The Biblical concept of "remember" is NOT a purely mental activity, a recollection, it involves DOING something. The breaking of bread and the cup of wine IS the remembering in the Lord's Supper. The thief being IN HEAVEN is the remembering.

Your hermeneutical axiom is flawed and cannot be justified from the text. You can say "I don't believe what Exodus 20:8-11 indicates for Genesis 1" but you can't ignore that what the hearers of the entirety of the Scriptures for 1400 years were supposed to believe whenever they heard the word "zakar" (צָאר,) or anamnesis (αναμνησισ).

Moreover I think it is insulting to the all-wise and all-knowing transcendent God to have a one dimensional hermeneutics. If a good author of human origin can weave metaphors and symbolism in multiple levels, then *all* the more The Lord is able. To say there's no space for psychological or metaphysical hermeneutics is honestly shocking to me unless there is something going well over my head here! I appreciate your passion and focus and presentation! But I just can't fathom an educated man such as yourself disbelieving in evolution at this point in human scientific progress.

Short answer, "no." Joseph Smith wasn't an atheist either but I would not want to interpret the Bible through his writings. Darwinism, naturalism, is antithetical to a Biblical worldview. It is built on a flawed epistemological presupposition. Interpret Genesis 1 in light of Exodus 20:8, not Darwinism. To read Darwinism in the Bible is a synthesis of apposing worldviews. I am working on a video on Exodus 32 in which I will address this further. In the mean time, watch my video on what "remember" means in the Bible: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RRepUfQCZTs.html

@@TheHiveLife There is a distinction between micro and macro evolution. I do not believe in the latter. This is lesson 13, the end of the series. I highly recommend that you go back to the beginning of this series to lesson 1.

Darwinism in antithetical to Genesis because it asserts the death gave birth to Adam, whereas while Genesis says the there was no death before sin. They can't both be correct. Ergo they are antithetical.

I graduated from two seminaries and think the Church should be providing this education to people who are preparing for the ministry. So, my goal is to provide Bible College / Seminary level courses for FREE to everyone who wants to learn. I will never ask for money, ask people to become Patreons or sell merchandise.

You're very welcome!

...and it must not conflict with any other passage

I have a large library of books by Roman Catholic theologians and apologists and have written a book in response which I hope to have published in 2025. Stay tuned!

You interpret EVERYTHING you read or hear. You do not observe anything as brute facts but you interpret them according to your worldview. In General revelation, when an atheist sees the stars he interprets them as being the result of billions of years of blind chance and matter. When a Christian sees them, he interprets them in light of special revelation as having a creator who made them to declare His glory (Psalms 19:1). You are correct that much of so-called interpretation by many consists little more than cherry picking bits and pieces and aligning them in to a syllogism to formulate a doctrine. I talked about this in a previous lesson. I highly recommend that you go back to lesson 1 and watch from the beginning. Grace & Peace.

I graduated from a Pentecostal/Charismatic Bible college so I am well aware of their theology and practices. Although I do not believe that free vocalization (making vocal sounds that are unintelligible ) is what tongues is referring to in Acts 2, I'm not a cessationist nor a dispensationalist.

Thank you for clarifying that that you are not a cessationist nor a dispensationalist. Im not pentecostal...I come from a historical liturgical church.

If you watch this video in context, as it is lesson 11 in a long series, you'll find that I critique dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system.

Thank you...

I graduated from a Pentecostal/Charismatic Bible college so I am well aware of their theology and practices. You are correct, there are a multitude of cults, sects and heretical theologies that also think they are getting direct revelation as to the meaning of the text rather than applying a justifiable hermeneutical methodology. I was just using the claims of some Pentecostal/Charismatics as an example.

The next time please use cessationism as an example of how NOT to interpret the Bible!! Cessationism is evil to the core because they claim to believe strongly in Biblical Authority, but then turn their backs on Biblical narratives, by saying that the epistles have greater doctrinal weight than the narratives. This is heresy!!

If you watch this video in context, as it is lesson 11 in a long series, you'll find that I critique dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system.

Glad it was helpful!

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)

Thanks for watching! I am hoping to post a new lesson each week. Stay tuned!

Thanks for the comments. I’ve been busy studying for exams in Scotland for the past few weeks but I’m working on notes for my next series on Hermeneutics.

To begin with "the downstream versions are bad" without any indication as to what you consider to be "upstream" is a failure to be clear as to what you are referring to with this metaphor. The metaphor appears in no scholarly references that I know of in regards to textual criticism, Bibliology or translations. To search for "hidden meanings" in a texts via "secret codes" is the very essence of Gnosticism and anti-Christian spiritualism. Apparently you did not read or just ignored the pinned comment above regarding lengthy debates in this platform.

But a cultist can't defend his worldview nor can an atheist. I operate not on fideism, but from a worldview which alone can provide a justifiable epistemology and the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. I will go more into this in a course on worldviews. For now, check out this debate between the late Greg Bahnsen and Gorden Stein: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fegBF-jyrBY.html

I have several questions for you. Did you read the pinned comment at the top? Have you read any of the resources I have recommended in this video? All of your questions are answered in those books. Do you have the ability to formulate complete sentences or are you just cutting and pasting from the Internet?

@@KildaltonBTS I have read both sides. My problem is that in the ancient world the only way to communicate between different areas was by letters like Paul's or synods and the first historical recension of the Greek church texts was done in 1904 A.D. The Patriarchal Text. I hope that helps. Answering my questions would be helpful. Blessings.

The Patriarchal Text (PT) of 1904 is a text created within Eastern Orthodoxy and has nothing to do with the history of the Bible that precedes it. The Latin texts are irrelevant as neither the OT Prophets or Apostles wrote in Latin. In fact, the errors in the Vulgate were the reason for the motto "ad fontes", which means "back to the source" of the Hebrew and Greek texts during the Reformation . Have you ever seen statues of Moses by Michael Angelo? The depiction of a Moses with horns comes from an error in the description of Moses' face as "cornuta" ("horned") in the Latin Vulgate translation of Exodus 34. If you asking about textual variants, while I did not mention every one of them I discussed this issue in my last 2 videos. Did you watch the videos? If you are asking about how, given the existence of textual variants, a Christian can have epistemological confidence regarding the trustworthiness of the Bible there are two positions on this: (1) Textual Absolutism (Held By KJV ONLy advocates) and (2) Textual Confidence (held by Historical Christianity). For more on this, check out these videos: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mseAF_n40xk.html

I've mentioned several times throughout this series that some writers were moved by the Holy Spirit to do an investigation and " to write an orderly account" (Luke 1:3). Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness but rather he did an investigation for Theophilus. Likewise, throughout the 1&2 Kings there are references to other historical documents, "Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? " (2 Kings 10: 34). Moses could have been moved by the Holy Spirit to write the historical parts of the Genesis in a similar fashion.

Seminaries and the televangelists who are getting rich off of foolish people.

Have you watched the entire series from the beginning? I recommend doing so and watch it until the end. In context, when we talk about the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture we are talking about the autographa (the original writing penned by the author) not a singular specific manuscript or specific translation. The New Testament quotes the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and yet the Septuagint isn't a perfect translation of the Hebrew into the Greek. Yet writers of the gospels quote from it and the apostles quote from it in their epistles. What you should ask is, "Is the Septuagint, NIV, ESV, KJV...." a good representation of the of the autographa?" I would answer, "Yes, good enough that we can say it is the very word of God as far it is accurately translated." I will get more into this in a future lesson on Bible translations. In the mean time, I highly recommend checking out Mark Ward's channel as he spends much more time on this subject than I will in this series: www.youtube.com/@markwardonwords

I have plans for a lesson on modern translations. Stay tuned! In the mean time I highly recommend checking out Mark Ward's channel as he spends more more time on this subject than I will in this series. Leave him a comment and let him know I sent you! His channel is here: www.youtube.com/@markwardonwords

That would be stating the obvious. I grew up in Dispensationalism so I’m well aware of other perspectives. When I make the comment I provide a resource for viewers further study. It’s also a means of “advertising” a series I’ll do in the future. I don’t ever recall hearing a dispensationalist, a Baptist, a Lutheran or whatever follow every assertion with “that’s my personal opinion.” In fact, for over a century dispensationalism has dominated American evangelicalism and yet historically it’s a novelty. I’ve yet to hear John MacArthur or anyone else say in a sermon or message regarding their understanding of Matthew 24 or The Revelation… “and that’s my opinion.”