This was laughably insane. God needed to judge his own creation? You think the Canaanites are Orcs? Are you serious? Do you actually think all the Canaanites were a monlith and were all doing human sacrifices every day, each and every one of them? Dude wtf is wrong with you? You have absolutely no grasp on ancient history and are completely brainwashed by religious thinking. What a joke.
@@HearGodsWord But what's going to happen when you realize the meaning of the Apocalypse and its relation to the Saffron Crocus? lol All of these things you believe and these things you've asserted will be irrelevant in the light of Truth. lol
I don’t have a problem with idealized numbers, but I’m always interested in the basis for saying they are idealized, and I look for patterns to make sense of that. The arguments around use of military numbers is interesting, and I see reasons why these might be estimated and confusing. Having studied a number of various chronologers (Usher, Floyd Jones, Edwin Theile, Jack Finegan, Andrew Steinmann, Parker & Dubberstein, etc.), I’m always impressed by the accuracy of dates in the era of the kings and the narratives that go along with them. Basically there is only about 40 years difference between the Bible’s kings list and the Assyrian kings list (which is pure numbers and no narrative). That’s pretty impressive in my view, though people get all bent out of shape over even this small difference. I have listened to Sean McDowells interview of a couple Archeologists both for and against a 1400s or 1200s exodus. I don’t think I’m rigid in my theological framework, but It just seems to me-if it’s a question of going with the dates from the Kings account of the temple, or going with the archaeology that goes against 1400s (my understanding is that the evidence is divided as Jericho’s destruction could be placed in the 1400s)-that we should at least entertain and be open to the possibility that we just have an insufficient archeological record. Is it really that impossible to say we just don’t have decisive archeological evidence for an either a early or late exodus, but that the Bible favors an early 1400’s date? Why would such a tack be unscholarly (i.e. fundamentalist/wooden)? I think part of Christian apologetics needs to be about the framing of our historical knowledge as much as getting the best evidence outside the Bible to support it. But sometime we just need to say we don’t know. Should we feel forced to come up with attenuated justifications for disregarding biblical dates almost entirely because they don’t easily fit the current archeological evidence? Is it really “fundamentalist” to have an expectation for dating accuracy based upon other confirmed evidence in the Bible for such accuracy ? At least that would be my caution. I don’t think one has to abandon the dates of the text in one place to be able to recognize hyperbolic war talk in other texts. These, to my mind, require there own separate justifications.
the issue with dating Jericho seems to almost solely be based on that the Hebrews built Pithom and Ramses. It basically has to be in the Ramicide period according to IP and a lot of scholars because of Exodus 1. IP is like "don't take dates literally," but then takes the statement about Pithom and Ramses super literal. There is evidence of a semitic population in the 1400s and Moses's name fits with the Tutmoses line. It would make sense he was called Moses if he was an adopted child of Hatshepsut. I've seen interviews of Egyptologists who think the Bible is myth and they are hard set on the Ramicide period too.
@@thadofalltrades, those are good points. And one should at least consider that “Ramses” might be a name that predates the particular Pharaoh known in the 13th century BC. I realize it’s just a side comment in support of a larger point here. Contextualizing the minimal case for the killing of children fits the purpose of the eliminate command, in so far as it was to remove those who could teach the Hebrews the ways of the people who lived there. But It seems to me that a major consideration is to illustrate that war has a collective responsibility aspect to it in all periods of human history. We tend to read our rules of war, which even today are more prudential guidelines as if they are moral absolutes. Clearly if we can be morally justified to go to just war against a nation today, God has the authority to do the same. This is not to say that minimizing the death of non-combatants is not a good thing, but different rules apply to the removal of a nation versus the normal rules of war. This is seen in the law itself. Anyway, all good thoughts to consider. I enjoy and learn a lot from both IP and TU. :)
@@jrhemmerich there's a scientist named Dr. Douglas Petrovich who talks about how carbon dating starts to skew older the further back in time we go. I believe he makes the case that the big destruction layer at Jericho could actually be from the 1400s due to this skewing. If you search for Petrovich radiocarbon it should come up. He's a young earth creationist, so maybe take what he says with a grain of salt, but the data seems to back up the skewing. He has a very technical book about it that I want to read, but it's like $75.
Gavin should keep up with these crossover episodes. I’m a Catholic who’s fond on him and I loved seeing him team up with Trent recently. Ecumenism is sorely needed in the RUclips apologetics scene.
So cool to see you two get together! Two of my favorite teachers and channels to watch. You’ve both helped me grow in my understanding and my Faith! ✝️🙏👍😎
It's interesting that Orlund's approach in defending the Canaanite conquest appears different from that given by WLC's approach on Alex O'Connor's podcast. WLC tried to give a defense of Divine Commend Theory, and never tried to soften the meaning behind God's command (i.e no mention of hyperbole).
It seems that many, including Orlund, have a problem with the “morality“ of God’s treatment of the non-combatants who were slaughtered in Canaan. The fact that a distinction is made between who was armed and the unarmed is absurd and totally a new concept regarding ancient warfare. For genuine believers, in the Book of Revelation God will slaughter all non-believers, regardless of whether they are “combatants,” much like in Jericho. The bottom line is if you have a problem with what happened in Jericho then you should have even a bigger problem with what will happen in the Book of Revelation. The God that ordained the slaughters in the Old Testament is the same God that will bring destruction to all unbelievers in the New Testament.
@@dpaceesq > For genuine believers, in the Book of Revelation God will slaughter all non-believers, regardless of whether they are “combatants,” much like in Jericho. I largely concur with this understanding of Scripture. Here's a verse in Rev 19 that nails it on the head for me: [+] Then I saw an angel standing on the sun, and he cried out in a loud voice, saying to all the birds flying high overhead, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of their riders, and the flesh of everyone, both free and slave, small and great.” (Rev 19:17-18) The Lord is judging and making war "in righteousness" (v11). Anyone who is not righteous is fair game for destruction. But it's not just Revelation. Start back in Genesis: - God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by water in Noah's Flood - God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by fire in S&G - God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by Ten Plagues in the Exodus - God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by earthquake in Korah's Rebellion I hate to say it, but if we have a problem with God deliberately destroying men, women, children, and livestock by Joshua's sword in the Canaanite Conquest, I can only conclude one thing: we're not paying attention. What's next? Are we to think we're not deserving of destruction by a holy God?? I hope not.
@@dpaceesq Agree. If a Christian starts accepting the current worldview of non-violence as the ideal today on earth, then divine & eternal judgment itself, which is definitely violent as described in the Bible, sounds very unappealing to say the least.
Thank you Dr.Ortlund for the segment where you and IP explain how to interpret that part of the Bible. You've done it in other videos and I appreciate it. I used to be nervous about not taking every bit of Scripture literally. Ultimately, I just want to know what the biblical authors intended when they wrote the book.
That point is so important that we need to actually believe we need help. That's something no amount of arguing or external evidence can make you see, it's something that must be arrived at on your own. Loved the LOTR example as well!
These are some of the Two greatest minds I’ve been able to come across in modern Christianity, there are times where I met a crisis of faith, but I see if Gavin and Michael are still going strong in the faith then there must be so much veracity. Thank you too for being some of the largest blessings in my more theological and apologetical walk with God, God bless you all
@15:00 Michael says Tereh was 135 when Abraham was born, but doesn't Gen 12:26 indicate 70 years (which may be symbolic, especially since it lists all three sons together here)? If so, 135 would have been the years that transpired from fatherhood to death, not his age at fatherhood, no? Or am I missing something?
Actually the 70 years was when the group of three sons of Terah was born. Unless they were triplets it means when the first of the three were born. The other two were after that.
@@dianeo.4171We are told in Genesis that Abram left when he was 70. We are told during Stephan's speech in Acts 7 that he left when his father died. 205 - 70 = 135. Therefore Abram was born when Terah was 135 years old.
Re: Jericho, Joel Kramer interviewed Bryan Wood about Jericho as well as some other archaeologists, and the rendering he used of Jericho based on the total of archeological digs there had two walls. There was an outer wall, a ring of buildings behind that mud brick wall, and then an inner wall. The outer wall did collapse. Wood took issue with Kenyon's date based on her pottery analysis. She looked for imported pottery that "should have been" common at the time of Israelite conquest and didnt find it. However, other archeologists did find *imitation* of that imported pottery. It's an interesting video: ruclips.net/video/C27CmsSGx5Y/видео.htmlsi=5Ko7wQGGS0h5rYMg I wonder if IP and/or Ortlund would have Joel Kramer or Wood on to discuss it. Maybe they're wrong, maybe it was battering rams. I don’t know, but if ive learned anything from Dr. James White it's that the weakness of arguments comes out in cross-examination (well, that and Calvinism, but I digress).
@@joe5959yes it does Joe. A Christian has NEVER demonstrated the mechanisms by which their god operates. Their miracles are impossible, unexplained, universe breaking. For example, how does water turn to wine? Changing the amount of protons, changing the amount of mass in the universe ? God can only break the laws of physics when it’s in a book written by primitive men, why does he fail to do that in real life in front of a camera or a crowd of reliable sources ? Demonstrate and explain that please. Otherwise it’s very clear that the magic fable is just full of magic. 🪄 🍷 if god can do anything then we would see that, not just READ that in a disgusting old book written by Iron Age MEN based on Bronze Age myths STOLEN from copper age religions. The exodus never happened, the flood, the garden, the resurrection all never happened. These stories have as much credence as any other religion, thas it to say NONE. Alexander the Great left more evidence than your god and he didn’t have to break and laws of the universe to do it. He did it first too since Jesus, hell, lucifer, your whole religion wasn’t even invented yet. That’s laughable. Billions of years of terrible, suffering life without a god or a human on earth, this religion is so egocentric and contradictory. Not to mention it gave rise to the worst enduring human idea: Islam. Shameful. All you guys have the same response to the rest of the world. Something along the lines of “uhhh Jesus is the truth, trust me bro”. This is why religion will never cease spilling blood. Jesus is so loving and such a good teacher that his followers massacre each other endlessly. Look at the tirade your willful ignorance led me on.
@@joe5959Matthew 16:28. Matthew 24:34-35. He lied to you. Stop waiting around for an apocalyptic Jew whose image got hijacked by Jews and transformed for gentiles. You don’t even follow the same religion as Yehoshua Ben Yosef nor Saul the Pharisee. You can either accept this or continue in your delusion…I mean religion. A little reading (not the Bible) never hurts one’s understanding of the reality of history. Side note: was Jesus born during after Herod or during the Quirinius census ? Cant be both….gods books are so unreliable, not to mention how hard these authors try to prophesies Jesus, before it turns to outright deification as time goes on. The trinity didn’t even exist until several centuries after daddy Jesus died. Hilarious stuff
It seems to me that it’s a stretch to pin so much of an argument on cultural context leading to non-literalist interpretations, but even granting all of those justifications about an imperfect reading reveals another issue. Why did God decide that His revelation should be so dependent on our ability to read His Word faithfully in its cultural context? Why, if He wants us to be saved and He is all powerful, is He not still revealing to us in ways that we can intuitively understand? The church has division over interpretations of teachings, doctrine, church structure, theology, historicity… all of these issues exist because God’s perfect word is so impossible to understand properly. Why would God not reveal to each person in a way that was clear to them, or at least not rely on something so unreliable as ancient texts we can’t decipher?
I think that Martin Luther was right in saying that all we need for our salvation is expressed clearly in the Bible. Jesus said, love God and thy neighbor is what the OT boils down to. Besides, the word of God was written to and by the Israelites of old. Yes, they had another mindset, culture, etc. So the what I think is astonishing is that so much of it still makes sense to us. Other things don't but I don't think they're all that relevant. Even though I studied theology myself, I read the Bible plainly and I still think the Bible interprets the Bible. What's relevant to us is the path to salvation and the message of Jesus to us. And that's clear as day.
@@MrSeedi76 The most basic fundamentals of theology are easy enough to determine (although as soon as you get past the bare minimum, people start disagreeing again). But that’s not the trouble in my eyes. Issues like the ones discussed in the video are deeply unclear, and that lack of clarity doesn’t make me question *how* to follow the Bible, it makes me think the Bible isn’t a true authority. These sorts of issues, like the conquest of Canaan or biblical slavery, put into question the objective moral framework of the Bible. The fact that we need to twist so hard to come to a reasonable place is indicative that perhaps the Bible isn’t a perfect and inspired message from God. If God wanted us to be able to trust the revelation He provided, surely there was a better way of accomplishing that than what we have.
@@Capt.Fail.I think you're wrong. The question is whether any communication can be absolutely clear or not. The Bible is clear in the parts that are important to us. Also - there needs to be no twisting of the word to make sense of it. Only when our preconceived philosophical ideas about what the Bible should say come into conflict about what it actually says, does confusion arise. So, no, there is no better way God could have achieved this as soon as humans and their flawed understanding is involved. In fact one could make the argument that some parts are intentionally unclear because they will only be made clear by the holy spirit which only the true believers receive. Therefore any explanation of people who don't believe can be disregarded. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Matthew:13:11 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew:13:12 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matthew:13:13
@@MrSeedi76 Communication certainly can be more clear than what we have. There could be a commentary on the verses similar to what we see scholars today producing, telling us what they mean in ways that make sense to us today and applying them to our lives, for example. Or, God could have a discussion about it with us directly. Or any number of clearer ways to communicate that aren’t writing in an ancient language according to an ancient society’s traditions. It seems you also move on to the idea that this video is wrong and we should accept the Bible at face value and literally - there are obvious problems with that and this video exists because of how much that doesn’t work. But, if that’s your stance, I don’t feel the need to get into it (I’m engaging here hoping to find an answer about why God might have made the Bible require so much interpretation, not interested in why I should take it hyper-literally). Then the intentional unclarity argument, if read straight-forwardly as though God is literally keeping the understanding of salvation from certain people, is pretty messed up. I think you might be coming at it from a Calvinist point of view, which I do believe solves the issues I raise, but replaces them with a God who forces people to sin yet somehow punishes them for it, and created people (most of them, in fact) solely for the purpose of eternally being tormented. So, that God is not all good in my mind and doesn’t really do much for me.
I think we here in America should be careful about agreeing that a culture practicing infanticide deserves God’s judgment. We make the ancient Canaanites look like amateurs. It may not be as brutal, but the numbers are astronomically higher.
@@tomasrocha6139I looked up the passage but the passage is concerned with iduced premature birth. If there is no harm, then a fine is paid. If there is harm (presumably including the baby) then there is punishment up to the severity of the injury (Lex Talionis).
It seems that a common response to criticisms of the bible is "You need to understand it in its historical context". While some criticisms are nullified by understanding the historical context, some criticisms remain valid. Just because the context is different, that does not necessarily nullify a particular criticism. Unfortunately, more often than not, valid criticisms are dismissed by simply accusing the person making the criticism of not understanding the historical context. An example may be, the command from God to kill all the men, women, children and animals in 1 Samuel 15. Obviously, the historical context of this event is much different than today, however, this does not seem to have anything to do with the heart of the criticism in this particular circumstance, that being that commanding the deaths of innocents (women, children, animals) is immoral regardless of the context. How do you differentiate between criticisms that are invalid due to a lack of understanding of the historical context, vs those criticisms that are valid either because, including, or regardless of the historical context?
Actually, it is understanding the Bible in its historical context that makes criticism of Christian dogmas and interpretations of the book, true (not the other way around).
(17 September 2024) Regarding the Conquest of Canaan: Viewers are confronted with numerous RUclips Videos presenting evidence for the Conquest of Canaan as being either ca. 1406 BC or ca. 1260 BC. Often neglected is that the conquest is dated ca. 1550 BC and aligned with the expulsion of the Hyksos, as noted by the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, ca. 70 AD in his History of the Jews. Josephus identified the Hyksos expulsion as being the Egyptian version of Israel's Exodus under Moses. Dr. Falk, an Egyptologist, and Christian Apologist, favors a 1260 BC Exodus, so, too do Professors James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen, who identify as Egyptologists and Christian Apologists! Dr. Burton MacDonald, and archaeologist, and a Christian avows the world of the Exodus, for Edom, Moab, and Ammon, is the 6th century BC! Who's right? 1550 BC? 1406 BC? 1260 BC? 560 BC? The surprise? All of the above are right! How can this be? The Iron Age I and II Israelites did not know the age of any site in Egypt, the Sinai, the Negeb, Canaan, Philista, Edom, Moab. WHY? No one knew the real age of any site until Pottery Typologies were invented by Sir Flinders Petrie of Britain until ca. 1890 AD! His Pottery Typologies are still used today (2024) to date sites by, by Archaeologists. Archaeologists discovered some sites would not align with Exodus and Conquest dates, be they 1550 BC, 1446-1406 BC, 1260 BC or 560 BC. The pottery debris found decided the real age of sites. Not knowing of Petrie's Pottery Typologies, it was impossible for the Iron Age Israelites to come up with a correct date for the Exodus and Conquest. They guessed at a date: ca. 1446-1406 BC based on 1 kings 6:1. They guessed wrong! Archaeology reealed some sites in the Exodus narratives were of the 3rd millennium BC, like Ai (Et-Tell) and Arad. Other sites were of the Iron Age I Period like Heshbon and Elealeh in Moab. Bozrah, mentioned in Genesis was no older than the 8th century BC as Moab's capital. So, everyone was right! Exodus was a conflation of sites extending over 1,000 years into one event, ca. 1446-1406 BC (cf. 1 Kings 6:1)!
SO desperate. SO much grasping at straws. "What if they weren't any civilians in jericho, what if Jericho was guarding the pass, what if Jericho is just there to collect taxes what if what if what if what if what if" This is not how serious scholarship is done. This is how Christian's desperately try to beat the Bible into not being evil.
Respectfully, IMO The Sermon on the Mount is not consistent with OT conquest/violence. Also, the book of Revelation is a symbolic book and is not a good case for Jesus supporting violence. We also don’t have to dehumanize people to orcs to understand these things. Most of this comes across as special pleading. These are definitely things to be wrestled with and there are no easy answers. Thanks for your work I enjoy both of your channels. God Bless you both.
That’s not an issue you’re taking with the apologetics or the interpretation that’s an issue you have with the character of God. The same God preached the sermon on the mount as commanded the conquest.
Thanks for your response, a lot of assumptions here and responses with built in conclusions are not very helpful. God commanding the conquest has been debated since the beginning of the church. Multiple church writings, interpretations, and fathers attest to this fact. I have no issue with the “character” of God but I am sure I probably have issue with what you think that is. You’re just begging the question of what God’s “character” is by your comment. This is an issue that has to be wrestled with not just assumed simplistic answers in a faux moral high ground of defending what you think God’s “character” is. God Bless
If you're interested check out a book called fight by Dr Preston sprinkle. It's being published with a new title now that I can't remember. In my estimation he gives a very sincere attempt at wrestling with those difficult issues and contradictions without denying the authority of scripture.
@@joshuas1834 That’s a great book I’ve read it multiple times. I don’t think one needs to deny the authority of scripture to wrestle with the text or have differing interpretations of certain scripture. Thanks and God Bless
Divine judgement is just a much a part of the SOTM as anything else Christ preached. Christ ends the sermon in Matt. 7 talking about how to properly judge something or somebody, and also the metrics God will use when He judges. This is not difficult to understand. God loves ppl, but He is also a Judge. Him being a Judge requires that He holds ppl accountable for rejecting His laws and authority. The wages of sin is death, as Rom. 6:23 says.
Okay this is what does my head in You seem like a pretty nice guy You certainly very well educated And I’m guessing prayerful So why are you so full of error Why are you a Catholic It makes no sense to me Surely the evil one is not this powerful This is my Current topic of my prayer How so many apparently genuine people follow false doctrines It makes no sense to me
No data against Joshua? While Joshua 10-11 portrayed Joshua's united Israelites as completely annihilating all Canaanites and capturing or destroying all their cities, Judges 1 shows many of these cities as still standing and being inhabited by Canaanites who often successfully repelled various Israelite tribes
The Israelites did take all of Canaan. However, the generations that came after Joshua didn't finish the job in wiping out certain strongholds within some of the territories of individual tribes. Jdg. 1:19 shows why this was the case: they didn't fully believe that God was behind them. The record goes on to show that other tribes followed Judah's faithless example in taking their foot of the gas pedal, and so those areas remained untouched.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 In Joshua 10-11 Joshua totally destroyed the Canaanites and that the land knew peace after that, that's not compatible with strongholds of territories being untaken
@@tomasrocha6139 It depends on how you understand "totally destroyed". I've long believed that it meant "they defeated everyone who actively fought against them". Obviously there is some hyperbole in the "annihilation" terminology in Joshua. But I don't take it as far as IP and Paul Copan take it. They dismiss too much, imho.
13:12 “Let the text guide us for when to interpret the text more literally or less literally…” Translation: the claims contained in the Bible can never be falsified because if they don’t correlate to the evidence they must be non-literal. Apologists main defense is that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.
@@mrmaatnobody cares because it's not a game and it's not about winning it either. That's the problem with RUclips apologist and counter-apologist culture. It's never about furthering knowledge it's only about scoring points with the audience. That's why counter-apologists like Alex O'Connor for instance lie through their teeth and twist the facts as much as they can to make people believe their ridiculous atheist narrative.
@@MrSeedi76 I was using rigged game as a metaphor. I agree that the conversation isn’t a game - there’s eternal salvation and cultural hegemony at stake. Both sides have guests whose aim is to further knowledge, but most of the philosophy and arguments like the Kalam are mental masturbation, which is the primary refuge of theism. When has Alex lied? I’d appreciate two specific examples because in my estimation he attempts to be as fair as possible, even to moral monsters like Bill Craig.
Their claim was to better understand what it says in its original cultural context which wasn’t always literal if you actually listened to what they were saying so…
Let me give you and example. When Michael talks about archeology he often talks about "we do not see this" and "we do not see that". Does that mean that he is lying because he was never there in person? If historians watch Mike's videos 1000 years from now - would they incorrectly conclude that Mike was an archeologist? Moreover - If God was speaking to Michael what language would God use? Would God be happy to say "when we excavate the site we don't see this..." No one is saying the Bible is not true.
@@marinusswanepoel1825 Non-sequiturs. Michael and others try to excuse the conquest with all kinds of bizarre excuses. The language was "hyperbole" and they didn't slaughter all the little kids, just some of them, is a perfect example. If a madman showed up at your next family get-together, would you agree with an apologist at his sentencing hearing saying, "oh, but judge, sir, the madman didn't do a complete job, he only got rid of 40% of the family. Come on, the idea it was a total slaughter is completely hyperbole!" Also, in Joshua 10, God gets those running away with hail stones that kill more, according to the text, than were killed with the sword. Yet apologists keep saying that it wasn't a slaughter and that the people could have "just given up their homes and left without a fight," as if the whole "God sent hail" text isn't there. God sent hail to kill those who had surrerrendered. If the US military did this, they're be riots in the streets and the UN would be crying, "war crimes!" Yet, when God commits war crimes, they're not war crimes, they're "good and righteous." It's reallly sad y'all continue to make these apologetics as it shows how dark your hearts really are when you worship Yahweh. It does make sense, as he's a warrior god, but still, seems Christians, if they believed in love, would follow Marcion or just reject the whole thing.
@@michaelsbeverly Well in my own opinion i support late exodus view meaning canaan genocide did not happen that would be theologicaly supported by church fathers and many theologians. Please note that allegorising was created by church fathers and not some layman apologetics What the Biblical Scribes Teach Us about Their Writings Richard J. Clifford, SJ And ALLEGORISING: THE RELEVANCE OF AN OLD METHOD OF INTERPRETATION P.B. Decock
@@michaelsbeverly I definitely feel the force of the argument. You are not going to like my answer but I feel God had every right to get those who ran with hail. We are led to believe that 90 percent of the people in that culture were baby Hitlers. God tells us he is going to do the same thing with people who insist on remaining in their sin on judgement day at the end of the age and I, for one, have submitted myself to God's justice. The only question here, as far as I am concerned, is whether or not God killed innocent children and whether it is consistent to expect atheists to surrender their moral sensibilities when it comes to God when we expect them to exercise their moral sensibilities when we present premise 2 of the moral argument to them. I thank you for remaining cordial in your response. I have no problem with the force by which you speak.
“…to support the historicity of the Bible.” There is a flaw in this statement. You are approaching the question of historicity in an all-or-nothing way, whereas a true scholar would approach it by asking which Parts are verifiable, and which are not or have not been. So if you find evidence of wandering in the wilderness, that increases the probability of the wandering account having some archaelogical grounding, but it does not prove the biblical account to be Correct. There are still other possible explanations that could also be correct, even some that you have not considered, some that perhaps no one has. But if the biblical account of the wandering is accurate, that does not corroborate the rest of the Exodus account, much less the rest of the Bible. Black and white thinking is an indicator of cult-like thought control.
IP view is counter to consensus view of historians and is against church fathers interpretation and it is also against many theologians that claim canaan conquest to not be literal.
@@wannabe_scholar82 Well consensus view is formed because evidence for it is very strong for example survey of literature of modern historians literally contradict what ip says; Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience For example there are alot of theories and dates of exodus IP just choice his favorite 1450 bc bur he forgot to mention other dates like 2100 bce and 650 bce with solid evidence or consensus with best evidence for 1250 bce Exodus Dates and Theories 4 Lawrence T. Geraty This chapter surveys in a brief and introductory manner the scholarly views regarding the dating of the Exodus described in the Hebrew Bible, including especially the “traditional” 18th dynasty date (ca. 1450 BCE) and the current “consensus” 19th dynasty date (ca. 1250 BCE), but touching also on other Exodus dates advocated from ca. 2100 BCE through ca. 650 BCE. These are summarized in table form with the relevant bibliography. Theories of the date are usually accompanied by identifications of the pharaohs involved, and these are briefly surveyed as well.
@@wannabe_scholar82 Well consensus view is formed because evidence for it is very strong for example survey of literature of modern historians literally contradict what ip says; Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience
@@wannabe_scholar82 Well consensus view is formed because evidence for it is very strong for example survey of literature of modern historians literally contradict what ip says; Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience
The titanic bias displayed by this type of desperate excusegetics contortionism is truly impressive. I might applaud it, if it wasn’t so god damn intellectually dishonest and immoral. Telling your audience of tens of thousands murder is fine and mere moving of souls across different planes of existence - WTF
Clown form deities on an alien planet, thanks I think I have my new book idea. Also, allied soldiers in Nazi Germany analogy. They went in and dismantled the Nazi system. The same way, Joshua's armies dismantled the system that practiced infant sacrifice.
The worst i have ever heard apologetics talk about such topics. from the diminishing view to archaeology & archeologists to the moral views of human lives. truly shameful.
I wish people would really take the time to read the Bible. They should start with Luke 14:26 because unless you do what it states you can never be a Christian.
“You need to show us what is inconsistent in the rest of Christianity with the book of Joshua…” “Thou shalt not commit murder.” What is murder? Taking another human life without their consent. If Yahweh exists, he commanded Israel to wipe out entire nations. Not just the soldiers; not just the adults; not just those over 5 years old; not just those who have already been born; everybody. That is not war. And if you posit that this is hyperbole, you necessarily accuse Yahweh of not being precise, which is impossible for an omnigod.
A common christian approach to preventing the Bible from being shown to be incorrect factually or morally is to claim that the passage in question is not literal.
What would have happened if the book of Joshua had not? First, it is not yet shown that everything in Joshua actually happened. On the assumption that it did, and if it instead had not, it would be trivial for an omnigod to arrange the circumstances in a more humane way to have a much better outcome. I don’t need foreknowledge to make this claim.
After listening to Gaven and how you depend on people's falling victim to the appeal to authority and how you have misled people with the facts, I have no choice but to leave Christianity for Atheism.
Hold your horses. The whole conquest can be explained by Genesis 6:4 KJV. These were nephelim hybrids. But of course the two lukewarm Christians babbling above won’t touch that with a 10 foot pole.
I think you should do a follow-up video about God commanding Abraham to offer up Isaac. With all the emphasis on child sacrifice being wrong, people will inevitably bring up Isaac's event without understanding it. One perspective that I hadn't heard from church circles is that God set up the encounter as a way for Abraham to test who God is. For more, read the ending of "Fall of Hyperion" by Dan Simmons. Another similar passage is in Micah 6:7. It's easy to read and misinterprete that God isn't asking for child sacrifices. I'm sure there are other similar passages out there too. Just thought it could be a good topic.
I remain skeptical of archeological-based scholarship that contradict consistent ancient rabbinical commentary. Those commentaries were much closer to the events themselves, and they tended to read the text historically (just like normal people today do. Gee. whoda thunk?) Typical example would be the counting of the population that left Egypt. Scholarship that makes the number closer to 100k contradicts ancient Jewish commentary. (Eg, in "Antiquities of the Jews", 15:1, Josephus says "Now the entire multitude of those that went out, including the women and children, was not easy to be numbered, but those that were of an age fit for war, were six hundred thousand." And he's not alone) Shouldn't these ancient Jews know how their own grandfathers using their own language counted their own people? Strains credulity past my breaking point. I get that there are challenges here. And as a bean-counting nerd, I came across the fun image of Moses putting his wife and children on his donkey decades ago. All on my own, just from reading the text. Long before I heard anyone on YT mention it. (One solution: Jethro gave Zipporah to Moses when Moses was 70, not when he was 41. Or Zipporah didn't give birth to these boys until she was 50. Nothing in the text says the boys were born when Moses was 42.) Modern scholars laying aside the consistent voice of ancient Jewish commentators seems too hasty to me. And framing my modern reading as "fundamentalist" or "hyper literalistic" or "wooden" when it's actually the same way ancient Jews read their own text?? No thanks.
There's debate in Jewish commentaries and on many passages in the Hebrew Bible. So, you one Jewish view isn't consistent with the Pharasees, Sadusees, all the other Jewish groups. They have different theological interpretations of their Hebrew . BTW, Rabbinical Judaism rejected their own theology of the TWO Powers in Heaven israelite theology of the 2nd temple period. They would deny the TWO persons of YHWH in Genesis 19:24, which Biblical Judaism recognized as Orthodox Judaism. What Jesus presented to the High Priest in Matthew 26: 62-65. In claiming to be this Visible YHWH of Genesis 19:24. The Cloud Rider equivalent to A Storm deity as being the Son of God Most High . That's why the High Priest said Jesus Blasphemed. So, hyper literalism isn't necessarily the correct interpretation in Genesis 1-11. And in other passages.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Where did I say Gen 1-11? The topic is modern scholarship overturning millennia of Jewish consensus on various topics. If you find an example of a topic for which there is no long-standing history of Jewish consensus, then guess what..... I'm not talking about that. And please list your sources that contradict what I argued for. I listed mine, chapter and verse. I can provide more if you'd like. Thanks.
@@Tim.Foster123valid points IMHO. Despite what I learned while studying theology at a mainstream German university - if there's conflict with scholarship I'd rather go with the simple plain reading of the text. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. If that makes me a fundamentalist then so be it.
@@MrSeedi76 I'm open to scholarship helping us get into the mind of the authors and their audiences, but sometimes these scholars seem to get out over their skis. I start with Jesus' statement that Scripture cannot be broken. On that point alone, there is so much that contradicts a lot of what scholars like to bring to the table. The Bible wasn't written to scholars; it was written to ordinary folk (granted, they lived in a radically different culture than my own, but they were ordinary folk). On Judgment Day, I don't think Jesus will be impressed if I say "..but Bart Erhman said... and Kathleen Kenyon corroborated..."
Yeah, and certainly we think of numbers differently in western culture as then (proverbs 6:17). Not as precise, but I see no evidence for taking the numbers of people as idealised, surely the point is the vast number of israelites! So they should be at the very least the right order of magnitude. What is the textual, or cultural evidence against this?
Wondering if you had thoughts on Michael Heiser's view of the conquest of Canaan? His contention is that the destruction language only applies to the giant clans, that were the remnant of the Nephilim. The Nephilim being a result of the supernatural rebellion in Genesis 6.
I've heard IP mention Dr Heiser as a respected scholar in some videos but he also has made pretty clear that he rejects the fallen angel view of the nephilim. so I suspect IP would hesitate to use that explanation given that he doesn't accept the premise it's based on.
@@joshuas1834 I watched those videos about the Nephilim by IP too. But it's weird because he seems to accept the divine council, seen a short or two where he talks about it, so why not Genesis 6? But I hadn't heard Gavin speak on Heiser's point of view so was just curious if he'd thought about it.
I have not heard Gavin address it. The point where Walton’s & Heiser’s views actually dovetail is that there is a call for destruction of the identity around societies that believed in divine-human unions as part of their pedigree. (Whether angelic-human unions are physically possible is a separate but related issue, IMO.)
@@Tim.Foster123 I can see what you're saying but I personally came to Heiser from a background in Chuck missler so Heiser was really setting me straight and was a voice of sobriety and reason by comparison.
Besides the fact that the exodus story does not fit with the archeology of literally any time period.. even with copius amounts of mentalGymnastics as shown in this video.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. … For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Corinthians 13 It seems that for some believers, the desire to know more than what’s already partially revealed vs. accepting it as is, will remain until the fullness comes.
Another thought, brothers. Judgement comes when the cup of iniquity is filled. Canaan was judged when her sins were complete. Only God knows when that is. In the book of Revelation, Jesus comes in vengence against harlot Israel because her sins were likewise complete ( shedding all the blood of the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Himself) just as Canaan's were centuries before....
17:00 is it right for me to hold that certain passages could be both something that literally happened but that is has a metaphorical/ allegorical meaning as well. The example I use is The Fall in Genesis 3, I think that it did literally happen but in a more broad sense it is an addressing of the human condition. I understand I might be alone on this but I just wanted to throw my opinion out for consideration
Hey Matthew, you aren't alone on this at all! Its actually the traditional view that many or most passages in the Bible have both a literal and an allegorical meaning. For more information, Google "the 4 senses of scripture "
For me absolutely both readings make perfect sense. You could even make the point that the fall describes the point in human evolution (if one believes in it and I have my doubts) where we actually developed enough intelligence to decide between right and wrong. Animals are blameless as they act on instinct while humans can choose. Either way you read the text it expresses the same fundamental truth, namely that humans can do evil and good and often enough choose to do what's wrong.
I don't care for weasel attempts to redefine the events or claim God didn't REAALLLY mean to kill all of them off, even though he said so repeatedly and got angry when they did not.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I guess it is. It was not meant to be an insult by the way. I was commenting on how Michael tends to slap people down when they say stupid things on TikTok and Gavin incentivizes deeper thinking with his kind and gentle attitude.
Thank you Gavin for inviting IP onto your channel. I find his work, which emphasizes and illuminates the historical basis for Christianity, to be very valuable. Perhaps you could consider another shared video with him, discussing historic aspects of the Early Church?
Inspiring Philosophy initially states that there is SO MUCH evidence for the Israel in bondage and the exodus, but then fails to share that evidence with us. He then brags about the fact that we have no evidence for what happened in Jericho or Ai during the years of the Biblical stories. Forgive me if I am unimpressed.
So, Gavin, since you've clearly had the time to continue exploring this subject with Michael Jones, what's your reason for rejecting Christian academic and theologian Randal Rauser's prior offer to have a similarly respectful conversation with him on the issues raised by this topic?
The latest report from Qantir/Pi-Ramesses indicates construction began far earlier than thought. As far back as Amenhotep III building was going on. By the time Rameses II began his reign it was huge in size. Maybe 4 square kilometers. He founded it shortly after. Also, archeologists found other nearby towns were in its sphere of influence such that it was the hub for about half a million people. That is why a fairly large group of people could migrate from it.
Shot out to MJ.... Calvinist get grief from non-Calvinist all the time for our views on total depravity and others. I just want to say, the _non-Calvinist,_ Michael Jones just summed up total depravity, like a champ! - he's right we are all *ORCs* in this story. This is the beauty and the scandal of the Gospel. Jesus chooses to place his love on Orcs, that is, to change Orcs into men. Great analogy Michael!
The Exodus did not happen in Ramses time. 10:55 the Argument against that by "Expedition Bible" is quite simply that this city was built by the Israelites and later renamed after ramses. I don't really see why this is a controversial point. And the rest of the evidence weighs strongly for an early date of the exodus. Other that Exodus 1, the late date thesis has no support. Watch his video.
Nope. Do the math on their ages. Gen 11:26 says "When Terah was 70, he fathered Abraham, Nahor and Haran". It proceeds to say Terah died in Haran when he was 205. But the next chapter says Abe was 75 when he left his father, and Acts 7 says he left his father AFTER his father died. That means Abe was born when Terah was 130. Smart money says Terah didn't have triplets when he was 70. The 3 sons are not listed in chronological order; they're listed in order of significance: - Abe (father of Isaac ..and Christ) is more important than - Nahor (brother of Rebecca, father of Leah/Rachel) is more important than - Haran (father of Lot) Moses often lists things in order of importance. (The same can be said of "Shem, Ham, and Japheth". Shem is the father of the Jews, so he's listed first. Ham is the father of the Canaanites and Egyptians. Japheth is the father ... of nobody significant in Biblical history) So Terah was indeed over 100 when he fathered Abraham. But IP is wrong: Abraham's laugh was not one of incredulity and derision. It was one of joy/surprise/rejoicing. Targum of Onkelos (ancient Jewish commentary) supports this view. As does Paul in Rom 4, where he says Abe never wavered in doubt. Jesus says the same about how Abe rejoiced to see the day in John 8. And if that weren't enough, after Sarah died, Abe married a 3rd wife, Keturah, and had 6 sons by her. Put all that together and it's obvious that Abe didn't think he was too old to have a son. (For the life of me, I don't know why IP misses this. Honestly, I think he relies on scholars too much and doesn't read the Bible carefully. IMHO, he does this a lot.) Sarah's laugh (in the next chapter) was one of incredulity, and she even says so. And unlike with Abe, the Lord calls her out on it (further proof that her laughter was different than Abe's)
@@Tim.Foster123 why would you take the other verses rather than the one that literally says he fathered Abram at 70? Seems the opposite of parsimonious here. But I agree the laugh was one of Joy like you say
@@truthovertea Seriously?? You want me to explain myself again? The issue isn't about what Gen 11:26 says, it's about what it means. If it means Terah was 70 when Abe was born, then the ages directly contradict Gen 11:26. For those of us who believe the Bible is Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible, that's a problem. Honestly, I don't know why my explanation is so hard to believe. ..nevermind the fact that it's corroborated by Christian and Jewish scholars and has been believed for centuries.
@@Tim.Foster123 You have more explaining to do on your view. My view doesn’t require change at all, yours does because you can’t explain Gen 11:26 without changing what it says or coming up w some explanation why it’s wrong. I would just argue in Acts 7 Stephen says “after his father died, God had him move into this country in which you are living. It may be Abraham moved to the specific country geographic area Stephen is mentioning after his father passed. No changes here, your view needs a bit more change to work than mine.
I was in the army when you travel you try not to learn a trail .especially if someone is chasing you.plus we live in a disposable culture any metal would have been very valuable.we called it little disapline
there was very little in this video that remotely corresponded to a "Christian worldview". Jesus showed us through his life and words that God has no part in our violence. anathema to those who serve the God of death rather than the God of the living.
I'm a little confused when you say God would have no part in violence. Do you not think that God commanded the conquest on Canaan? From the christian worldview it's the same God in the new and old testament.
@@123ghds correct. God never commands evil, and so God has never commanded people to kill each other. a Christian worldview must correctly understand that the letter kills, and the spirit gives life.
How did Jesus show us through his life and words that God has no part in our violence? What does "our violence" mean exactly? God has had part in violence in the sense of carrying out justice upon evil. I'm asking for clarification with good faith and would like to hear you out if you want to reply.
@@techguy6241 By "our violence", I mean the only violence around- because God does no violence at all. It's as Paul says: love does no harm to a neighbour (and love is all that God is). I would view God's destruction of evil as a division between what is real and unreal, since evil is fundamentally nothing. this judgement of God never implies any harm being done to God's creation, only to the falsehoods and delusions that we sometimes create. Jesus shows this through his actions, e.g. his nonviolence and forgiveness towards his persecutors, and through his numerous teachings of nonviolence.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 I'm currently reading through the book of Ezekiel and can attest that God swearing judgement through violence (famine, sword, plague, etc) on the nation of Judah is pretty much laid out in every single chapter. Why would God take such brutal measures upon something you claim is "'fundamentally nothing"?
Don't deny us the details because some may be squeamish. If I interact over this issue, it will be in a real-world setting with real consequences. Dont disarm the bold out of deference to the timid. If the squeamish don't want to hear it, they can skip it.
The easiest answer for the conquest of Canaan is that the Canaanites were the nephelim hybrids. But that would require actual understanding of the spiritual aspect of the Bible instead of the lukewarm intellectualization these two use.
InspiringPhilosophy does apologetics for what? It is mixture of greek philosophy influence, humanism and liberalism's "if I cannot come with good answer these numbers are probably idealized". Where in the text, you can find evidence of "idealized numbers". We see symbolic numbers in different genres: prophetic, apocalyptic literature, even psalms, but not in book that is suppose to be clearly historical. Unless the text suggests it clearly. He cannot count or find better answer so he goes to this "idealized number" fabulation. There is lacking evidence for it in historical genre. This is complete eisegesis. And this guy is evolutionist btw. Do we accept apologetics from someone who cannot solve basic things out? He will probably deconstruct in few years. We need people who have supernatural faith and are actually called by God to do ministry.
LOL 😂 you have hyper literalist interpretations that's why many people R leaving Christianity. Your following the 19th century Restoration Movement false prophet Helen G White's dreams of hyper literalist interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and other passages.
Thank you for having me on!
Glad you two got together! Two of my favorite teachers/channels to watch. You’ve both helped me grow in my understanding and my Faith. ✝️🙏👍😎
This was laughably insane. God needed to judge his own creation? You think the Canaanites are Orcs? Are you serious? Do you actually think all the Canaanites were a monlith and were all doing human sacrifices every day, each and every one of them? Dude wtf is wrong with you? You have absolutely no grasp on ancient history and are completely brainwashed by religious thinking. What a joke.
@GnosticInformant you could have proved him wrong instead of pouting.
@@HearGodsWord But what's going to happen when you realize the meaning of the Apocalypse and its relation to the Saffron Crocus?
lol
All of these things you believe and these things you've asserted will be irrelevant in the light of Truth.
lol
@@Azupiru looks like you had nothing meaningful to contribute.
Awesome! Inspiring Philosophy really helped me get a footing into Christianity last year! Great to see two people who helped me so much get together.
❤❤
"You're more evil than you realized & you're more loved than you realize." Amen
That's a quote from the late Timothy Keller. He was a brilliant man. Through him God saved me.
Who was pastor Keller talking to? I hope it wasn't his wife. Did he write his own marriage vows? =)
So you're evil and God loves you... so God loves evil? That checks out with what we know about Abrahamic mythology 😆
@@KohanKilletz He loves the person not their sin
@@potapotapotapotapotapota how is the person different than the things they do?
Sweet! I've been waiting for a collab between you two!
Legendary crossover
This crossover is more epic than Deadpool & Wolverine 🔥
I don’t have a problem with idealized numbers, but I’m always interested in the basis for saying they are idealized, and I look for patterns to make sense of that.
The arguments around use of military numbers is interesting, and I see reasons why these might be estimated and confusing.
Having studied a number of various chronologers (Usher, Floyd Jones, Edwin Theile, Jack Finegan, Andrew Steinmann, Parker & Dubberstein, etc.), I’m always impressed by the accuracy of dates in the era of the kings and the narratives that go along with them. Basically there is only about 40 years difference between the Bible’s kings list and the Assyrian kings list (which is pure numbers and no narrative). That’s pretty impressive in my view, though people get all bent out of shape over even this small difference.
I have listened to Sean McDowells interview of a couple Archeologists both for and against a 1400s or 1200s exodus.
I don’t think I’m rigid in my theological framework, but It just seems to me-if it’s a question of going with the dates from the Kings account of the temple, or going with the archaeology that goes against 1400s (my understanding is that the evidence is divided as Jericho’s destruction could be placed in the 1400s)-that we should at least entertain and be open to the possibility that we just have an insufficient archeological record.
Is it really that impossible to say we just don’t have decisive archeological evidence for an either a early or late exodus, but that the Bible favors an early 1400’s date?
Why would such a tack be unscholarly (i.e. fundamentalist/wooden)?
I think part of Christian apologetics needs to be about the framing of our historical knowledge as much as getting the best evidence outside the Bible to support it.
But sometime we just need to
say we don’t know. Should we feel forced to come up with attenuated justifications for disregarding biblical dates almost entirely because they don’t easily fit the current archeological evidence? Is it really “fundamentalist” to have an expectation for dating accuracy based upon other confirmed evidence in the Bible for such accuracy ?
At least that would be my caution.
I don’t think one has to abandon the dates of the text in one place to be able to recognize hyperbolic war talk in other texts. These, to my mind, require there own separate justifications.
the issue with dating Jericho seems to almost solely be based on that the Hebrews built Pithom and Ramses. It basically has to be in the Ramicide period according to IP and a lot of scholars because of Exodus 1. IP is like "don't take dates literally," but then takes the statement about Pithom and Ramses super literal. There is evidence of a semitic population in the 1400s and Moses's name fits with the Tutmoses line. It would make sense he was called Moses if he was an adopted child of Hatshepsut. I've seen interviews of Egyptologists who think the Bible is myth and they are hard set on the Ramicide period too.
@@thadofalltrades, those are good points. And one should at least consider that “Ramses” might be a name that predates the particular Pharaoh known in the 13th century BC.
I realize it’s just a side comment in support of a larger point here.
Contextualizing the minimal case for the killing of children fits the purpose of the eliminate command, in so far as it was to remove those who could teach the Hebrews the ways of the people who lived there.
But It seems to me that a major consideration is to illustrate that war has a collective responsibility aspect to it in all periods of human history. We tend to read our rules of war, which even today are more prudential guidelines as if they are moral absolutes. Clearly if we can be morally justified to go to just war against a nation today, God has the authority to do the same.
This is not to say that minimizing the death of non-combatants is not a good thing, but different rules apply to the removal of a nation versus the normal rules of war. This is seen in the law itself.
Anyway, all good thoughts to consider. I enjoy and learn a lot from both IP and TU. :)
@@jrhemmerich there's a scientist named Dr. Douglas Petrovich who talks about how carbon dating starts to skew older the further back in time we go. I believe he makes the case that the big destruction layer at Jericho could actually be from the 1400s due to this skewing. If you search for Petrovich radiocarbon it should come up. He's a young earth creationist, so maybe take what he says with a grain of salt, but the data seems to back up the skewing. He has a very technical book about it that I want to read, but it's like $75.
The basis for claiming idealized numbers is "because that makes modern people more comfortable with the Bible"
Gavin should keep up with these crossover episodes. I’m a Catholic who’s fond on him and I loved seeing him team up with Trent recently. Ecumenism is sorely needed in the RUclips apologetics scene.
So cool to see you two get together! Two of my favorite teachers and channels to watch. You’ve both helped me grow in my understanding and my Faith! ✝️🙏👍😎
Bro these collabs are off the chain keep em coming brother
Christian youtubers unite!
Woohoo! 🎉
Now we just need Mike Winger to complete the holy trinity of protestant apologists
Truth unites indeed!
It's interesting that Orlund's approach in defending the Canaanite conquest appears different from that given by WLC's approach on Alex O'Connor's podcast. WLC tried to give a defense of Divine Commend Theory, and never tried to soften the meaning behind God's command (i.e no mention of hyperbole).
It seems that many, including Orlund, have a problem with the “morality“ of God’s treatment of the non-combatants who were slaughtered in Canaan. The fact that a distinction is made between who was armed and the unarmed is absurd and totally a new concept regarding ancient warfare.
For genuine believers, in the Book of Revelation God will slaughter all non-believers, regardless of whether they are “combatants,” much like in Jericho. The bottom line is if you have a problem with what happened in Jericho then you should have even a bigger problem with what will happen in the Book of Revelation. The God that ordained the slaughters in the Old Testament is the same God that will bring destruction to all unbelievers in the New Testament.
@@dpaceesq > For genuine believers, in the Book of Revelation God will slaughter all non-believers, regardless of whether they are “combatants,” much like in Jericho.
I largely concur with this understanding of Scripture. Here's a verse in Rev 19 that nails it on the head for me:
[+] Then I saw an angel standing on the sun, and he cried out in a loud voice, saying to all the birds flying high overhead, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of their riders, and the flesh of everyone, both free and slave, small and great.” (Rev 19:17-18)
The Lord is judging and making war "in righteousness" (v11). Anyone who is not righteous is fair game for destruction.
But it's not just Revelation. Start back in Genesis:
- God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by water in Noah's Flood
- God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by fire in S&G
- God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by Ten Plagues in the Exodus
- God deliberately destroyed men, women, children, and livestock by earthquake in Korah's Rebellion
I hate to say it, but if we have a problem with God deliberately destroying men, women, children, and livestock by Joshua's sword in the Canaanite Conquest, I can only conclude one thing: we're not paying attention.
What's next? Are we to think we're not deserving of destruction by a holy God?? I hope not.
@@dpaceesq
Agree. If a Christian starts accepting the current worldview of non-violence as the ideal today on earth, then divine & eternal judgment itself, which is definitely violent as described in the Bible, sounds very unappealing to say the least.
@@dpaceesqwell, if they interpret the books you way you do.
This is why I keep saying the answer to this is in the Genesis 6:4 seed war. But of course the modern church is spiritually neutered so no mention.
Oh snap, my 2 favorite Christian youtubers unite!
YES! Been hoping you two would collab.
Awesome! Been waiting for this crossover.
Love this! Makes me wish I could like a video twice
I will like it once for you! 😇
Thanks!
I really love the work of yours - brothers.
This was a great follow-up to your conquest video.
Great thoughts!
Thank you Dr.Ortlund for the segment where you and IP explain how to interpret that part of the Bible. You've done it in other videos and I appreciate it. I used to be nervous about not taking every bit of Scripture literally. Ultimately, I just want to know what the biblical authors intended when they wrote the book.
Excellent video! Thank you both for addressing this issue.
Yes another video!!!!!
I really hope for a united Church through an ecumenical lense, if it starts the RUclipsrs, then let it be so.
That point is so important that we need to actually believe we need help. That's something no amount of arguing or external evidence can make you see, it's something that must be arrived at on your own. Loved the LOTR example as well!
Two of my faves in one video?!?!
Can you make a video on dispensationalism and covenant theology? I am so confused about these things
These are some of the Two greatest minds I’ve been able to come across in modern Christianity, there are times where I met a crisis of faith, but I see if Gavin and Michael are still going strong in the faith then there must be so much veracity. Thank you too for being some of the largest blessings in my more theological and apologetical walk with God, God bless you all
Cmon my guy IP is no smarter than the average street corner apologist.. there’s nothingwrong with that btw.
this was unexpected lol, nice seeing u two collab
We need the debate with Randal Rouser
@15:00 Michael says Tereh was 135 when Abraham was born, but doesn't Gen 12:26 indicate 70 years (which may be symbolic, especially since it lists all three sons together here)? If so, 135 would have been the years that transpired from fatherhood to death, not his age at fatherhood, no? Or am I missing something?
Yeah Michael totally brushed over this. It is an obvious contradiction.
Actually the 70 years was when the group of three sons of Terah was born. Unless they were triplets it means when the first of the three were born. The other two were after that.
@@IamwrongbutI wasn't at all implying that he brushed over it.
@@501MobiusYes, that was part of my question and why I wondered if the age of 70 might be symbolic (since all 3 sons are listed together).
@@dianeo.4171We are told in Genesis that Abram left when he was 70. We are told during Stephan's speech in Acts 7 that he left when his father died. 205 - 70 = 135. Therefore Abram was born when Terah was 135 years old.
Re: Jericho, Joel Kramer interviewed Bryan Wood about Jericho as well as some other archaeologists, and the rendering he used of Jericho based on the total of archeological digs there had two walls. There was an outer wall, a ring of buildings behind that mud brick wall, and then an inner wall. The outer wall did collapse. Wood took issue with Kenyon's date based on her pottery analysis. She looked for imported pottery that "should have been" common at the time of Israelite conquest and didnt find it. However, other archeologists did find *imitation* of that imported pottery.
It's an interesting video: ruclips.net/video/C27CmsSGx5Y/видео.htmlsi=5Ko7wQGGS0h5rYMg
I wonder if IP and/or Ortlund would have Joel Kramer or Wood on to discuss it. Maybe they're wrong, maybe it was battering rams. I don’t know, but if ive learned anything from Dr. James White it's that the weakness of arguments comes out in cross-examination (well, that and Calvinism, but I digress).
Yes! Joel Kramer is the best. I went to Jericho with him on a study trip a few years ago. HIs RUclips channel is phenomenal.
Ethnic cleaning did occur when the allies marched through Germany so that’s not a good comparison
Winning a war isn't the same as ethnic cleansing.
Still no mention of Genesis 6:4? Was the resurrection just poetry as well?
Genesis 6:4 isn't the conquest of Caanan.
@@HearGodsWord It explains the conquest.
solid Christian apologetics!
Because it contradicts evidence and reality?
@@lllllliiillllllNo it doesnt😂
@@joe5959yes it does Joe. A Christian has NEVER demonstrated the mechanisms by which their god operates. Their miracles are impossible, unexplained, universe breaking. For example, how does water turn to wine? Changing the amount of protons, changing the amount of mass in the universe ? God can only break the laws of physics when it’s in a book written by primitive men, why does he fail to do that in real life in front of a camera or a crowd of reliable sources ? Demonstrate and explain that please. Otherwise it’s very clear that the magic fable is just full of magic. 🪄 🍷 if god can do anything then we would see that, not just READ that in a disgusting old book written by Iron Age MEN based on Bronze Age myths STOLEN from copper age religions.
The exodus never happened, the flood, the garden, the resurrection all never happened. These stories have as much credence as any other religion, thas it to say NONE. Alexander the Great left more evidence than your god and he didn’t have to break and laws of the universe to do it. He did it first too since Jesus, hell, lucifer, your whole religion wasn’t even invented yet. That’s laughable. Billions of years of terrible, suffering life without a god or a human on earth, this religion is so egocentric and contradictory. Not to mention it gave rise to the worst enduring human idea: Islam. Shameful.
All you guys have the same response to the rest of the world. Something along the lines of “uhhh Jesus is the truth, trust me bro”. This is why religion will never cease spilling blood. Jesus is so loving and such a good teacher that his followers massacre each other endlessly. Look at the tirade your willful ignorance led me on.
@@joe5959Matthew 16:28. Matthew 24:34-35. He lied to you. Stop waiting around for an apocalyptic Jew whose image got hijacked by Jews and transformed for gentiles. You don’t even follow the same religion as Yehoshua Ben Yosef nor Saul the Pharisee. You can either accept this or continue in your delusion…I mean religion. A little reading (not the Bible) never hurts one’s understanding of the reality of history.
Side note: was Jesus born during after Herod or during the Quirinius census ? Cant be both….gods books are so unreliable, not to mention how hard these authors try to prophesies Jesus, before it turns to outright deification as time goes on. The trinity didn’t even exist until several centuries after daddy Jesus died. Hilarious stuff
This is like the Apologetics version of Pippen and Jordan lol
Wizards Jordan
It seems to me that it’s a stretch to pin so much of an argument on cultural context leading to non-literalist interpretations, but even granting all of those justifications about an imperfect reading reveals another issue.
Why did God decide that His revelation should be so dependent on our ability to read His Word faithfully in its cultural context? Why, if He wants us to be saved and He is all powerful, is He not still revealing to us in ways that we can intuitively understand?
The church has division over interpretations of teachings, doctrine, church structure, theology, historicity… all of these issues exist because God’s perfect word is so impossible to understand properly. Why would God not reveal to each person in a way that was clear to them, or at least not rely on something so unreliable as ancient texts we can’t decipher?
I think that Martin Luther was right in saying that all we need for our salvation is expressed clearly in the Bible. Jesus said, love God and thy neighbor is what the OT boils down to. Besides, the word of God was written to and by the Israelites of old. Yes, they had another mindset, culture, etc. So the what I think is astonishing is that so much of it still makes sense to us. Other things don't but I don't think they're all that relevant. Even though I studied theology myself, I read the Bible plainly and I still think the Bible interprets the Bible. What's relevant to us is the path to salvation and the message of Jesus to us. And that's clear as day.
@@MrSeedi76 The most basic fundamentals of theology are easy enough to determine (although as soon as you get past the bare minimum, people start disagreeing again).
But that’s not the trouble in my eyes. Issues like the ones discussed in the video are deeply unclear, and that lack of clarity doesn’t make me question *how* to follow the Bible, it makes me think the Bible isn’t a true authority.
These sorts of issues, like the conquest of Canaan or biblical slavery, put into question the objective moral framework of the Bible. The fact that we need to twist so hard to come to a reasonable place is indicative that perhaps the Bible isn’t a perfect and inspired message from God.
If God wanted us to be able to trust the revelation He provided, surely there was a better way of accomplishing that than what we have.
@@Capt.Fail.I think you're wrong. The question is whether any communication can be absolutely clear or not. The Bible is clear in the parts that are important to us. Also - there needs to be no twisting of the word to make sense of it. Only when our preconceived philosophical ideas about what the Bible should say come into conflict about what it actually says, does confusion arise. So, no, there is no better way God could have achieved this as soon as humans and their flawed understanding is involved.
In fact one could make the argument that some parts are intentionally unclear because they will only be made clear by the holy spirit which only the true believers receive. Therefore any explanation of people who don't believe can be disregarded.
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matthew:13:11
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Matthew:13:12
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Matthew:13:13
@@MrSeedi76 Communication certainly can be more clear than what we have. There could be a commentary on the verses similar to what we see scholars today producing, telling us what they mean in ways that make sense to us today and applying them to our lives, for example. Or, God could have a discussion about it with us directly. Or any number of clearer ways to communicate that aren’t writing in an ancient language according to an ancient society’s traditions.
It seems you also move on to the idea that this video is wrong and we should accept the Bible at face value and literally - there are obvious problems with that and this video exists because of how much that doesn’t work. But, if that’s your stance, I don’t feel the need to get into it (I’m engaging here hoping to find an answer about why God might have made the Bible require so much interpretation, not interested in why I should take it hyper-literally).
Then the intentional unclarity argument, if read straight-forwardly as though God is literally keeping the understanding of salvation from certain people, is pretty messed up. I think you might be coming at it from a Calvinist point of view, which I do believe solves the issues I raise, but replaces them with a God who forces people to sin yet somehow punishes them for it, and created people (most of them, in fact) solely for the purpose of eternally being tormented. So, that God is not all good in my mind and doesn’t really do much for me.
I think we here in America should be careful about agreeing that a culture practicing infanticide deserves God’s judgment. We make the ancient Canaanites look like amateurs. It may not be as brutal, but the numbers are astronomically higher.
In the OT if a man causes a miscarriage he's just fined so YHWH doesn't seem to consider killing prenatal humans to be infanticide
@@tomasrocha6139I looked up the passage but the passage is concerned with iduced premature birth. If there is no harm, then a fine is paid. If there is harm (presumably including the baby) then there is punishment up to the severity of the injury (Lex Talionis).
It seems that a common response to criticisms of the bible is "You need to understand it in its historical context". While some criticisms are nullified by understanding the historical context, some criticisms remain valid.
Just because the context is different, that does not necessarily nullify a particular criticism. Unfortunately, more often than not, valid criticisms are dismissed by simply accusing the person making the criticism of not understanding the historical context.
An example may be, the command from God to kill all the men, women, children and animals in 1 Samuel 15. Obviously, the historical context of this event is much different than today, however, this does not seem to have anything to do with the heart of the criticism in this particular circumstance, that being that commanding the deaths of innocents (women, children, animals) is immoral regardless of the context.
How do you differentiate between criticisms that are invalid due to a lack of understanding of the historical context, vs those criticisms that are valid either because, including, or regardless of the historical context?
Actually, it is understanding the Bible in its historical context that makes criticism of Christian dogmas and interpretations of the book, true (not the other way around).
@@mendez704 kill children 3000 years ago = good ? Today = bad? Okay, sounds Christian.
(17 September 2024) Regarding the Conquest of Canaan:
Viewers are confronted with numerous RUclips Videos presenting evidence for the Conquest of Canaan as being either ca. 1406 BC or ca. 1260 BC.
Often neglected is that the conquest is dated ca. 1550 BC and aligned with the expulsion of the Hyksos, as noted by the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, ca. 70 AD in his History of the Jews. Josephus identified the Hyksos expulsion as being the Egyptian version of Israel's Exodus under Moses.
Dr. Falk, an Egyptologist, and Christian Apologist, favors a 1260 BC Exodus, so, too do Professors James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen, who identify as Egyptologists and Christian Apologists!
Dr. Burton MacDonald, and archaeologist, and a Christian avows the world of the Exodus, for Edom, Moab, and Ammon, is the 6th century BC!
Who's right?
1550 BC?
1406 BC?
1260 BC?
560 BC?
The surprise?
All of the above are right!
How can this be?
The Iron Age I and II Israelites did not know the age of any site in Egypt, the Sinai, the Negeb, Canaan, Philista, Edom, Moab.
WHY?
No one knew the real age of any site until Pottery Typologies were invented by Sir Flinders Petrie of Britain until ca. 1890 AD!
His Pottery Typologies are still used today (2024) to date sites by, by Archaeologists.
Archaeologists discovered some sites would not align with Exodus and Conquest dates, be they 1550 BC, 1446-1406 BC, 1260 BC or 560 BC.
The pottery debris found decided the real age of sites.
Not knowing of Petrie's Pottery Typologies, it was impossible for the Iron Age Israelites to come up with a correct date for the Exodus and Conquest. They guessed at a date:
ca. 1446-1406 BC based on 1 kings 6:1.
They guessed wrong!
Archaeology reealed some sites in the Exodus narratives were of the 3rd millennium BC, like Ai (Et-Tell) and Arad.
Other sites were of the Iron Age I Period like Heshbon and Elealeh in Moab.
Bozrah, mentioned in Genesis was no older than the 8th century BC as Moab's capital.
So, everyone was right!
Exodus was a conflation of sites extending over 1,000 years into one event, ca. 1446-1406 BC (cf. 1 Kings 6:1)!
Hey Gavin, look at the camera! I know it's tempting to look at your screen with MJ on it.
SO desperate. SO much grasping at straws.
"What if they weren't any civilians in jericho, what if Jericho was guarding the pass, what if Jericho is just there to collect taxes what if what if what if what if what if"
This is not how serious scholarship is done. This is how Christian's desperately try to beat the Bible into not being evil.
Respectfully, IMO The Sermon on the Mount is not consistent with OT conquest/violence. Also, the book of Revelation is a symbolic book and is not a good case for Jesus supporting violence. We also don’t have to dehumanize people to orcs to understand these things. Most of this comes across as special pleading. These are definitely things to be wrestled with and there are no easy answers. Thanks for your work I enjoy both of your channels. God Bless you both.
That’s not an issue you’re taking with the apologetics or the interpretation that’s an issue you have with the character of God. The same God preached the sermon on the mount as commanded the conquest.
Thanks for your response, a lot of assumptions here and responses with built in conclusions are not very helpful. God commanding the conquest has been debated since the beginning of the church. Multiple church writings, interpretations, and fathers attest to this fact. I have no issue with the “character” of God but I am sure I probably have issue with what you think that is. You’re just begging the question of what God’s “character” is by your comment. This is an issue that has to be wrestled with not just assumed simplistic answers in a faux moral high ground of defending what you think God’s “character” is. God Bless
If you're interested check out a book called fight by Dr Preston sprinkle. It's being published with a new title now that I can't remember. In my estimation he gives a very sincere attempt at wrestling with those difficult issues and contradictions without denying the authority of scripture.
@@joshuas1834 That’s a great book I’ve read it multiple times. I don’t think one needs to deny the authority of scripture to wrestle with the text or have differing interpretations of certain scripture. Thanks and God Bless
Divine judgement is just a much a part of the SOTM as anything else Christ preached. Christ ends the sermon in Matt. 7 talking about how to properly judge something or somebody, and also the metrics God will use when He judges. This is not difficult to understand. God loves ppl, but He is also a Judge. Him being a Judge requires that He holds ppl accountable for rejecting His laws and authority. The wages of sin is death, as Rom. 6:23 says.
WHAT!
That inception analogy seems pretty weak
Okay this is what does my head in
You seem like a pretty nice guy
You certainly very well educated
And I’m guessing prayerful
So why are you so full of error
Why are you a Catholic
It makes no sense to me
Surely the evil one is not this powerful
This is my Current topic of my prayer
How so many apparently genuine people follow false doctrines
It makes no sense to me
Who's the 'you' that you're talking to?
If you're referring to Dr. Ortlund, he's not Catholic. He's a protestant.
@@thomasrutledge5941I know
@@thomasrutledge5941yes I know
No data against Joshua? While Joshua 10-11 portrayed Joshua's united Israelites as completely annihilating all Canaanites and capturing or destroying all their cities, Judges 1 shows many of these cities as still standing and being inhabited by Canaanites who often successfully repelled various Israelite tribes
The Israelites did take all of Canaan. However, the generations that came after Joshua didn't finish the job in wiping out certain strongholds within some of the territories of individual tribes. Jdg. 1:19 shows why this was the case: they didn't fully believe that God was behind them. The record goes on to show that other tribes followed Judah's faithless example in taking their foot of the gas pedal, and so those areas remained untouched.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 In Joshua 10-11 Joshua totally destroyed the Canaanites and that the land knew peace after that, that's not compatible with strongholds of territories being untaken
@@tomasrocha6139 It depends on how you understand "totally destroyed".
I've long believed that it meant "they defeated everyone who actively fought against them".
Obviously there is some hyperbole in the "annihilation" terminology in Joshua. But I don't take it as far as IP and Paul Copan take it. They dismiss too much, imho.
13:12 “Let the text guide us for when to interpret the text more literally or less literally…”
Translation: the claims contained in the Bible can never be falsified because if they don’t correlate to the evidence they must be non-literal.
Apologists main defense is that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.
Dont pout. Just make better arguments, counter-apologist. All your mob have are simplistic appeals to emotion.
@@clivejungle6999 It’s not pouting to point out that the apologist’s “heads I win tails you lose” is a rigged game.
Also, arguments aren’t evidences.
@@mrmaatnobody cares because it's not a game and it's not about winning it either. That's the problem with RUclips apologist and counter-apologist culture. It's never about furthering knowledge it's only about scoring points with the audience. That's why counter-apologists like Alex O'Connor for instance lie through their teeth and twist the facts as much as they can to make people believe their ridiculous atheist narrative.
@@MrSeedi76 I was using rigged game as a metaphor. I agree that the conversation isn’t a game - there’s eternal salvation and cultural hegemony at stake.
Both sides have guests whose aim is to further knowledge, but most of the philosophy and arguments like the Kalam are mental masturbation, which is the primary refuge of theism.
When has Alex lied? I’d appreciate two specific examples because in my estimation he attempts to be as fair as possible, even to moral monsters like Bill Craig.
Their claim was to better understand what it says in its original cultural context which wasn’t always literal if you actually listened to what they were saying so…
Love this argument.
The Bible is TRUE!!!!
What about the conquest?
OH, not that part.
Let me give you and example. When Michael talks about archeology he often talks about "we do not see this" and "we do not see that". Does that mean that he is lying because he was never there in person? If historians watch Mike's videos 1000 years from now - would they incorrectly conclude that Mike was an archeologist? Moreover - If God was speaking to Michael what language would God use? Would God be happy to say "when we excavate the site we don't see this..." No one is saying the Bible is not true.
@@marinusswanepoel1825 Non-sequiturs.
Michael and others try to excuse the conquest with all kinds of bizarre excuses.
The language was "hyperbole" and they didn't slaughter all the little kids, just some of them, is a perfect example.
If a madman showed up at your next family get-together, would you agree with an apologist at his sentencing hearing saying, "oh, but judge, sir, the madman didn't do a complete job, he only got rid of 40% of the family. Come on, the idea it was a total slaughter is completely hyperbole!"
Also, in Joshua 10, God gets those running away with hail stones that kill more, according to the text, than were killed with the sword.
Yet apologists keep saying that it wasn't a slaughter and that the people could have "just given up their homes and left without a fight," as if the whole "God sent hail" text isn't there.
God sent hail to kill those who had surrerrendered.
If the US military did this, they're be riots in the streets and the UN would be crying, "war crimes!"
Yet, when God commits war crimes, they're not war crimes, they're "good and righteous."
It's reallly sad y'all continue to make these apologetics as it shows how dark your hearts really are when you worship Yahweh.
It does make sense, as he's a warrior god, but still, seems Christians, if they believed in love, would follow Marcion or just reject the whole thing.
@@michaelsbeverly Well in my own opinion i support late exodus view meaning canaan genocide did not happen that would be theologicaly supported by church fathers and many theologians. Please note that allegorising was created by church fathers and not some layman apologetics
What the Biblical Scribes Teach Us about Their Writings
Richard J. Clifford, SJ
And
ALLEGORISING: THE RELEVANCE OF AN OLD METHOD OF INTERPRETATION
P.B. Decock
@@sebastiankaczmarek635 Fine.
The resurrrection is just a story also, not literal, so I agree with how you read the bible.
@@michaelsbeverly I definitely feel the force of the argument.
You are not going to like my answer but I feel God had every right to get those who ran with hail. We are led to believe that 90 percent of the people in that culture were baby Hitlers. God tells us he is going to do the same thing with people who insist on remaining in their sin on judgement day at the end of the age and I, for one, have submitted myself to God's justice.
The only question here, as far as I am concerned, is whether or not God killed innocent children and whether it is consistent to expect atheists to surrender their moral sensibilities when it comes to God when we expect them to exercise their moral sensibilities when we present premise 2 of the moral argument to them.
I thank you for remaining cordial in your response. I have no problem with the force by which you speak.
“…to support the historicity of the Bible.” There is a flaw in this statement. You are approaching the question of historicity in an all-or-nothing way, whereas a true scholar would approach it by asking which Parts are verifiable, and which are not or have not been. So if you find evidence of wandering in the wilderness, that increases the probability of the wandering account having some archaelogical grounding, but it does not prove the biblical account to be Correct. There are still other possible explanations that could also be correct, even some that you have not considered, some that perhaps no one has. But if the biblical account of the wandering is accurate, that does not corroborate the rest of the Exodus account, much less the rest of the Bible. Black and white thinking is an indicator of cult-like thought control.
See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
So you can just kill people as long as you claim it's in the name of "God's Justice"?
Thanks for clearing that up.
IP view is counter to consensus view of historians and is against church fathers interpretation and it is also against many theologians that claim canaan conquest to not be literal.
@@sebastiankaczmarek635It doesn’t really matter if it’s counter, it’s all about evidence.
@@wannabe_scholar82 Well consensus view is formed because evidence for it is very strong for example survey of literature of modern historians literally contradict what ip says; Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience
For example there are alot of theories and dates of exodus IP just choice his favorite 1450 bc bur he forgot to mention other dates like 2100 bce and 650 bce with solid evidence or consensus with best evidence for 1250 bce
Exodus Dates and Theories 4
Lawrence T. Geraty
This chapter surveys in a brief and introductory manner the scholarly views
regarding the dating of the Exodus described in the Hebrew Bible, including
especially the “traditional” 18th dynasty date (ca. 1450 BCE) and the
current “consensus” 19th dynasty date (ca. 1250 BCE), but touching also
on other Exodus dates advocated from ca. 2100 BCE through ca. 650 BCE.
These are summarized in table form with the relevant bibliography.
Theories of the date are usually accompanied by identifications of the
pharaohs involved, and these are briefly surveyed as well.
@@wannabe_scholar82 Well consensus view is formed because evidence for it is very strong for example survey of literature of modern historians literally contradict what ip says; Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience
@@wannabe_scholar82 Well consensus view is formed because evidence for it is very strong for example survey of literature of modern historians literally contradict what ip says; Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience
The titanic bias displayed by this type of desperate excusegetics contortionism is truly impressive. I might applaud it, if it wasn’t so god damn intellectually dishonest and immoral. Telling your audience of tens of thousands murder is fine and mere moving of souls across different planes of existence - WTF
Clown form deities on an alien planet, thanks I think I have my new book idea.
Also, allied soldiers in Nazi Germany analogy. They went in and dismantled the Nazi system. The same way, Joshua's armies dismantled the system that practiced infant sacrifice.
The worst i have ever heard apologetics talk about such topics. from the diminishing view to archaeology & archeologists to the moral views of human lives. truly shameful.
I wish people would really take the time to read the Bible. They should start with Luke 14:26 because unless you do what it states you can never be a Christian.
“You need to show us what is inconsistent in the rest of Christianity with the book of Joshua…”
“Thou shalt not commit murder.” What is murder? Taking another human life without their consent. If Yahweh exists, he commanded Israel to wipe out entire nations. Not just the soldiers; not just the adults; not just those over 5 years old; not just those who have already been born; everybody. That is not war. And if you posit that this is hyperbole, you necessarily accuse Yahweh of not being precise, which is impossible for an omnigod.
Alternatively, you accept that the bible is not the Word of Yahweh.
A common christian approach to preventing the Bible from being shown to be incorrect factually or morally is to claim that the passage in question is not literal.
It would be great if the historical context could have been included in the text of the literal Word of Yahweh. This would be trivial for an omnigod.
What would have happened if the book of Joshua had not? First, it is not yet shown that everything in Joshua actually happened. On the assumption that it did, and if it instead had not, it would be trivial for an omnigod to arrange the circumstances in a more humane way to have a much better outcome. I don’t need foreknowledge to make this claim.
Looks like you're trying to have a conversation with yourself!
After listening to Gaven and how you depend on people's falling victim to the appeal to authority and how you have misled people with the facts, I have no choice but to leave Christianity for Atheism.
Time stamps for where he misled people?
Hold your horses. The whole conquest can be explained by Genesis 6:4 KJV. These were nephelim hybrids. But of course the two lukewarm Christians babbling above won’t touch that with a 10 foot pole.
Gavin Ortlund & Michael Jones collab ??? Oh YEAH
I think you should do a follow-up video about God commanding Abraham to offer up Isaac. With all the emphasis on child sacrifice being wrong, people will inevitably bring up Isaac's event without understanding it.
One perspective that I hadn't heard from church circles is that God set up the encounter as a way for Abraham to test who God is. For more, read the ending of "Fall of Hyperion" by Dan Simmons.
Another similar passage is in Micah 6:7. It's easy to read and misinterprete that God isn't asking for child sacrifices. I'm sure there are other similar passages out there too.
Just thought it could be a good topic.
I remain skeptical of archeological-based scholarship that contradict consistent ancient rabbinical commentary. Those commentaries were much closer to the events themselves, and they tended to read the text historically (just like normal people today do. Gee. whoda thunk?)
Typical example would be the counting of the population that left Egypt. Scholarship that makes the number closer to 100k contradicts ancient Jewish commentary. (Eg, in "Antiquities of the Jews", 15:1, Josephus says "Now the entire multitude of those that went out, including the women and children, was not easy to be numbered, but those that were of an age fit for war, were six hundred thousand." And he's not alone) Shouldn't these ancient Jews know how their own grandfathers using their own language counted their own people? Strains credulity past my breaking point.
I get that there are challenges here. And as a bean-counting nerd, I came across the fun image of Moses putting his wife and children on his donkey decades ago. All on my own, just from reading the text. Long before I heard anyone on YT mention it. (One solution: Jethro gave Zipporah to Moses when Moses was 70, not when he was 41. Or Zipporah didn't give birth to these boys until she was 50. Nothing in the text says the boys were born when Moses was 42.)
Modern scholars laying aside the consistent voice of ancient Jewish commentators seems too hasty to me. And framing my modern reading as "fundamentalist" or "hyper literalistic" or "wooden" when it's actually the same way ancient Jews read their own text??
No thanks.
There's debate in Jewish commentaries and on many passages in the Hebrew Bible.
So, you one Jewish view isn't consistent with the Pharasees, Sadusees, all the other Jewish groups.
They have different theological interpretations of their Hebrew .
BTW, Rabbinical Judaism rejected their own theology of the TWO Powers in Heaven israelite theology of the 2nd temple period.
They would deny the TWO persons of YHWH in Genesis 19:24, which Biblical Judaism recognized as Orthodox Judaism.
What Jesus presented to the High Priest in Matthew 26: 62-65. In claiming to be this Visible YHWH of Genesis 19:24. The Cloud Rider equivalent to A Storm deity as being the Son of God Most High .
That's why the High Priest said Jesus Blasphemed.
So, hyper literalism isn't necessarily the correct interpretation in Genesis 1-11.
And in other passages.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Where did I say Gen 1-11? The topic is modern scholarship overturning millennia of Jewish consensus on various topics. If you find an example of a topic for which there is no long-standing history of Jewish consensus, then guess what..... I'm not talking about that.
And please list your sources that contradict what I argued for. I listed mine, chapter and verse. I can provide more if you'd like.
Thanks.
@@Tim.Foster123valid points IMHO. Despite what I learned while studying theology at a mainstream German university - if there's conflict with scholarship I'd rather go with the simple plain reading of the text. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. If that makes me a fundamentalist then so be it.
@@MrSeedi76 I'm open to scholarship helping us get into the mind of the authors and their audiences, but sometimes these scholars seem to get out over their skis.
I start with Jesus' statement that Scripture cannot be broken. On that point alone, there is so much that contradicts a lot of what scholars like to bring to the table.
The Bible wasn't written to scholars; it was written to ordinary folk (granted, they lived in a radically different culture than my own, but they were ordinary folk).
On Judgment Day, I don't think Jesus will be impressed if I say "..but Bart Erhman said... and Kathleen Kenyon corroborated..."
Yeah, and certainly we think of numbers differently in western culture as then (proverbs 6:17). Not as precise, but I see no evidence for taking the numbers of people as idealised, surely the point is the vast number of israelites! So they should be at the very least the right order of magnitude. What is the textual, or cultural evidence against this?
This is my super bowl
So excited to see yall collaborate!
We come to it at last. The great union of our time!
Gavin isn't nerd! But Winger still is... until he invites IP.
Spread the message.
Great to see you together with IP! Hope you do more collabs like this
IP and Mike Winger next? Nerd on nerd alliance.
They did a q&a a while ago together.
Winger is more of a "Lets learn along together" type person, I neve get the impression he is well versed.
@@winburna852 He is. He just uses a virtual preipateic method.
You're continuing to cover great topics, Gavin. IP is the absolute best guest to bring on for this subject!
Wondering if you had thoughts on Michael Heiser's view of the conquest of Canaan? His contention is that the destruction language only applies to the giant clans, that were the remnant of the Nephilim. The Nephilim being a result of the supernatural rebellion in Genesis 6.
I've heard IP mention Dr Heiser as a respected scholar in some videos but he also has made pretty clear that he rejects the fallen angel view of the nephilim. so I suspect IP would hesitate to use that explanation given that he doesn't accept the premise it's based on.
@@joshuas1834 I watched those videos about the Nephilim by IP too. But it's weird because he seems to accept the divine council, seen a short or two where he talks about it, so why not Genesis 6? But I hadn't heard Gavin speak on Heiser's point of view so was just curious if he'd thought about it.
I have not heard Gavin address it. The point where Walton’s & Heiser’s views actually dovetail is that there is a call for destruction of the identity around societies that believed in divine-human unions as part of their pedigree. (Whether angelic-human unions are physically possible is a separate but related issue, IMO.)
IMHO, Heiser gets out over his skis too much. The net effect of his teachings on the YT zeitgeist is lamentable.
@@Tim.Foster123 I can see what you're saying but I personally came to Heiser from a background in Chuck missler so Heiser was really setting me straight and was a voice of sobriety and reason by comparison.
Treat the Bible like a historical document, in its context and there is no problem.
Besides the fact that the exodus story does not fit with the archeology of literally any time period.. even with copius amounts of mentalGymnastics as shown in this video.
@@MoNtYbOy101 except for the fact that it literally does fit into the period of late bronze/early iron age period that it portrays...🙃
Amen 🙏🏾 thank you Jesus.
LET'S GO!!!! 😄
I'll give you $10 if you tell me where the phrase "let's go" came from.
was infant burning metaphorical too?
Exactly. These two are weak in their faith. They try to intellectualize everything because they can’t come to grips with the text.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
…
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
1 Corinthians 13
It seems that for some believers, the desire to know more than what’s already partially revealed vs. accepting it as is, will remain until the fullness comes.
Get a TU notification while watching TU >>>
We ball
Another thought, brothers. Judgement comes when the cup of iniquity is filled. Canaan was judged when her sins were complete. Only God knows when that is.
In the book of Revelation, Jesus comes in vengence against harlot Israel because her sins were likewise complete ( shedding all the blood of the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Himself) just as Canaan's were centuries before....
Kobe & Shaq of apologetics
17:00 is it right for me to hold that certain passages could be both something that literally happened but that is has a metaphorical/ allegorical meaning as well. The example I use is The Fall in Genesis 3, I think that it did literally happen but in a more broad sense it is an addressing of the human condition. I understand I might be alone on this but I just wanted to throw my opinion out for consideration
Yes. It is right.
Hey Matthew, you aren't alone on this at all! Its actually the traditional view that many or most passages in the Bible have both a literal and an allegorical meaning. For more information, Google "the 4 senses of scripture "
For me absolutely both readings make perfect sense. You could even make the point that the fall describes the point in human evolution (if one believes in it and I have my doubts) where we actually developed enough intelligence to decide between right and wrong. Animals are blameless as they act on instinct while humans can choose.
Either way you read the text it expresses the same fundamental truth, namely that humans can do evil and good and often enough choose to do what's wrong.
I don't care for weasel attempts to redefine the events or claim God didn't REAALLLY mean to kill all of them off, even though he said so repeatedly and got angry when they did not.
The carrot and the stick of RUclips Christian apologetics!
That's your incoherent opinion!!!
@@davidjanbaz7728 I guess it is. It was not meant to be an insult by the way. I was commenting on how Michael tends to slap people down when they say stupid things on TikTok and Gavin incentivizes deeper thinking with his kind and gentle attitude.
@@joshuas1834I understood what you meant by your comment. It wasn't an incoherent opinion. 👍
Thank you Gavin for inviting IP onto your channel. I find his work, which emphasizes and illuminates the historical basis for Christianity, to be very valuable. Perhaps you could consider another shared video with him, discussing historic aspects of the Early Church?
lol,,,,watch real and informed scholars if u want historicity.
Yoooo i follow both of you guys. Youre both awesome!!!!😊
Inspiring Philosophy initially states that there is SO MUCH evidence for the Israel in bondage and the exodus, but then fails to share that evidence with us. He then brags about the fact that we have no evidence for what happened in Jericho or Ai during the years of the Biblical stories. Forgive me if I am unimpressed.
The reigning dodgeball champion.
So, Gavin, since you've clearly had the time to continue exploring this subject with Michael Jones, what's your reason for rejecting Christian academic and theologian Randal Rauser's prior offer to have a similarly respectful conversation with him on the issues raised by this topic?
Are you actually Randal?
@@Narikku Heh. That's quite an insult -- to Randal! He is far more learned and literate than lil' old me...
Would love to see these two work together more. Some of the best apologists around today.
DREAM COLLAB!!!
The latest report from Qantir/Pi-Ramesses indicates construction began far earlier than thought. As far back as Amenhotep III building was going on. By the time Rameses II began his reign it was huge in size. Maybe 4 square kilometers. He founded it shortly after. Also, archeologists found other nearby towns were in its sphere of influence such that it was the hub for about half a million people. That is why a fairly large group of people could migrate from it.
Shot out to MJ.... Calvinist get grief from non-Calvinist all the time for our views on total depravity and others. I just want to say, the _non-Calvinist,_ Michael Jones just summed up total depravity, like a champ! - he's right we are all *ORCs* in this story. This is the beauty and the scandal of the Gospel. Jesus chooses to place his love on Orcs, that is, to change Orcs into men. Great analogy Michael!
The Exodus did not happen in Ramses time.
10:55 the Argument against that by "Expedition Bible" is quite simply that this city was built by the Israelites and later renamed after ramses. I don't really see why this is a controversial point. And the rest of the evidence weighs strongly for an early date of the exodus. Other that Exodus 1, the late date thesis has no support. Watch his video.
Hi Gavin,
RUclips seems to be selling you short here. You had over 130k subs I think but now suddenly you are back on 64k?
Terah was 70 when he fathered Abram…not over 100…that’s why Abraham laughed
Nope. Do the math on their ages.
Gen 11:26 says "When Terah was 70, he fathered Abraham, Nahor and Haran". It proceeds to say Terah died in Haran when he was 205.
But the next chapter says Abe was 75 when he left his father, and Acts 7 says he left his father AFTER his father died. That means Abe was born when Terah was 130.
Smart money says Terah didn't have triplets when he was 70. The 3 sons are not listed in chronological order; they're listed in order of significance:
- Abe (father of Isaac ..and Christ) is more important than
- Nahor (brother of Rebecca, father of Leah/Rachel) is more important than
- Haran (father of Lot)
Moses often lists things in order of importance.
(The same can be said of "Shem, Ham, and Japheth". Shem is the father of the Jews, so he's listed first. Ham is the father of the Canaanites and Egyptians. Japheth is the father ... of nobody significant in Biblical history)
So Terah was indeed over 100 when he fathered Abraham.
But IP is wrong: Abraham's laugh was not one of incredulity and derision. It was one of joy/surprise/rejoicing. Targum of Onkelos (ancient Jewish commentary) supports this view. As does Paul in Rom 4, where he says Abe never wavered in doubt. Jesus says the same about how Abe rejoiced to see the day in John 8. And if that weren't enough, after Sarah died, Abe married a 3rd wife, Keturah, and had 6 sons by her. Put all that together and it's obvious that Abe didn't think he was too old to have a son. (For the life of me, I don't know why IP misses this. Honestly, I think he relies on scholars too much and doesn't read the Bible carefully. IMHO, he does this a lot.)
Sarah's laugh (in the next chapter) was one of incredulity, and she even says so. And unlike with Abe, the Lord calls her out on it (further proof that her laughter was different than Abe's)
@@Tim.Foster123 why would you take the other verses rather than the one that literally says he fathered Abram at 70? Seems the opposite of parsimonious here. But I agree the laugh was one of Joy like you say
@@truthovertea Seriously?? You want me to explain myself again?
The issue isn't about what Gen 11:26 says, it's about what it means. If it means Terah was 70 when Abe was born, then the ages directly contradict Gen 11:26. For those of us who believe the Bible is Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible, that's a problem.
Honestly, I don't know why my explanation is so hard to believe. ..nevermind the fact that it's corroborated by Christian and Jewish scholars and has been believed for centuries.
@@Tim.Foster123 You have more explaining to do on your view. My view doesn’t require change at all, yours does because you can’t explain Gen 11:26 without changing what it says or coming up w some explanation why it’s wrong. I would just argue in Acts 7 Stephen says “after his father died, God had him move into this country in which you are living. It may be Abraham moved to the specific country geographic area Stephen is mentioning after his father passed. No changes here, your view needs a bit more change to work than mine.
@@Tim.Foster123 I understood your point and agree that the maths supports what you said.
I was in the army when you travel you try not to learn a trail .especially if someone is chasing you.plus we live in a disposable culture any metal would have been very valuable.we called it little disapline
there was very little in this video that remotely corresponded to a "Christian worldview". Jesus showed us through his life and words that God has no part in our violence. anathema to those who serve the God of death rather than the God of the living.
I'm a little confused when you say God would have no part in violence. Do you not think that God commanded the conquest on Canaan? From the christian worldview it's the same God in the new and old testament.
@@123ghds correct. God never commands evil, and so God has never commanded people to kill each other. a Christian worldview must correctly understand that the letter kills, and the spirit gives life.
How did Jesus show us through his life and words that God has no part in our violence? What does "our violence" mean exactly? God has had part in violence in the sense of carrying out justice upon evil. I'm asking for clarification with good faith and would like to hear you out if you want to reply.
@@techguy6241 By "our violence", I mean the only violence around- because God does no violence at all. It's as Paul says: love does no harm to a neighbour (and love is all that God is). I would view God's destruction of evil as a division between what is real and unreal, since evil is fundamentally nothing. this judgement of God never implies any harm being done to God's creation, only to the falsehoods and delusions that we sometimes create.
Jesus shows this through his actions, e.g. his nonviolence and forgiveness towards his persecutors, and through his numerous teachings of nonviolence.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 I'm currently reading through the book of Ezekiel and can attest that God swearing judgement through violence (famine, sword, plague, etc) on the nation of Judah is pretty much laid out in every single chapter. Why would God take such brutal measures upon something you claim is "'fundamentally nothing"?
Don't deny us the details because some may be squeamish. If I interact over this issue, it will be in a real-world setting with real consequences. Dont disarm the bold out of deference to the timid.
If the squeamish don't want to hear it, they can skip it.
You forget that it’s apologetics. They’re trying to win people over.
Can we get an interpretation of scripture that bakes in the cultural context? Man... so much to learn about scripture
The easiest answer for the conquest of Canaan is that the Canaanites were the nephelim hybrids. But that would require actual understanding of the spiritual aspect of the Bible instead of the lukewarm intellectualization these two use.
My two favorite youtubers ❤
InspiringPhilosophy does apologetics for what? It is mixture of greek philosophy influence, humanism and liberalism's "if I cannot come with good answer these numbers are probably idealized". Where in the text, you can find evidence of "idealized numbers". We see symbolic numbers in different genres: prophetic, apocalyptic literature, even psalms, but not in book that is suppose to be clearly historical. Unless the text suggests it clearly. He cannot count or find better answer so he goes to this "idealized number" fabulation. There is lacking evidence for it in historical genre. This is complete eisegesis. And this guy is evolutionist btw. Do we accept apologetics from someone who cannot solve basic things out? He will probably deconstruct in few years. We need people who have supernatural faith and are actually called by God to do ministry.
LOL 😂 you have hyper literalist interpretations that's why many people R leaving Christianity.
Your following the 19th century Restoration Movement false prophet Helen G White's dreams of hyper literalist interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and other passages.
LOL 😂
No it didnt
ive never been conquested