?
There are a number of flood stories that predate the Biblical flood story. It’s likely not a literal account but meant to teach a larger truth, as much of the Biblical narrative does. IMO
Those ppl were warned by Noah for 100 years that God would flood the planet if they didn't repent, and they laughed at Noah. Gen. 6 describing the total depravity that was present in the world is what makes it morally praiseworthy. God being a Judge requires Him to punish ppl for living morally bankrupt lives.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 The question is not about ppl.
He had Noah load up the arc with pairs of all clean species of animal so that, post flood, they would live on.