Is The Old Testament Reliable? 3 Solid Evidences. SeanMcDowell.org 

Not claiming I’m correct but it’s what I read previous to those verses that showed me

biggest objection to christianity probably has to be the fact that everything was pretty much written by people who were not there during jesus

this is for the reliability of the old testament, not evidence that its true

“carving names from stories they had heard”. Well, if we apply this epistemology, then we can’t do history at all, since every single ancient source simply recites stories.

There was a 95% accuracy the 5 percent would've been the small difference in spelling and grammar. But you have to remember that the time between the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls book of Isaiah and the time of the first copies had a 1,100-year difference. Within that time it is very possible that there could have been a few spelling and grammar mistakes. Instead of focusing on a section of the video, which can be misleading, listening to the entirety with an open mind, may help. I'm 16 and still learning and observing so please don't come for me, I'm only trying to help since you commented on the video you must be here to learn something new.❤ May God bless you

So what I’m getting is that it’s unreliable Bc of supernatural claims?

@@Nebraska2002 Hi Aaron, thanks for your reply. I don't have a problem with supernatural claims per se. The problem here is that there is insufficient evidence for the supernatural claims in the Hebrew Bible. There have been archaeological finds, among other things, that support some or perhaps many of its mundane claims ("there was a town called x, a king called y"), but I don't think the evidences presented in the video are adequate to support its supernatural claims. I tried to give my reasons for why I think this in my primary comment, mainly by way of making comparisons to other supernatural or outlandish claims (e.g. if Herodotus' Histories were copied with the same fidelity as the words of the Herbrew Bible, would that make them much more reliable? A little, perhaps, but not much, certainly not enough to lend his more outlandish/mythological claims any serious credence. Likewise, I believe, the Hebrew Bible). Let me know what you think or if I'm missing something :) All best!

wrong, wrong and wrongggggg.....your logic is stuupidddd

@@gpn962 You have some interesting thoughts. I don’t think you have to support supernatural biblical claims to support the reliability of the texts; one can simply view them as the way the ancients understood actual events. For example, one can accept the reliability of the Mesha stele, without believing that there was really a God named Chemosh who personally told Mesha to capture Nebo from Israel, or believe that Omri’s occupation of Moab happened because of Chemosh’s anger with the land (which is what the stele claims). These can simply be interpreted as theological statements that reflect how Mesha viewed the events, without demanding the historicity of supernatural claims; it doesn’t mean that the core events are ahistorical or that they should be viewed with skepticism. The same could be said with the Bible.

All are documented in Evidence that Demands a Verdict

Dr. Sean McDowell perfect thank you. I’m taking an Old Testament class and my professor is very skeptically biased and if I’m able to bring up anything to refute her claims I’d love to have respected sources

@Luke Crawford you've been brainwashed by Christian apologists, my friend. Because... The God of the Old Testament commanded and endorsed slavery, including chattel slavery. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery, masters could beat their slaves, creditors could carry off children for failure to repay a debt, and foreigners could be kept for life, passed down as inherited property. A common excuse/apologetic tactic is saying that the Old Testament ONLY condones "Indentured Servitude." This is VERY wrong!!! The definition of Indentured Servitude is: "Indentured servants were not paid wages but they were generally housed, clothed, and fed. The rights to the individual's labor could be bought and sold, but the servants themselves were not considered property and were free upon the end of their indenture (usually a period of five to seven years)." *note: Indentured Servitude does not involve a person being considered as "peoperty"... Now, contrast THAT definition with the following verses: Exodus 21:20-21 says, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their PROPERTY.” Eek! Does that HONESTY sound like warm and fuzzy, harmless "Indentured Servitude" to you? God, I hope not. But, again, it's okay and expected for an ancient book to have some barbaric practices compared to our modern standards. So, I just think it would be nice if Christians educated themselves on the atrocities, as well as the niceties, and simply owned it and admitted it was man's thinking of the past and was wrong 🤔 Some additional verses: Exodus 21:2-6 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever. (Yikes! This is HORRIBLE). And... Deuteronomy 20:14 But the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you (this is hideous! Barbaric TO THE MAX). *Chattel slavery (type used by America involving blacks) definition: a system of slavery, which allowed people-considered legal property-to be bought, sold and owned forever.

Well of course not all slavery in the OT was indentured servitude. Look at the Hebrews in Egypt. And guess what??? God didn’t like that.

@@rickyderby and... A common excuse/apologetic tactic is saying that the OT only condones "Indentured Servitude." This is VERY wrong!!! The definition of Indentured Servitude is: "Indentured servants were not paid wages but they were generally housed, clothed, and fed. The rights to the individual's labor could be bought and sold, but the servants themselves were not considered property and were free upon the end of their indenture (usually a period of five to seven years)." *note: Indentured Servitude does not involve a person being considered as "peoperty"... Now, contrast THAT definition with the following verses: Exodus 21:20-21 says, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their PROPERTY.” Eek! Does that HONESTY sound like warm and fuzzy, harmless "Indentured Servitude" to you? God, I hope not. But, again, it's okay and expected for an ancient book to have some barbaric practices compared to our modern standards. So, I just think it would be nice if Christians educated themselves on the atrocities, as well as the niceties, and simply owned it and admitted it was man's thinking of the past and was wrong 🤔 Some additional verses: Exodus 21:2-6 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever. (Yikes! This is HORRIBLE). And... Deuteronomy 20:14 But the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you (this is hideous! Barbaric TO THE MAX).

@fremex8861 schooled me, eh? The Bible LITERALLY condones chattel slavery... do some research. *drops mic*

maybe they corrected the mistakes, since they knew they were mistakes. But if there was 3 or more, they started over.

Any potential documentation of JC is just that, documentation and not hard core evidence such as coming from archeologist. And, those who tend to fight for the existence of JC are usually just very highly sensitive people who connect with others who feel passionately of the story of JC rather than think logically about JC as well as the characters mentioned in the NT. We have been taught what to think and not how to think. Knowing how to think entails asking the right questions and once we stop feeling and turn to thinking we usually start to see the matrix and just how deep it's rabbit hole actually is. My intentions in regards to understanding spirituality is never to offend another but rather for any human to just start thinking with their mind rather than their heart so much.

I, personally, will not debate with anyone on the FREEDOM (at this time, we all should have) to believe and have faith in whomever and whatever we want. We all have been taught and told who and what we should believe. Very seldom have I yet to know anyone who truly use their own mind and sound reasoning from thinking on their own because we are not taught how to think but rather what to think. Most people choose willingly, or unwillingly to think with their feelings. Love is not a feeling because you either do or don't. We choose to love who we love and how we love. So with this, you, I, as well as anyone have the freedom to worship in blind faith, or not. As for presenting the facts on the majority, if not all the people you mentioned as to evidence that they lived there happens to be more factual than fictional proof that they did rather than not. It would be easier to prove that those sources lived and did the things they have gone down in history noted as doing than to prove JC actually existed. This is not being said to piss anyone off in their feelings. I continue to do my research because it is my desire to please the MOST HIGH YAH. Creator of Heaven and Earth and all THEREIN. Who also is noted in Torah to have given us a king by the name of David. As it is written, David will be their king. Just something for you to look into and then ask the question, where does JC come from? Then, start the journey of finding your answer for yourself. Or, you can choose to remain in your feelings without seeking anymore facts. As with myself, and anyone else (for now) we are in the information era and it is our choice to look into any matter and stop being spoon fed.

@@DaretoDream814 girl you need to also watch the STURP shroud of Turin research project video. Absolutely mind blowing. I'll drop a link. They've tested blood on the 2 shrouds that exist. And no the claims of it being faked were debunked because the people who tested it in 1988 were paid ALOT of money to say it was fake, they tested a part of the shroud that had been repaired in the 16-1800's the image has never been able to be replicated, not even with our modern technology much less have been created in the time it originated in. Everything about the shroud correlates so perfectly with the crucifixion account of yahusha that it's getting hard for people to deny even though people still reject it despite the massive amount of scientific evidence.

@@DaretoDream814 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IjKYUS7tvpg.html

Jews for Jesus has wonderful resources pointing to the existence of Jesus via their website

@Zain844 Agreed!

I think we have a pretty good idea on what the meaning of the stories were though. It was auditory and if everyone heard the story of course there might be issues with getting what was said word for word but I'm pretty sure we retained the goal of each of the stories.

@@ColbyBarradas Play a game of Chinese whispers for 40 years and see if the story is the same as it was when the first person told it

@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I agree it won't be the same word for word but the amount of people that knew the original stories were immense. If one of them decided to tell the story wrong, the rest would call him out. If you tell a child a story when they're only auditory and don't know how to read. The child will know if you change the story drastically.

@@ColbyBarradas So we're witnesses going around making sure everyone was telling the story right? Have you read what Bart Ehrman has to say about this?

Just a quote from a guy who has repeatedly shown that he isn’t a reliable authority on these issues, since he misunderstands what he’s talking about in 90% of cases.

@joeylonglegs4309 I do not agree with Dawkins on nearly anything else I hear him speak on lol... but... with regards to THIS topic, he is dead on. Yaweh is a mess if taken literally (and, Jesus is Yaweh, so...). A whole book was sparked by that Dawkins quote, too.

frosted1030 the bible never said the earth is flat. Actcually wuitr contrary there is a verse that says half the men shall be sleeping while the other half is working in the fields. Why because half of the earth is dark and time for bed because its spinning

frosted1030 now tell me how normal people could know this when what you would call scientists of the time believed the earth was flat.

frosted1030 It seems that you rely wholly on what can either be presently seen or verified by you to be true. Everything else, then, would be false. I think this places you within the scope of an old philosophical school of thought called verificationism, that is, something will hold truth value if and only if it can be empirically verified. We would have no knowledge otherwise. But this is ludicrous, isn’t it? The statement “everything must be empirically verified” can’t itself be empirically verified, can it? The philosophy refuted itself. This school of thought came about in the early 1900s and was quick to flame out, but it’s left scar tissue on the culture. Employing McDowell’s methodology in no way leads one to accept the corporeal existence of Ninja Turtles. McDowell is using actual historical documentation to attest to the veracity of prophecies fulfilled at later dates, corroborated by later writings (the New Testament). Now is there any ancient documentation of the existence of mutant turtles living in the sewers trainer by a rat in martial arts? This is laughable. To your charge about the similarities between these legends of pagan gods and Jesus, this is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. These similarities are entirely extraneous and don’t make up for the vast disparities between them. For example, one of the most commonly cited legends to compare with the resurrection of Jesus is that of Osiris. He was supposedly raised after being viciously killed as well. But this simply isn’t the case. He was killed and then reigned in the underworld, according to the legend. This is nothing like the resurrection of Jesus. Swedish biblical scholar Tryggve Mettinger has written an entire book on this, “The Riddle of Resurrection: ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Ancient Near East,” and through his research, he’s concluded that there is no parallel between ancient pagan myths and the resurrection of Jesus in Jewish culture. Also, your charge about the documentation of historical figures while they were alive is, frankly, idiotic. If we were to follow your criteria, we would have to throw out the entire pursuit of ancient history. More often than not, documentation of historical figures came hundreds of years after their deaths. Take Alexander the Great: the first documents attesting to his existence came four hundred years after his death. The Pauline epistles are considered the earliest documents attesting to the existence of Jesus and His resurrection. They are generally placed within eighteen to thirty years after His death. That, by historical standards, is an absolute slam dunk. So this assertion that we need to have documentation directly from the time the historical figures were alive betrays an embarrassing naïveté. Your complaints against archaeology also are mere assertions and not backed up with evidence. As the late bishop of new atheism Christopher Hitchens has said, “A claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” While I think that’s condescending and wholly untrue, it does seem to suffice here. So before you completely dismiss with Christianity, I think you should really consider the positions Christians are holding to and evaluate them fairly. Part of this could be also that you’re presupposing naturalism, which will of course preclude the existence of God, miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus. New Testament historian Michael Licona in his book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” has outlined two criteria for the identification of miracles: 1) They occur outside the confines of natural law. 2) They occur in a context charged with religious significance. Now if one were to set aside the presupposition of naturalism and allow even for the possibility that God exists, then the occurrence of the supernatural becomes much more likely, and thus supernatural events like the resurrection of Jesus and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies becomes plausible. So give the Christian apologists their due time; they’ve invested a lot of theirs for you. Hear them out; they might be right.

"the bible never said the earth is flat" Job 9, 26, Genesis 1, Psalm 104, Amos 9:6, and many more state that the Earth is flat. Next myth. "Actcually wuitr contrary there is a verse that says half the men shall be sleeping while the other half is working in the fields." How many different translations are there for that verse?

" It seems that you rely wholly on what can either be presently seen or verified by you to be true." Ahh, enter the strawman fallacy. Try again. "The statement “everything must be empirically verified” can’t itself be empirically verified, can it?" And a dodge. Try sticking to what you can evidence instead of attacking methodology. "Employing McDowell’s methodology in no way leads one to accept the corporeal existence of Ninja Turtles" Yet.. it does when you validate with the same method. "Your complaints against archaeology also are mere assertions" Actually, they are the current thinking in archeology. You might want to actually research the methods used. "So before you completely dismiss with Christianity, I think you should really consider the positions Christians are holding to and evaluate them fairly." Presupposition is a fallacy, and that's where your superstition begins. You do not question this, as questioning denies faith. "Part of this could be also that you’re presupposing naturalism" You mean we can evidence the natural world with science, and you can not use the same methodology and produce any evidence for your superstition? This is not presupposition, as not one theist has bothered to examine their concepts, you just justify through fallacy. "Now if one were to set aside the presupposition of naturalism and allow even for the possibility that God exists, then the occurrence of the supernatural becomes much more likely" If you imagine that something can happen, you can pretend it happens, so what? This is not reality you are discussing, it's make beLIEve. Here's how you can tell: you can not define "supernatural" or your deity in a way that forms a predictive model, thus you exclude your vague concepts from validid examination. "So give the Christian apologists their due time; they’ve invested a lot of theirs for you." Argument is not evidence and this concept kills apologetics instantly. Next.