Is God a Vindictive Bully? (with Paul Copan) 

Another thing about the OT a pastor I once had said that was very helpful. Unlike the NT where the moral commentary is usually not far from a story, the OT often tells an event, saying, or story and leaves the interpretation up to *other* (otherwise unconnected) passages that address moral matters. In short, it assumes such knowledge without always having to immediately point it out.

A delight to listen to Paul Copan talk! Love 'Is God a Moral Monster?'. Amazing book!

With this I have now watched all of of Sean's interview videos. Thank you Sean for creating this channel! It has helped immensely and introduced me to the world of apologetics. God bless you and your family!

Thank you for this

Thank you so much for taking your time to answer so many tough questions. God bless you both!

Thanks, awesome stuff

Thank you, I was always wondering the man of his heart.

13:35 Either Dr. Copan heard my sermon a few weeks ago, which I choose to believe, or we came to the same conclusion here! :-P Thank you, Dr. Copan, for doing this interview!

Thank you so very much 🙏🧡!

Interesting Sean and Paul👍

Brilliant, fascinating. Dr Sean McDowell does it again. Great guest, great interview.

David's heart question is a good question and to expound on what Paul was saying we have to look at what the Father had been saying what He wanted of His people up to this point. That is He wanted someone with a humbled heart, a repentant heart, and a heart not hardened to the Fathers will. Every time David sinned, and there were many grievous sins that he committed, he always fell on his face with humility and a sincere yearning of repentance that the Father accepted and forgave him. It doesn't mean that the Father let David off the hook as far as punishment was concerned, but He forgave him none the less.

descriptive vs. prescriptive is super helpful!

I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian to the majority of the comments here and say that Dr Copan’s responses to the difficult passages were lacking for me. By my estimation, I don’t think he did enough to show that these laws were indeed good laws, instead resorting to almost sounding like providing cop outs for the laws (eg, “people weren’t usually put to death, etc”). I don’t say these things to be nasty, because he’s clearly done more work on the topic than a lay Christian like myself, but I was really anticipating getting to listen to a robust defence of God’s Old Testament laws and other controversial stories. God Bless, Dr McDowell and Dr Copan for your work to advance the Kingdom, and I pray this feedback is received with the grace, truth, and love I intended.

Great video

I really enjoyed this. thank you so much for tackling these tough questions.

Thanks!

Thank you for the insights!

Dr. Michael Heiser gives excellent insights into the mocking males meet bear story.

Hi Sean, Thank you for all that you do. Your interviews are always very enlightening. Please how can one get hold of you? I would like to speak with you directly. Thank you Lawrence

❤ MERCIIIII Oui le discernement est vital

The fear of God is the beginning of understanding. I believe that God like Jesus had righteous anger. God does not think like we think either.

Wow. All said with straight faces. Impressive.

QUESTION: I several questions in response to Dr Copan’s argument starting at 39:10 that the killing of all the firstborn Egyptian children was justified because the Egyptians took part in or were complicit with the killing the Israelite baby boys, and that God referred to Israel as his firstborn, so killing the Egyptian firstborn was a justified response. 1. He at least implies that ALL Egyptians were to blame because they took part in the killing or were at least culpable and repeatedly refers to “the Egyptians” as though they are a monolith. Not only is it nonsense to assume every single Egyptian played a role, but the Bible also explicitly tells us some Egyptians resisted Pharaoh’s order to kill the Israelite boys. The midwives refuse to kill the baby boys and then lie to Pharaoh when he asks why they did not do it (Exodus 1:17-19, NIV), and Pharaoh’s own daughter sheltered Moses when she found him in the basket in the river (Exodus 2:5-10, NIV). We know that Pharaoh's daughter knew baby Moses was an Israelite because the Bible quotes her as saying “This is one of the Hebrew babies” (Exodus 2:6, NIV); so she would’ve known that her father had decreed that Moses be killed, and yet she protected him. 2. Sean makes the analogy at 41:48 between the Egyptians and citizens of Nazi Germany “it wasn’t just Hitler, there were thousands of prison guards, thousands of snitches, thousands of other people who were also complicit.” But there also were thousands of Germans who resisted, and sheltered the Jews and other victims, and helped them escape, all at great risk to their own lives. To follow Sean’s analogy to its end, one should argue that killing every German first born child, including the children of those who resisted would be an appropriate punishment for the Holocaust. A. If you narrowed the scope to only the prison guards and other directly responsible for the killings, would it be morally justified to kill their children as punishment for what they did to God's firstborn? B. What if Hitler had a son? Would killing only his son and sparing all others children be a morally justified response to punish him for his crimes? 3. I think we should also assume that there were many people who were not at all involved or could not be held responsible for what was done to the Israelites. For example, poor Egyptians who did not have any power and slaves of other ethnicities. These people would also have had their first born killed because the Angel of Death only passed over the houses of those who had the blood crosses painted on their door frames. There is no other indication that anyone else besides the Israelites would have known the very specific formula of blood prescribed to save their house from the Angel. 4. At 41:00 Dr. Copan says “this is a last Resort measure, God wasn’t able to get Pharaoh’s attention as it were through these other plagues, so finally is in this severe judgement that finally that Pharaoh gives up and says ‘OK, take your people and go.’” But this is not true; after the plagues of Locust and Darkness that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that is why he did not let the people go (Exodus 10:20 and 10:27). The scripture states the reason that Pharaoh did not release the Israelites after the last 2 plagues was because of God’s intervention. 5. Foremost, even if it were true that every Egyptian were responsible for what was done to the Israelites, the punishment was against their children. I don’t see any way that killing a person’s newborn, infant, or child is a justified punishment for anyone's actions regardless of the crime. It also runs contrary to what Dr Copan argues at 31:30 when he argues that God doesn’t punish children for their father’s sins. “It is not as though there is guilt imputed to those who are being judged by God because of what the parents have done” (33:15). Unless I am completely missing his point, this seems to be inconsistent. Thank you again for addressing these issues!

I get tired of Atheists objections

If any other being, in any story, did what the OT god does or commands , then Christians would condemn them, and rightfully so. But they believe these acts are of an all loving, all powerful god. Christians, I’d like you to really think about why this is.

QUESTION: I have several questions/critiques on Dr. Copan’s arguments around the death penalty in OT law starting at 25:50. 1. How does Dr. Copan harmonize specific stoning deaths for offenses other than murder, such as the story of the man caught picking up sticks on the sabbath in Numbers 15:32-36 or the blasphemer in Leviticus 24:10-23, with his argument? In particular, Numbers 15 (I’ll put the reference in a comment) seems unambiguous that: a. the crime committed was not murder (it was collecting sticks on the Sabbath) thereby seemingly contradicting the claim at 26:50 that only murder could not be commuted. b. The man was actually, physically stoned to death; thereby seemingly contradicting the claim at 17:30 at 28:20 that stoning was “simply not taken literally” and was instead hyperbole to serve as a wakeup call. c. This was directly commanded by God, therefore not a misinterpretation of His word. 2. What passages or evidence support the claim at 26:50 that of all potentially capital offences, the only one that could not be commuted to payment was “cold blooded murder”? There are many passages that contain offences in which the perpetrator must be put to death (ex: Leviticus 20:1-27) but there doesn’t seem to be an exemption for payment. However, Exodus 21:29-30 has a specific provision that states the owner of an ox who gores another can redeem himself from his death penalty through payment if it is demanded. Why do the other passages that could be commuted to a payment not have similar language? 3. If it is true that all crimes except for “cold blooded murder” could be commuted to a payment, it seems to me that this means that wealthy people who could afford payment could simply pay a fine, but poor people who did not have enough money (or was indentured due to their inability to pay off debts) could not pay and therefore would be subject to the penalty (in many cases death). This seems to be both unjust and contradictory to Dr. Copan’s argument at 23:40 that the law of Moses was egalitarian and had the same punishments for all people regardless of status. 4. For the argument that the death penalty could be commuted to a payment to the "aggrieved parties", what determined who this was? For the example of adultery at 27:55, who would be the "aggrieved party" and who would be the one paying them? Also for other crimes that don't seem to have a specific victim, such as homosexual acts in Leviticus 20:13, who is the "aggrieved party" that the men would offer payment to to avoid the prescribed death penalty?

QUESTION: More of a critique than a question, and I apologize in advance for the length, I will try to make it as concise as I can while explaining my points. There is a very striking disconnect between the title of this video and what arguments are being made in the content. The title asks, “Is God a Vindictive Bully” but the video, and presumably Dr Copan’s forthcoming book, seems to be addressing a question more along the lines of “are God’s actions and laws in the OT justifiable?” Throughout the course of Dr Copan’s defense of God’s actions and laws in each troubling passage, his argument’s answer to the title question seem to be “Yes, God is a Vindictive Bully, but it's ok.” This is most clear to me in the discussions of the killing of the firstborn children of Egypt. At 40:25 Dr Copan states “you have God saying, ‘if you’re going to do this to Hebrew babies, if you’re going to do this to my firstborn, the Nation of Israel, then something is going to happen to your firstborn.’” This is definitionally vindictive and the actions of a bully. Telling someone that you are going to hurt them because they hurt you is vindictive and purely retaliatory. Furthermore, hurting them by hurting (in this case killing) their child is, in my estimation, one of the most vengeful and ruthless acts imaginable. Throughout his defense, Dr Copan doesn’t argue that this is not vindictive, only provides reasons why God was justified in the indiscriminate killing of every firstborn child in Egypt. Sean remarks at 42:00 “I had not made the connection of the Israelites children being sacrificed and killed, in a sense God is bringing justice back onto the new Pharaoh what had been done to Israel. Very, very fair.” Even if one accepts all of Dr Copan’s justifications for this action, what you’re accepting is “Yes, God is vindictive, but he was justified, the Egyptians deserved it.” Dr Copan also paints God as a bully when he describes God’s desire to use the plagues and destruction of the Egyptians in the Exodus story to demonstrate his power and might. He states at 38:35 that “God will show how much greater he is, how much more powerful He is than the gods of Egypt, and He will deliver His enslaved people out of that land.” We see God state His desire clearly after the Israelites left Egypt, before the parting of the Red Sea. God told Moses “Pharaoh will think, ‘The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.’ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” (Exodus 14:3-4, NIV). How does God bring glory to himself and show he is powerful? Through plagues and widespread killing. Dr Copan argues that these 10 plagues were demonstrations of God’s dominance over the world’s current superpower in their “showdown.” Asserting your dominance over others using violence, death, and destruction is bullying. Bullies pick on those weaker than them, in this case the alleged omnipotent creator of the universe showed his power by destroying finite beings who are totally defenseless to him, and besting the “Egyptian gods” who are non-existent, fictional beings. Instead of indiscriminately killing every Egyptian first born, bringing 9 other plagues, and drowning the Egyptian army in Red Sea, do you think that God (who the same apologists will say spoke the entire universe into being and finely tuned every force to perfectly suit our existence) would be able to show himself and his might through love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness? Would he instead be able to demonstrate power through love in a way that would allow the Egyptians to repent, ask for forgiveness, and be redeemed instead of destroyed? If his love, wisdom, creatively, and grace is limitless, I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have done this. Can you argue that his actions are justified? Sure. Are they the actions of a bully? Yes, these two are not mutually exclusive. We also see this in the story at 46:00 of God killing Uzzah when he failed to follow the proper protocol for carrying the ark and grabbed it to prevent it from falling. Dr Copan pontificates that Uzzah might have become too familiar with the arc and too lax with its rules. Is God justified in killing Uzzah? Sure. You can argue, as Dr Copan does, that God made the rules and told them, and they chose to not follow them so he as justified in taking corrective action. But “you didn’t follow my protocols, so now I have to smite you” seems extremely petty, vindictive, and arbitrary. If you‘re carrying something and it slips and begins to you’re your natural reaction is to reach out and try to grab it without thinking (at least mine is). Surely the tri-omni God could have come up with a less lethal way to remind Uzzah to keep his hands off the arc, maybe a shock or a flash of light causing temporary blindness, or he could’ve turned Uzzah into a snake for a week. There are nearly limitless less than lethal options that would’ve made a point. God’s emotions are clear in the passage though, “the Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.” (2 Samuel 6:7, NIV). But the point is clear, follow my rules or die. That is vindictive and what a bully would do. Is God a Vindictive Bully? “Yes, God is vindictive, but he was justified, he made the rules, and they choose not to follow them, so God killed them to send a message put them back in their place.” There are plenty of other examples of God acting in this same way through the OT, but the one that sticks out most in my memory is the short story of the Bronze Snake in Numbers 21:4. I won’t editorialize any further than to ask you to ask yourself as you read, not can a being with the attributes of God be justified in doing this taking into consideration the time and place and cultural backdrop and yada yada yada; but rather the question that this video title asks, “Is God a Vindictive Bully?” Is this action vindictive, and is the actor behaving like a bully? “But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.” (Numbers 21:4-9, NIV)

QUESTION: What is there to say about David's and Bathsheba's child being struck down by God at seven days old?

Thank you guys for this video. God bless you always 🙏❤. My thoughts are God is God and God is supreme. God is so far above us and our thinking. God created man in his own image and God has the right to say and do whatever he chooses. I don't question what it says in the Bible. Bottom line is God is over all. His ways are higher than our ways

Read Paul's earlier book. Looking forward to reading this one.

I wish these explanations clicked in my head more.

QUESTION: Dr. Copan argues at 44:10 that God sends the flood as judgement because “the picture is of irretrievability, there’s just not coming back, there’s no redemption, there is no help, for those who have sunk so low, so God says ‘I will finish what they begun.’” Isn’t this antithetical to the Christian message that everyone can be redeemed by grace alone through the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit, no matter what acts one as committed because we have all fallen short? How does Dr. Copan square this line of reasoning with (at least my understanding of) orthodox Christian doctrine? ... Sean makes a point when talking about God hardening Pharaoh's heart at 39:00 that “hardening [Pharaoh's] heart doesn’t mean that he is beyond salvation or repentance.” In what way was everyone living before the flood different or worse than Pharaoh so they they were beyond salvation? ... If the answer is an Old Covenant vs. New Covenant type defense, why was God willing and/or able to redeem the sins of all mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross 2,000 years ago, but at the time of the flood his only option was annihilation?

It never ceases to amaze me what mental gymnastics believer will get pretzeld into, to defend their favorite psychopath.

I see God as a loving teacher, in that everything He does is to guide us and help us grow closer to him. Sometimes the lessons are hard, but the outcome is worth it otherwise He wouldn't allow it. Now I prefer to learn by counsel, than consequence, both of which I have experienced, but were ultimately my decisions. So yeh, a loving teacher and shepherd, who is slow to anger and quick to forgiveness. It's a journey of discovery people. Thanks be to God for the opportunity to experience life and just exist in His loving presence.

QUESTION: In Deut 21:13-14, after the month of mourning the Israelite can have sex with the female captive and marry her. Then if she doesn't please the Israelite, he can kick her out of the house but can't sell her for money since she isn't a virgin anymore. Am I reading that right? "And put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." Deuteronomy 21:13‭-‬14 NIV

I do wonder how many people argue AGAINST the notion that God is a vindictive bully because they do in fact believe this in their own heart of hearts but are too terrified to admit it to Him. the inward nature of sin and the pervasive nature of unbelief as connected to the inward nature of sin make this question at least relevant, and even IMO crucial

QUESTION; concerning animal suffering. “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood ...." ~ Leviticus 16:15. God is love. God loves. These are innocent animals. Why would God set up a system where innocent animals have to suffer and die for the sins of mankind? Seems very counterintuitive, especially to a young child.

I suggest everyone take a look/listen to Marty Solomon’s podcast BEMA. Start with the introduction episode and at least listen to the first 3 or 4. It will help to reframe this discussion, I promise. Shalom.

That’s the wonderful thing about the bible, you can make it say whatever you want. All god had to do was wait until RU-vid was invented so his word could be explained

This that they are talking about will be in play in the thousand years reign of Jesus

Question: in the king James it refers to Satin as a organic Instrument. Ezekiel 28:13-14.

Some good points and a lot of weak points, I thought, that would not satisfy most fair-minded critics from without or within. To many of the questions, Paul Copan put forth some facts most of us are unaware of, which have to do with the context of the issues, and seemed to think that would overcome objections to the "traditional" reading of the texts. I would hope his book BUILDS cases for his conclusions rather than hoping some new-to-us information will cloud our rational centers enough to satisfy us.

BTW, if Pharaoh (fully *wanting* to rebel against God *aside* from God’s *recent* role in “hardening” his heart-see comments in the video, though much more could be said) it’s ultimately this desire towards rebellion that led to the doom of Egypt’s first born. (Though a million other theological things are wrapped up in understanding that more fully as well.)

QUESTION: Which translation of the Bible does Dr. Copan use? He argues at the 29:30 mark that Deut 22:28 talks about seducing and doesn't use seize or the "r" word. Looking at about 40 parallel passages on Bible Hub and Bible Gateway, I don't see any that say seduce, all except for the NLT use either "seize", "lay ahold of', the "r" word, or similar language that implies force. What translation is he using for his arguments that talks about seduction or a willing relationship?

In the story of the almost sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, I wonder if this story was a way for God to let people know that he didn't want child sacrifice. It looks like he wants Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and then he tells him No! and provides a ram instead. I imagine the impact of a story like that on the surrounding child sacrificing nations could be profound.

QUESTION: 1. Curious what Dr Copan thinks of genesis 19 and the sequence of events surrounding Lot. First offering his daughters up and then sleeping with them (even if it said he didn't know he was doing it). Then he is credited as being righteous in 2 Peter 2:7-8. Through the lens of our modern day this is hard to understand.

QUESTION: Please address the concept of "alternative moralities--" ways of thinking that have their own internal logic, yet conform neither to our contemporary moral standards nor, we would believe, to the Lord's preferred plan.

QUESTION: Could you explain Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter?

I agree on all points; God is balanced, like a dove, love and justice...the dove needs both wings to fly.

Does Dr Sean have a podcast where you can listen to all these interviews? 🤔

QUESTION: Is it likely that sometimes it was impossible to get the exact meaning from the original biblical languages and that as our scholars study new ancient writings, customs, beliefs from that time period they will be better at getting the proper context and a more precise meaning of certain words and phrases?

QUESTION: If you answer any question on slavery can you answer this? “Is it, or was it ever, morally acceptable to own another person as property?” I’m not asking how nicely anyone was treated. I’m not asking what protections were put in place for their eyes and teeth. I’m not asking what modern English word best describes the situation in the Bible. I’m not asking how a certain system compares to the pre-Civil War South or other neighboring systems. I’m not asking if they entered voluntarily into the arrangement because of their financial situation. I’m only asking, “Is it, or was it every morally acceptable to own another person as property?”

QUESTION: How do you interpret passages like Hebrews 6 & 10 which speak about followers of Christ falling away and reconcile that with the faithfulness of God in holding fast His own?

QUESTION: Responding the argument at 26:50 that all capital crimes except for “cold blooded murder” could be commuted to a payment the "aggrieved parties". Can Dr. Copan explain who the “aggrieved parties” are and who would pay them in these examples of non-murder cases that demand the death penalty? 1. "23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.” (Deuteronomy 22:23-27, NIV) - Who is the “aggrieved party” that the woman in the town in verses 23-24 would pay to avoid her death sentence? - Who is the “aggrieved party” that the man would pay to avoid his death sentence in either case? And if it is to the woman’s father or husband, why is not to the woman? 2. ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13, NIV) - Who is the “aggrieved party” that each man would pay to commute their death penalty? 3. For the example of adultery at 27:55, who would be the "aggrieved party"? Would both the man and woman have to pay, and who would they make the payment to?

You should have asked about the wood gather from Numbers 15. 32-36

1:07:06 OK, mr. Copan sees women forced into sex slavery as being in a marriage.

Yes it s possible

As a former believer, now agnostic, I am so very glad I no longer have to engage in the inventive apologetics necessary to redeem the supposed actions and commands of the biblical deity - but if it works for Copan, that's his prerogative I suppose.

QUESTION: the flood to punish humans would have maimed and drowned in pain and terror, millions of sentient, non-human animals. How is this morally praiseworthy?

QUESTION: After the Fall, did the nature of humanity change to become “bad” rather than “good” as it was pronounced in the creation account? Does our depravity mean total inability and spiritual blindness, as the Calvinist views it? Essentially, what is the biblical view of our nature post-Fall?

Excusing God for drowning the entire human population by saying his heart was "greived" and he was just "finishing what they were doing anyway" would be like excusing a father for beating his disobedient teenage daugher to death by saying he was "greived" and she was on a downward spiral anyway. That man would be prosecuted for murder in most modern secular societies. Only religion can take such a heinous act and somehow call it fair or good. My journey away from Christianity began with some of these stories in the old testament and the farther I get from it, the more laughable become the contortions that Christians put themselves in to somehow make it palatable.

At last we are getting laymen answers for critics from without (without having the privilege to further one's studies.) The onslaught against God's existence and the trustworthiness of scripture are becoming very daunting. Thank you.

Questions Sean will Paul new book be available on Audible.

Is there a possibility that Abraham saw the surrounding offering their sons, he had this wish to offer God the best he has, his only son. And from his depth of his heart felt that God is ordering him to do so.?

QUESTION: Back to polygamy in the OT. I understand the answer that you gave in this video re. Gen 1 and 2, man and wife, one flesh etc. However, in Deut 17, God states that the kings of Israel should not acquire too many horses or too many wives. The wording of this seems to clearly suggest that having more than one wife is OK, just don't have "too many." (The reason for not having "too many wives" is clearly stated in the very same verse so that is not my question). God could have said that the king should not marry more than one wife, or not to marry a foreign wife, but that is not how God worded it. Thanks for this great video and all the other very informative videos that you put out that strengthen our faith and help us to defend it with more knowledge, confidence and grace. Best regards.

If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the men who wrote the Bible fell short of the glory, then how can the Bible be the perfect words of God if it was written by men? Romans 3:23-24 NIV for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

Jesus spoke more about 'hell' than anybody?? What translation, dispensation, etc? If the consuming fire is the love of the good news conforming us to his image with our free-will still in tact as is his in his own image, you can call that hell. Anything else is injustice. Love is just. Justice is not unequal punishment with no forgiveness and reform. If it is that God is as cruel as this, what a horror.

Re: hardening of Phar.'s heart. God could be showing Egypt that He, not Anubis, weighed and judged hearts and that Phar.'s heart failed the test against "Maat's feather", really God's standards.

QUESTION: What is the origin of evil? Did God create evil, or is evil the “lack” of God?

QUESTION: What of the treatment of slaves in Exodus 21:20-21?

Question: did Satin want to be man? So many passages that talk about this. Ezekiel 28:13-14. Satin was there witness to creation Job 38:4-7. God said in Gen. 1:26 make man in our image. Thank you

QUESTION: Does a Calvinistic interpretation of God’s sovereignty always ultimately lend itself to a view of God as being the author of evil?

About the law though, Jesus did say that at least part of it was because of our limitations.

QUESTION: I strongly disagree with the explanation of "after my own heart" means that David was like Cyrus by doing what God wanted done in a prividential sense and not a spiritual sense. I think that this just sidesteps the real issue. I contend that David's heart for God is seen throughout the Bible and the tension with this and his grave sin (compare to Ahab's similar circumstance with Nadab's vineyard) cannot be just ignored. Bible Verses: In 1 Samuel 13:13-14, it is associated with David in contrast to Saul's disregard of God's commands (like Nadab and Abiyu). Compare this to what Samuel said to Saul about being small in his own eyes and that later when Samuel goes to David, God told him that He looks "at the heart" not the appearance. In Jeremiah 3:14-16, it says "faithless Israel" will be forgiven and given "shepherds after my own heart" that would spiritually guide Israel. Sample verses of how David is referred to: 1 Kings 3 1 Kings 9:4 "And as for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules," 1 Kings 15:5 mentions Urriah as an exception. Later the census is also brought up. Neither of these two seem brought up again in Scripture, unless I missed it. David is referred to multiple times to compare or contrast the way that his descendants kept God's commandments. This is despite Nathan saying that David did evil in God's sight and despised his commandments.

God never judges but allows humans to experience the conquiences of their actions and nations to experience the conquiences of their actions on a national scale. see 70ad and the second coming of the Lord. God takes responsibility for the deaths at the flood but sent a messenger and had him build a boat. the door was left open... The people at Sodom could have left with Abraham.

Viva Christo Rey. In Christo Rege. Christ the King.

David being called a man after God’s heart, David was called that according to God’s heart even though David was a sinner like us. It's God's call and it did not depend on David's goodness. Two points from me. 1. If we are not considered people after God's own heart, why would He send Jesus for us? God wants us to do His will as he wanted David to. 2. After Jesus' arrival, we who love Jesus and want to and do His will and works, we are also people of God's own heart though our names are not recorded in the Bible. But our names are recorded in the Book of Life.

QUESTION - Sarah allowed Abraham to sleep with her servant to have a child. Not only does it seem wrong for Sarah to allow this but also for Abraham to agree with it. Did the servant girl get a say in it, seems like she got know say in the matter??

QUESTION: Hi. I see l am a bit late to join this discussion, but l find Apologestics very fascinating. I previously read The Secret Book of John(The Apocryphon of John) and was very surprised, not knowing what to make of this. But as l read, l got the impression that Yaldabaoth, and what is said about him, explained why there was so much "bullying" in the Old Testament. May l please ask what do you think about this..... can this perhaps explain what this book of Paul Copan is all about?

QUESTION: Why was Cain's offering not looked on with favor? Both Cain and Abel brought offerings from what they worked to produce, and at this time, there is no documentation of God requesting any specific offering.

Question: In 2 Samuel 21, David takes seven sons of Saul and hands them over to be hanged by the Gibeonites to pay for the sins of Saul who killed the Gibeonites during his reign. The Bible says that the sins of the father will not fall upon his sons. How is it just to kill seven innocent sons of Saul for the sins of Saul?

QUESTION: At 26:38 Dr Copan says that only murder couldn’t have capital punishment commuted to payment; but where is this possibility/option indicated in the actual text? Wouldn’t it be a sin for the Israelites to adjust the Law of God to be less severe, when several places indicate the capital punishment is meant to be preventative (such as Deut 13:11, 17:13, 19:20, 21:21)? For example, we are commanded to keep the whole Law as part of the Greatest Commandment (Matt 22:37-38 referencing Deut 10:12-13), and then in the Law itself (Deut 11:8, 28:58, 29:9, 29:29). Therefore, given the most frequent commandment (and first of the Ten Commandments) is against idolatry, wouldn’t it have been disobedient for the Israelites to not apply the death penalty for idolotry (Deut 13:6-18, Deut 29:17-26)?

QUESTION: On the issue of David being a man after God's own heart, I would appreciate more detail on why the term "after God's own heart" in English should be understood so differently from the way it reads. Is this a problem in translation? A fine point of Hebrew? Common usage in the ANE? If "we can just think of it this way" is the whole reason, I'm not buying the argument, and neither would my unbelieving friends.

Two questions that were instrumental my journey out of Christianity. The first caused my loss of faith, the second is one of the better arguments I see for moving away from religions in general. 1.) It seems to me that the slavery, genocide, etc. of the Old Testament are better explained by naturalistic evolution of culture than by an all-powerful, all-loving God. I'm curious how Sean and Paul would respond to this. 2.) If we assume that the apparently vindictive parts of the OT were context-dependent, isn't it still dangerous to have those passages in what many call "the perfect Word of God"? If 99% of Christian read the Bible believing it has the weight of God behind it, but don't have don't have time or expertise to go into the historical context, can you see how these passages could be used to justify positions that seem anti-Biblical to you? One example is the preachers who used the Bible to justify slavery in the pre-war South.

The Hebrew verb natan can mean not only to give but also to put and to permit so thus HaShem permitted the wives of Shaul HaMelek to David HaMelek and HaShem permitted the wives of David HaMelek to Avsalom HaSar Ben David HaMelek

Different subject. doesn’t Sean looks a lot like Chris Tomlin? Lol. But Seriously, great video thanks from Nova Scotia

QUESTION: When I think about the character of God in both the New and Old Testaments, I don't see any conflicts with His nature. This brings me to my question. When talking about God's nature, is it safe to state that his character is multi-dimensional just like our flawed character is. There are times where we are loving, there are times when we need to fight, there are things that make us angry, there are things that make us jealous. Just because we exhibit one characteristic, does mean those others don't exist. What is being exhibited is what is needed in response to a situation. Can you unpack this though and let me know if this is something you have considered? Thanks! Great information and I really appreciate the topic. God Bless!

Why must what the Bible says BE INTERPRETED. LETS JUST READ WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND NOT CHANGE IT BECAUSE IT IS INCONVENIENT.

How do you explain the eighth chapter of John. I can see only see it as a. totally different concept of God as loving Father compared to the Yahweh of the Old Testament

QUESTION: which kind of bear is best?

God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. Min 37

_Scriptural legitimation and the mobilisation of support for religious violence: experimental evidence across three religions and seven countries_ Yes, that's a study. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you justify atrocities.

I wonder whether anyone has noticed that it is in the OT that God is accused of being too merciful - by Jonah!

QUESTION: isn’t the idea of inherited sin ingrained in Christian theology? Our sinful nature and the guilt associated with it are inherited from Adam. We are born with inherited sin. What good does it do to explain away earthly punishments to the 3rd and fourth generation when all generations are inheriting eternal punishments. Optional follow up: if God judges at the level of the individual why does he condemn entire nations (Canaanites, Amalekites) even commanding their infants to be put to death. Is this not judging at a national level as opposed to an individual level? Unless infants were individually guilty I can’t make any sense of this. (32:00 for context)

😀👍

41:39 Egypt. Now, at first glance it may not look good as we all know the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, if this is God's golden rule, have you considered that if you meet someone, and you treat him well, but then he treats you very badly ... at some point after enough abuse the other guy has effectively told you how *he* wants *you* to treat him? It's a bit like the case with the Caananites. No one is required to allow evil to persist forever. Like tolerance. It's not so much a moral precept as it is a peace treaty. And once the reciprocity of good deeds end, then surely you are not required to enter into suicide as you allow the other guy to kill you or sacrifice your babies. Basically, God does seem to subscribe a bit to the "fuck around, find out" doctrine ... it's an assumption that if you follow the golden rule, then the other guy is too, so there's a dynamic going on, not some simple "always be nice" doctrine. Bit like, well, the Palestinians today. Clearly they've treated the Jews in a certain way, and some retribution - not revenge - has its place.

question: if mark 12:30 is the greatest commandments, how can believers follow the other mosaic laws/commands that break the golden rule. see numbers 31

The source of many of these questions is the complete imbalance of the idea of God’s love vs God’s holiness. The contension is always “God is love” but never “God is holy”. In addition, the fact that God has chosen us from before the foundation of the world answers many others. He will save His people.

Every ancient culture had child sacrifice, so the “command” to sacrifice Isaac may not have been necessarily surprising. Or rather, unusual. Like Copan said, Abraham knew his line would continue thru Isaac, So there may have been confusion, but it wasn’t an anomaly given the culture around him. Obviously, we know human sacrifice is abhorrent to our God, but again….it wouldn’t have been unusual to Abraham’s ears, I don’t think.