"My thoughts aren't your thoughts. My ways aren't your ways." On behalf of neurodiverse people, sounds like God is one of us! I knew us weirdos were special!
Apologists try to get around this by saying that "since Jesus is God, Jesus is eternal. So, he was always human." It's a very shoehorned solution that falls apart under any scrutiny.
That's why the doctrine of the Trinity makes a big deal of insisting that Jesus, the Son, was part of God from the beginning, and didn't "come to be" when Mary conceived him.
"Hey, I have one passage saying God cannot tell a lie." "But there are several other passages that contradict tha..." "Woahwoahwoah! That's not the passage were talking about, right?"
Hey, Dan, check your audio settings. Your voice balance is panned hard left in the last minute or so, and the EQ is inconsistent between clips. The last video also had balance problems.
"You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die." (GEN 3:3) Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure that ended up being a lie.
I'm surprised God changing his mind never came up in this video. He regretted making humans and sent a flood, and relented in response to Nineveh's repentance. All things Dan has covered before.
These are three things i have learned that makes it difficult for me to be a Christian. Told a friend recently that I’ve learned too much to believe like I used to.
to point 2, if God cannot change because he's already perfect, then God can't have wanted anything, and therefore he would not desire anything because he is perfect and has no wants, and therefore would not desire to create man to worship him, so none of any of this makes any sense from the get-go
I never cease to be amused by how easily and readily Christians lie, often to themselves (which is what faith is). They claim that the bible is everything we need and then they invent their own meanings and interpretations of the text. It is, strangely, both laughable and sad.
Although I agree with most you say here, faith does not necessarily mean lying to yourself. It can also mean being aware that there are things you will never be able to know, but that you have to make meaningful decisions anyway.
@@DoloresLehmann In general you are right but I was referring specifically to religious faith. To me, that is choosing to believe in things which are not evidentially true simply because you want them to be true. And that is lying to yourself.
@@theoutspokenhumanist The division is not between religious or non-religious faith, it is between believing something because you choose to believe in it for wanting it to be true, which would be lying to yourself, as you correctly state, and true faith (religious or not). The latter is born from the fact that we can't actually CHOOSE to believe anything. We believe what convinces us most depending on our experiences and worldviews. Both mindsets exist in both religious and non-religious (e.g. political) settings.
Question: would you kindly make a video on Jesus' instructions to care for the "least of these?" Many seem to conflate them with his directives to care for children and bootstrap them all into a pro-life narrative while ignoring or downplaying the commands to care for the poor. It would be helpful if you could examine what was really meant in these passages.
It strikes me that it is circular reasoning: everything God says is truth, therefore even if he says something that people would consider untruth - if said by a mere mortal - it automatically becomes truth. I might suggest we all reread Orwell’s “1984” to brush up on the concept. And to certain contemporary politicians’ interviews and speeches.
No more than Adam had the option to stay whole - God just does the surgery, Then he puts them in a garden and tells them to tend it - not even an inkling that they had any other options, 'just do what I tell you'. Of course, given the current state of science, one could reasonably ask if any human has free will...
That Micaiah story is meaningful for another reason that should be important to this very day: It means that Divine Prophecy, even if it is real, can never be entirely trusted. God *can*, however unlikely, use it to mislead someone, even to their doom. And if anyone says "God would never do that", show them the part in the bible where it shows him doing *exactly* that...and if they believe it is Inspired, then they should have no choice but to accept that this is God himself telling them that he is capable of using prophecy to mislead, so they HAVE to accept it! Of course, the tendency not to is the whole point of Dan's video...
It’s one of the divine Council members that goes forth as the lying spirit in first kings, not the spirit of God Edit- just realized the Hebrew has the prefix “ha” before the word spirit. Meaning “the spirit”, not “a spirit”.
As smart ass Catholic school kids we’d ask the priests “Yo Father, can God make a boulder he can’t lift?” The order who taught us wore a rope belt with three knots for poverty chastity and obedience. We figured it stood for “ow father x 3” because they liked to hit smart aleks with the belt. But the more thoughtful priests told us, “God can’t do everything. He can’t do evil. He can’t do the stupid stuff you guys think up.” The first bit was serious.
The only way that “he can’t do evil” has any truth value is by “renegotiating “ (Dan’s word, of course) all of his actions as good. No matter how evil an act of God is - as set out in his commandments- it automatically becomes “not evil “ because God does it. More circular arguments.
Another great video from Dan. I think next year I will be getting a few new books, including Dans new one and a few others from equally respected (by me) authors from which I can learn from. Partly because I wish to support them and also because I like to have the actual books. I'm old fashion I guess, hehe.
Check out Gen 16:17 onwards: Maybe the only part in the bible that outright tells us what God is thinking to himself, as he's pondering what to say to Abraham. Also portrays God as *clearly* not knowing whether the rumors about Sodom and Gomorrah are true until he sends his angels to see and report...unless he's lying about that! Which, btw, is what is required to believe if you want to believe the "rhetorical question" theory most Christians will cite as to why God asks questions he should know the answer to...
The one truly problematic thing Christians claim that God cannot do? Forgive and accept his flawed, imperfect children, just because he loves them. No, he can't do that. He needs assurances, he needs them to come to him and to beg for forgiveness and to make shows of eternal loyalty and obedience. Funny that mere HUMANS, who have often been hurt in ways far deeper than God could be by their fellow mortals, CAN find it in themselves to forgive each other, with none of those conditions! People can and do forgive complete strangers and friends and family who have grievously wronged them, all the time, simply from the love and greatness of their hearts. So what's his problem, whatever we are supposed to have done to him, why can't he just get over it, eons after it happened with our ancient ancestors? Should the love and forgiveness of God be LESS than that of lowly mortals?? 🤔🙄
That first one always gets me, because it just screams of credulousness. You have to presuppose that the Bible is entirely true for that statement to be accepted uncritically, and they presuppose that the Bible is entirely true because... God doesn't lie? So it genuinely doesn't matter if the Bible says it or not (nor that the Bible repeatedly contradicts it), they believe it because they already chose to believe it before ever getting to that verse.
Genesis 2, verses 18-20 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field, but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.
hell the "original sin" is all built on a lie. If god hadn't lied humanity wouldn't even exist anymore - pretending any of it is actually real, of course
1. I dont understand the obsession with God being unable to lie. I was raised in a southern Baptist church which is fairly evangelical and does roll with the idea that God doesn't lie but I want to overlook that for the bigger point. There's the difference: can't vs. "can but doesn’t." To me, that would be a far greater good or show of greatness. 2. Change. Change inherently means improved? No sir. I've had many times in my life that I've changed, but it was a lateral move. Sometimes it's sinple as changing my opinion on something. Like, perhaps God changing his mind regarding the destruction of Ninevah. Even assuming omniscience, just because one knows they will change their mind doesn't negate that it did change. Plus, you know, the whole Jesus thing. 3. Can't think like a human? This apologist must not aubscribe to the concept of Jesus being God, although he claims to. The whole concept is built around the idea that God came to be human and experienced the world as a human. He hungered. He tired. He was sad when his friend died. When he knew he was set to die, he was afraid and didn't want to. These are all very human things, and is my favorite parts of the Bible due to that humanity. I understand there are many beliefs on Jesus, but this apologist saying God can't think like a human denies the core of this his own belief system. Despite being raised evangelical before becoming more nuanced, none of these were ever an issue in my church. Why do the people who want to preach the omnipotence of God really like to try and limit His power?
Everyone here is complaining about the word 'tergiverste.' Apparently (and I didn’t know this), it’s a very rare word in English, but in the Spanish language, it’s very common and widely used
You missed the chance, right at the start, to correct the guy's misuse of Heb. 6:18. That verse does not state outright, as he claims, that "God cannot lie": instead it refers to two specific cases in which it is impossible that God could have been lying (because in these cases he swore an oath). This apparently leaves open the possibility that God could have lied in some (or many?) other cases. (I myself seriously doubt that God ever lies; but then I'm not an inerrantist, so I don't have to square this with everything in the Bible.)
It seems that the New Living Translation changes that part to an all-encompassing statement "it is impossible for God to lie". The NLT tries to translate "the thoughts behind the text" instead of the literal words, which also means that the translators can be, let's say, more creative with their wordings (to support particular dogmas). My guess is that the video creator was using this translation or one based on it.
I don't think Gen 2-3 is a strong counter example to omniscience. It's a parable with exaggerated anthropomorphism to make the story compelling. You can't take it literally (lest you conclude that we're only allowed to eat fruit etc.). Gen 18f where God sends messengers to sus out if reports were true is a better example. Overall though, God is presented not only as knowing what's going on but in control of what happens. While our received scriptures are inconsistent and you'll find exceptions to everything, there's a reason these dogmata have survived.
I'm confused about 6:28. I'm not seeing a promise at the beginning of 2 Kings 3. Maybe Dan was thinking of the prophecy in 2 Kings 3:18-19 about the Moabites being defeated by Israel which does not come true?
Most recently, the claim has become popular that God is "maximally" powerful...that is, he can do anything, that makes logical sense, an obvious attempt to cut out paradoxes like this. But I would think the average Christian would simply answer: "Yes, he can...but he could STILL lift it!"
I thought the spirit that volunteers in 1 Kings 22 was simply a spirit in attendance with the Heavenly Council. Does the text actually say it was the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit)?
@@RuneIscariot Personally, I find that Marcion’s notions of Jesus being an emissary from the true god sent to save us from the machinations of the demiurge of the Old Testament make a lot more sense than the trinity nonsense that the winners in the internecine squabbles of the early churches came up with.
@@donsample1002 I think that Marcion had the right idea, but also some wrong ones, if he had them at all. I disagree with his ditheism concept, and find that if you go full blown polytheism, and consider for just a moment that the God of Moses *lied* to him about being the God of Abraham, it relegates the God of Moses to a Warlike Storm God found in the deserts of Egypt whose cult worshipped him by venerating a bronze snake (2 Kings 18:4). Last time I checked the only God out there matching that description was Seth-Typhon. A god primarily known for two things. 1.) Being a murderer. 2.) Being the father of all lies. Last time I checked he has zilch to do with creating life, the universe, and everything. Though John 8:44 does suddenly take on new and interesting meanings.
What's not being established or even addressed is Gods corporeality. Either God is or God is not. Period. It is written a) God is not a man. and b) very specifically so that he should lie. This is very important. In the wilderness the Lord was fire and smoke. they have no mouths and are completely incapable of lying or being nefarious. Playing a role and being the real McCoy are two different things. This is a monotheistic faith. So using different people to fill Gods shoes doesn't remotely fill the bill. God created the host of the heavens and the firmament. Man can not do either......
The commandment by God to "multiply and REplenish the earth," has always seemed suspicious to me as re-anything, means to bring back or make as was originally. So, replenishing the earth LITERALLY means to have humans on the earth again. Must have been an oopsie, the first time.
The root of "Replenish" are Old French "replenir" - to fill completely. "Re-" is also used as an intensive, e.g., "recommend", "request". "Recover" in middle English was used to mean "win", "overcome" (also, in the legal sense of "recover damages", it usually doesn't refer to getting something back but in getting something comparable)
The Bible can say anything when no context is given. This is the part dan leaves out. So for those interested in the actual truth. The context of this passage reveals that man has already rejected the Gospel of Christ. Paul says that when the Antichrist comes, he will come with signs and false wonders with all deception of wickedness (2 Thes. 2:8-10). These things happen for “those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (v. 10). When God sends the deluding influence, Paul says He does so in order “that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). They have chosen to reject God rather than to accept His provision of salvation. God is not sending the lie to trick people, but He sends delusions to reveal human depravity in which they choose evil over good.
How would Paul know the original reasoning for the author of 1 Kings? If you would like to use that reasoning to justify your framework for understanding Christianity that is fine but assert that this is the "actual truth" is a sign of arrogance on your part as all you have to support this is the authority people choose to give to Paul and the dogma of univocality. To be clear, I am not saying that you are wrong but what I am saying is that you are being arrogant and dogmatic in your reasoning. As a result, it isn't reasonable to claim that you are speaking the "actual truth" with any certainty.
@@Anti-CommunistCommunitarian What does 1 Kings have to do with anything I wrote about 2nd Thessalonians? You claiming I'm being arrogant and dogmatic has no bearing on the truth of what I wrote. It's just an easy way for you or anyone to cast doubt.
Hey Dan, people keep bringing up revelations 17:5 referencing the mother of Babylon and how it is Kamala. I’m not political but I think some education needs to be spread. Thanks!
Something else the bible says god can’t do: defeat an army with iron chariots.
Or to forgive sins without blood (Hebrew 9 22). I am more morecifuk that the NTs God(s), I can forgive anyone without anything in exchange.❤
I learned a new word, "tergiversate"! Looking forward to the new book.
From the Latin phrase terga vertere, to turn one's back i.e. run away.
Second time I've heard him use it.
It seems to be one of Dan's favorites. I've never heard anyone else use it, but Dan has a few times.
"My thoughts aren't your thoughts. My ways aren't your ways." On behalf of neurodiverse people, sounds like God is one of us! I knew us weirdos were special!
It has always bewildered me as to how God literally became human...yet still: "God cannot change."
if god cannot change it couldn't have created the universe or anything in it
Apologists try to get around this by saying that "since Jesus is God, Jesus is eternal. So, he was always human."
It's a very shoehorned solution that falls apart under any scrutiny.
God went from only caring about this one group of Southwest Asian people to the rest of the world, is that not a change?
@@digitaljanusor, to add to that, what about destroying humanity with a flood and then promising to never do that specific thing again?
That's why the doctrine of the Trinity makes a big deal of insisting that Jesus, the Son, was part of God from the beginning, and didn't "come to be" when Mary conceived him.
I love how sassy Dan seems to have become lately. I’m here for all of it!!!!
Things god can't do:
give you up
let you down
run around and desert you
make you cry
say goodbye
tell a lie and hurt you
I thought those were the things God was never gonna do as opposed to can’t do
I assume that Job would have begged to differ with most of what you listed.
but can god dance?
@@Lorenzoig he can dance if he wants to. He can leave his friends behind.
"Hey, I have one passage saying God cannot tell a lie."
"But there are several other passages that contradict tha..."
"Woahwoahwoah! That's not the passage were talking about, right?"
"You have to read the context", "you dont know Hebrew".
Hey, Dan, check your audio settings. Your voice balance is panned hard left in the last minute or so, and the EQ is inconsistent between clips. The last video also had balance problems.
He said in the Patreon Discord that he fixed it.
@@sadib100 thanks for the feedback. His RUclips video this afternoon is also messed up, so "fixed" must mean "in future videos."
Excepting that Dan has counter-examples for every point, none of OP’s conclusions can be drawn from his assertions
"You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die." (GEN 3:3)
Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure that ended up being a lie.
Tks Dan
Yeah a big one for me was when the bible says god hardened the heart of the pharaoh so HE COULD NOT LET THE PEOPLE GO!!!!!
But none of this answers the question of whether God can make a rock so big even they can’t pick it up 🤔
Tergiversate. I’m going to try to use that in my conversations today.
to make conflicting or evasive statements; equivocate
Yep, Dan made me look up the definition of that word today!
Perfect Rick and Morty impression
Oh absolutely. He nailed the burps.
you put a smile on my face listening to this video😁
I'm surprised God changing his mind never came up in this video. He regretted making humans and sent a flood, and relented in response to Nineveh's repentance. All things Dan has covered before.
Well even if god can't lie, that means nothing.
We have no book written by god.
God is not being truthful or dishonest currently.
God is silent
"Silence is the language of God,
all else is poor translation." - Rumi
The new book jacket should be a photo collage of your favorite tees.
These are three things i have learned that makes it difficult for me to be a Christian. Told a friend recently that I’ve learned too much to believe like I used to.
Cool. I learned a new word today thanks to Dr. Dan. Tergiversate = To make conflicting or evasive statements; equivocate.
"God can't lie," meanwhile, Christ says "with God ALL things are possible."
"Oh my self" *inserts naked gun facepalm
Reminds me of Lucifer: "Oh, my - ME!"
6:07 "Mommy, why does it look like the man in the cap is pinning me to the floor?"
Lol
to point 2, if God cannot change because he's already perfect, then God can't have wanted anything, and therefore he would not desire anything because he is perfect and has no wants, and therefore would not desire to create man to worship him, so none of any of this makes any sense from the get-go
What if creation was not aimed at making up for a lack, but getting rid of an excess?
Dan, I love your truth
That level of self congratulation is quite cringe 😬.
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
I never cease to be amused by how easily and readily Christians lie, often to themselves (which is what faith is). They claim that the bible is everything we need and then they invent their own meanings and interpretations of the text. It is, strangely, both laughable and sad.
Although I agree with most you say here, faith does not necessarily mean lying to yourself. It can also mean being aware that there are things you will never be able to know, but that you have to make meaningful decisions anyway.
@@DoloresLehmann In general you are right but I was referring specifically to religious faith.
To me, that is choosing to believe in things which are not evidentially true simply because you want them to be true. And that is lying to yourself.
@@theoutspokenhumanist The division is not between religious or non-religious faith, it is between believing something because you choose to believe in it for wanting it to be true, which would be lying to yourself, as you correctly state, and true faith (religious or not). The latter is born from the fact that we can't actually CHOOSE to believe anything. We believe what convinces us most depending on our experiences and worldviews. Both mindsets exist in both religious and non-religious (e.g. political) settings.
I can never figure out what these warm, fuzzy Evangelical types are trying to accomplish.
I remember a time, years ago: I was fresh and starry-eyed….
Question: would you kindly make a video on Jesus' instructions to care for the "least of these?" Many seem to conflate them with his directives to care for children and bootstrap them all into a pro-life narrative while ignoring or downplaying the commands to care for the poor. It would be helpful if you could examine what was really meant in these passages.
"God cannot lie because he is truth"
What thell is that supposed to mean?
It strikes me that it is circular reasoning: everything God says is truth, therefore even if he says something that people would consider untruth - if said by a mere mortal - it automatically becomes truth. I might suggest we all reread Orwell’s “1984” to brush up on the concept. And to certain contemporary politicians’ interviews and speeches.
These aren't the passages you're looking for.
If Eve was created to be the companion of Adam, did she have free will?
Go deeper and ask yourself if Adam had free will, and maybe even deeper and wonder if God itself has free will
No more than Adam had the option to stay whole - God just does the surgery, Then he puts them in a garden and tells them to tend it - not even an inkling that they had any other options, 'just do what I tell you'. Of course, given the current state of science, one could reasonably ask if any human has free will...
What do you mean by "have free will"? Be more specific!
Dunno about Eve, but Lilith sure did!
“Tergiversate?” I pride myself on having a broad vocabulary, but c’mon, man. I’m not Umberto Eco over here, Dan.
He's used that in at least one previous video. It's a very good word to know in the context of apologetics.
That Micaiah story is meaningful for another reason that should be important to this very day: It means that Divine Prophecy, even if it is real, can never be entirely trusted. God *can*, however unlikely, use it to mislead someone, even to their doom. And if anyone says "God would never do that", show them the part in the bible where it shows him doing *exactly* that...and if they believe it is Inspired, then they should have no choice but to accept that this is God himself telling them that he is capable of using prophecy to mislead, so they HAVE to accept it! Of course, the tendency not to is the whole point of Dan's video...
The Bible’s god acts like us, because he was written by us.
Just pre-ordered on Audible.
It’s one of the divine Council members that goes forth as the lying spirit in first kings, not the spirit of God
Edit- just realized the Hebrew has the prefix “ha” before the word spirit. Meaning “the spirit”, not “a spirit”.
Tergiversate - to change repeatedly one's attitude or opinions with respect to a cause, subject, etc.; equivocate.
7:06 As promised ... absolutely insufferable. 🤣 And I'm loving every second of it! Can't wait for my copy
As smart ass Catholic school kids we’d ask the priests “Yo Father, can God make a boulder he can’t lift?” The order who taught us wore a rope belt with three knots for poverty chastity and obedience. We figured it stood for “ow father x 3” because they liked to hit smart aleks with the belt.
But the more thoughtful priests told us, “God can’t do everything. He can’t do evil. He can’t do the stupid stuff you guys think up.” The first bit was serious.
The only way that “he can’t do evil” has any truth value is by “renegotiating “ (Dan’s word, of course) all of his actions as good. No matter how evil an act of God is - as set out in his commandments- it automatically becomes “not evil “ because God does it. More circular arguments.
Another great video from Dan. I think next year I will be getting a few new books, including Dans new one and a few others from equally respected (by me) authors from which I can learn from. Partly because I wish to support them and also because I like to have the actual books. I'm old fashion I guess, hehe.
Whatever X:
Does the Bible say X? Yes.
Does the Bible say Not X? Yes.
The Bible has all the answers.
Tergiversate, isn’t that the bad guy from The Stormlight Archive?
I’m confused. Ahab died in battle? I thought he was killed by a great white whale. 😏
Check out Gen 16:17 onwards: Maybe the only part in the bible that outright tells us what God is thinking to himself, as he's pondering what to say to Abraham. Also portrays God as *clearly* not knowing whether the rumors about Sodom and Gomorrah are true until he sends his angels to see and report...unless he's lying about that! Which, btw, is what is required to believe if you want to believe the "rhetorical question" theory most Christians will cite as to why God asks questions he should know the answer to...
The one truly problematic thing Christians claim that God cannot do? Forgive and accept his flawed, imperfect children, just because he loves them. No, he can't do that. He needs assurances, he needs them to come to him and to beg for forgiveness and to make shows of eternal loyalty and obedience.
Funny that mere HUMANS, who have often been hurt in ways far deeper than God could be by their fellow mortals, CAN find it in themselves to forgive each other, with none of those conditions! People can and do forgive complete strangers and friends and family who have grievously wronged them, all the time, simply from the love and greatness of their hearts. So what's his problem, whatever we are supposed to have done to him, why can't he just get over it, eons after it happened with our ancient ancestors? Should the love and forgiveness of God be LESS than that of lowly mortals?? 🤔🙄
If is the Christian's favorite thing to say.
Preterists will say that Jesus, in fact, did return in 70 AD, in the destruction of the Temple.
That first one always gets me, because it just screams of credulousness. You have to presuppose that the Bible is entirely true for that statement to be accepted uncritically, and they presuppose that the Bible is entirely true because... God doesn't lie? So it genuinely doesn't matter if the Bible says it or not (nor that the Bible repeatedly contradicts it), they believe it because they already chose to believe it before ever getting to that verse.
God can't defeat iron chariots. Surprised he missed that one
Adam must have been exhausted, and seriously injured, after trying out all the animals before God made Eve.
Audio seems to be off at the end...
What do you mean by animal "companions?" Haven't heard that one and am super curious.
Genesis 2, verses 18-20
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field, but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.
hell the "original sin" is all built on a lie. If god hadn't lied humanity wouldn't even exist anymore - pretending any of it is actually real, of course
To make more explicit what you've implied by "lately"... this isn't the only video in which we can hear him in only the left audio channel.
He forgot about Zechariah 14:22, which says that God cannot create a burrito so hot that even he himself can't eat it.
Oh geeze.. how long did you work on that Rick at the end there?
1. I dont understand the obsession with God being unable to lie. I was raised in a southern Baptist church which is fairly evangelical and does roll with the idea that God doesn't lie but I want to overlook that for the bigger point. There's the difference: can't vs. "can but doesn’t." To me, that would be a far greater good or show of greatness.
2. Change. Change inherently means improved? No sir. I've had many times in my life that I've changed, but it was a lateral move. Sometimes it's sinple as changing my opinion on something. Like, perhaps God changing his mind regarding the destruction of Ninevah. Even assuming omniscience, just because one knows they will change their mind doesn't negate that it did change. Plus, you know, the whole Jesus thing.
3. Can't think like a human? This apologist must not aubscribe to the concept of Jesus being God, although he claims to. The whole concept is built around the idea that God came to be human and experienced the world as a human. He hungered. He tired. He was sad when his friend died. When he knew he was set to die, he was afraid and didn't want to. These are all very human things, and is my favorite parts of the Bible due to that humanity. I understand there are many beliefs on Jesus, but this apologist saying God can't think like a human denies the core of this his own belief system.
Despite being raised evangelical before becoming more nuanced, none of these were ever an issue in my church. Why do the people who want to preach the omnipotence of God really like to try and limit His power?
Smugness: God Level
Everyone here is complaining about the word 'tergiverste.' Apparently (and I didn’t know this), it’s a very rare word in English, but in the Spanish language, it’s very common and widely used
And Dan is conversant in Spanish.
Your sound balance went out in the last third of the vid. All sound shifted over to just the left speaker.
That deer head in the background is quite distracting..
You missed the chance, right at the start, to correct the guy's misuse of Heb. 6:18. That verse does not state outright, as he claims, that "God cannot lie": instead it refers to two specific cases in which it is impossible that God could have been lying (because in these cases he swore an oath). This apparently leaves open the possibility that God could have lied in some (or many?) other cases.
(I myself seriously doubt that God ever lies; but then I'm not an inerrantist, so I don't have to square this with everything in the Bible.)
It seems that the New Living Translation changes that part to an all-encompassing statement "it is impossible for God to lie". The NLT tries to translate "the thoughts behind the text" instead of the literal words, which also means that the translators can be, let's say, more creative with their wordings (to support particular dogmas). My guess is that the video creator was using this translation or one based on it.
One would do better to remember that the Bible was written by all men
I don't think Gen 2-3 is a strong counter example to omniscience. It's a parable with exaggerated anthropomorphism to make the story compelling. You can't take it literally (lest you conclude that we're only allowed to eat fruit etc.). Gen 18f where God sends messengers to sus out if reports were true is a better example.
Overall though, God is presented not only as knowing what's going on but in control of what happens. While our received scriptures are inconsistent and you'll find exceptions to everything, there's a reason these dogmata have survived.
I'm confused about 6:28. I'm not seeing a promise at the beginning of 2 Kings 3. Maybe Dan was thinking of the prophecy in 2 Kings 3:18-19 about the Moabites being defeated by Israel which does not come true?
i notice the dude doesn't even address the obvious and eternal question, "Can god make a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?"
Most recently, the claim has become popular that God is "maximally" powerful...that is, he can do anything, that makes logical sense, an obvious attempt to cut out paradoxes like this. But I would think the average Christian would simply answer: "Yes, he can...but he could STILL lift it!"
He cant do the logically impossible
Hey Dan, will the book be on Kindle?
Yes. Also audiobook
I thought the spirit that volunteers in 1 Kings 22 was simply a spirit in attendance with the Heavenly Council. Does the text actually say it was the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit)?
The Hebrew says "the Spirit" with the definite article, and then when Ahab's attendant strikes Micaiah, he asks which way "the Spirit of YHWH" went.
Dan points out that God changes, you all applaud.
Marcion says it suddenly he's the Son of Satan.
@@RuneIscariot Personally, I find that Marcion’s notions of Jesus being an emissary from the true god sent to save us from the machinations of the demiurge of the Old Testament make a lot more sense than the trinity nonsense that the winners in the internecine squabbles of the early churches came up with.
@@donsample1002 I think that Marcion had the right idea, but also some wrong ones, if he had them at all. I disagree with his ditheism concept, and find that if you go full blown polytheism, and consider for just a moment that the God of Moses *lied* to him about being the God of Abraham, it relegates the God of Moses to a Warlike Storm God found in the deserts of Egypt whose cult worshipped him by venerating a bronze snake (2 Kings 18:4).
Last time I checked the only God out there matching that description was Seth-Typhon.
A god primarily known for two things.
1.) Being a murderer.
2.) Being the father of all lies.
Last time I checked he has zilch to do with creating life, the universe, and everything.
Though John 8:44 does suddenly take on new and interesting meanings.
God is truth. God lies. Sounds like a philosophical antimony.
Omegas are the ones who can get pregnant, right?
I remember a Mormon apostle telling the Mormons that "It's okay to lie for the Lord". - Paraphrase but that was the intent.
An LDS apostle has never said that. This is false information.
Tergiversate???? wtf?
What's not being established or even addressed is Gods corporeality. Either God is or God is not. Period. It is written a) God is not a man. and b) very specifically so that he should lie. This is very important. In the wilderness the Lord was fire and smoke. they have no mouths and are completely incapable of lying or being nefarious. Playing a role and being the real McCoy are two different things. This is a monotheistic faith. So using different people to fill Gods shoes doesn't remotely fill the bill. God created the host of the heavens and the firmament. Man can not do either......
Saying God is a man; is a lie......
Aaron was not God or even remotely close. Moses was supposedly abandoned for trying to take credit for Gods work....
God can't admit to mistakes, look at them, or correct them.
The commandment by God to "multiply and REplenish the earth," has always seemed suspicious to me as re-anything, means to bring back or make as was originally. So, replenishing the earth LITERALLY means to have humans on the earth again. Must have been an oopsie, the first time.
That is not the only meaning of the prefix "re", revelation does not mean to velate again. Reveal doesn't mean to veil again.
I wonder if the original carries that connotation
The root of "Replenish" are Old French "replenir" - to fill completely. "Re-" is also used as an intensive, e.g., "recommend", "request". "Recover" in middle English was used to mean "win", "overcome" (also, in the legal sense of "recover damages", it usually doesn't refer to getting something back but in getting something comparable)
Let us not forget that the Bible was written by people trying to think like God. Doesn’t the Bible say that we are as Gods. Ok, now I’m confused.😁
The Bible can say anything when no context is given. This is the part dan leaves out. So for those interested in the actual truth.
The context of this passage reveals that man has already rejected the Gospel of Christ. Paul says that when the Antichrist comes, he will come with signs and false wonders with all deception of wickedness (2 Thes. 2:8-10). These things happen for “those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (v. 10). When God sends the deluding influence, Paul says He does so in order “that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). They have chosen to reject God rather than to accept His provision of salvation. God is not sending the lie to trick people, but He sends delusions to reveal human depravity in which they choose evil over good.
How would Paul know the original reasoning for the author of 1 Kings? If you would like to use that reasoning to justify your framework for understanding Christianity that is fine but assert that this is the "actual truth" is a sign of arrogance on your part as all you have to support this is the authority people choose to give to Paul and the dogma of univocality.
To be clear, I am not saying that you are wrong but what I am saying is that you are being arrogant and dogmatic in your reasoning. As a result, it isn't reasonable to claim that you are speaking the "actual truth" with any certainty.
@@Anti-CommunistCommunitarian What does 1 Kings have to do with anything I wrote about 2nd Thessalonians?
You claiming I'm being arrogant and dogmatic has no bearing on the truth of what I wrote. It's just an easy way for you or anyone to cast doubt.
Hey Dan, people keep bringing up revelations 17:5 referencing the mother of Babylon and how it is Kamala. I’m not political but I think some education needs to be spread. Thanks!
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the bible.