It's disconcerting because it means that, while not every Christian, but any Christian can convince a group of his or her fellow Christians to practice slavery again.
@Jennifer Hunter I'm a Christian and you wouldn't be believe the number of Christian who actually said that bliblical slavery wasn't immoral and sinful. I even heard that some republican in Texas are trying to legalize slavery because it is bliblical
That person bothers me. He was unwilling to understand what you were saying so he tried to demean you. How many people are like this in the world? It actually scares me that people are unwilling to challenge their beliefs.
@@pleaseenteraname1103Dan is one of the most unbiased content creators when it comes to religion. He doesnt side with atheists or any denomination, even his own. He sides with the data.
@@nathanparrott247 compared to some other ones maybe. And I will admit his biases are mostly political rather than biblical. And I have learned a lot from his videos, I will let you know that I didn’t mean more conservative evangelical, though the 10 evangelical is pretty much just in umbrella term at this point, a lot like fundamentalist, and more an more Christians are just starting with you throughout the label altogether. I have mixed feelings about Dan I’ve been following him for about a year because I find this stuff incredibly interesting, and he’s obviously an incredibly smart guy, and my problems aren’t only because I disagree with him it’s how he approaches it, he tends to poison the well and paint a very disingenuous caricature of the other side rather than actually trying to steal man their positions. Like in this video characterizing the literary argument for traditional authorship as a typical apologetic argument. When it comes to the deity of Christ in the New Testament, he goes with his dogman over his data, passages like Titus 2:13, John 20:28, hebrews 1:1, and John 8:58, that pretty much all critical scholars agree are references to Jesus deity, he tries to dismiss these passages. And also there’s a lack of engaging with primary literature in his videos and even in some of his blogs. And I can find him to be a bit hypocritical sometimes, he criticizes Falk for not staying in his lane and getting into biblical studies, but Dan address is biblical studies all the time that is not his field, and he accuses people when they try to cross reference of assuming the Bibles univocal, but in his video on Mark 2 he uses exodus 23 and tries to super impose that on the entire New Testament as if that’s valid. There’s absolutely no reason to take his interpretation of Titus 2:13 or John 8:58 other than you don’t want the passage to say what it pretty obviously says.
@@wraithwrecker_ Interesting response, but seems to forget the influence of White Supremacist Theology upon the South before, during, and after Abolition. The Christian Bible is basically like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, except it's more for Belief-Choosing than for 'Adventure'.
@@wraithwrecker_ Interesting fact but it's entirely made up. Liberation Theology and its individual regional and local variations did not exist until the 1960s in the Vatican II era, long after the abolition of African slavery in every country in the Americas. You would certainly be right in stating the influence of particularly Protestant theological movements, particularly the Methodists and Quakers in the eighteenth century in beginning the British abolition movement which led to pushing other states to follow suit after their and the US abolition of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1808. Far from Liberation Theology, though.
That may be just a linguistic point, but I still say it's noteworthy: the Laws of Physics do not have "authority" or "meaning". They are but descriptions of what is, or the way things that are, are. _That_ is the reason why it is not possible to "go against" the Laws of Physics. They don't "say" or "dictate" what do to... thus you can't "deny" or "rebel against" them. Things just cannot be what they are not.
It blew my mind when I was learning Maxwell's equations and the professor was very clear and emphatic that the equations are not prescriptive, but rather descriptive.
How does someone read Exodus 21:20-21, ""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" and go yeah, this was good slavery?
My favorite is the admonition against ruling over Israelite slaves harshly. Sounds great, but then you stop and go: "So wait, does that mean they COULD rule over non-Israelite slaves harshly? Because it seemed to pretty specifically be referring to other Israelites there..."
@@alexmack956 Another global flood or other such disaster would have done it. That's what Yhwh did the first time he realised he'd f**ked up his creation, supposedly. Or a fairer solution would be to turn all the slave owners into pillars of salt like Lot's wife. Lots of options for an omnipotent god. I'd have started by prohibiting slavery, personally.
I would never want to earn a “Let’s see it” from Dr. McClellan. His knowledge and his ability to communicate such a finely grained parsing of the text in such an authoritative manner is extraordinary. Not a hint of snark or anything but a careful destruction of every fallacious argument. He wields his intellect like a Samurai against misrepresentations of scripture and all the ways it is used to support the culture wars. The concept of negotiation and agreement is such a valuable piece of information. I appreciate the work he does.
Sometimes I wonder if intellectually and rationally showing Christians what their own bible says right in front of their face is worth it. They want and NEED to believe what they spew about what things mean, what's the correct interpretation TO THEM.
I've found the value usually comes less from actually changing the minds of the people you're refuting and instead comes by demonstrating the refutation to those who might be watching. The person being refuted will most likely maintain their position regardless of the evidence, but someone watching the disagreement who is more open to the evidence may themselves be convinced by it.
I think a fake out approach has more impact. I've seen it done once where someone read the passages on slavery to a Christian from a book that either looks like the Quran & then get their reaction. Then you reveal it's actually the bible so they unwittingly participated in the outsider test of faith & gave you their honest opinions on how they feel without having their shields up.
What Skysinner said, but also, this is an apologist Dan is showing off. That is, someone who not only engages in dialogue about their beliefs but someone willing to try and convince others about the meaningfulness of their beliefs. They are highly motivated to maintain the belief because of the social pressure they've put on themselves to defend and uphold the belief. Your average christian does not have the same motivating biases. Not to the same degree at any rate. Dude in the video? Unlikely to be swayed by anything other than developing an internal openness to truth over comfort. Your christian neighbor? In my experience, the problem of evil is totally sufficient to sway them. It's all those seemingly trivial things apologists have been harping on for centuries that are the perpetual thorns in their side. It's precisely because they are very convincing to someone who isn't suffering from motivated reasoning. So, yes, it is worth it. Rule #1 of effective communication: know your audience.
This is the level of confidence those people acquired through years and years of preaching without being corrected. They are not interested in any interpretation that defies their dogma. Like someone else said: "You are fighting the good fight", I wish people in general could appreciate the bible a the literary piece it is, and not as the inerrant word of God.
This sword cuts both ways: there are a number of biblical “mandates” that we collectively agree to ignore. Acts 2:44-47 describes Christians pooling their money so that the apostles can redistribute it according to the needs of the people in the group. I’ve never belonged to a church that advocated this.
Experts are often narcissists. Experts often have biases that laymen do not. A layman usually enters a debate out of love for the truth. An expert is usually involved in a debate in defense of his paycheck.
"The authority of the biblical text is ultimately based on the agreement between the people". This one is for the ages. This saying must be repeated, and often, with credit given to the individual who came up with it. It sums up dogma in a way that nobody else has been able to for millennia.
It's hard for some folks who are so cocksure they understand the Bible to hear someone who has actually put in the work to study it beyond simply reading it when it goes against their extremely basic apologetic arguments. Kudos to you for putting in the work and making these videos.
well... he's wrong and i'd like to point out that you are putting faith in another man's understanding, and isn't that erroneous logic? but some folks just like to jump on anything that confirms their bias, despite not actually considering the matter for themselves.
It's not often that you see someone here having a problem with Dan's way of presenting his point or his arguments themselves. I'm kind of curious. If it is not too much to ask, could you expand on your comment? I wouldn't like to blindly put my faith into someone, even if they have arguably thuroughly presented their point, but that also means, that I'm a bit reluctant to say you're now making sense, if you haven't said something of substance yet. @@andrewschabbing1456
This may be your best video yet. Absolutely stunning the way you break this down, I admire you a ton man. This one really got at the heart of a lot of issues people struggle with I think
Always fun to hear the rebuttal of the rebuttal! 🤣 Dan, you're doing a great work! Have gained a greater appreciation for the Bible thanks to your thoughts and perspectives. Just picked up the Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible, per your recommendation. to use as companion study with my KJV - Thanks, again!
I remember as a new Christian dealing with the issue of alcohol. Sat down with my brand new NASB and an equally new NASB concordance. Came to the conclusion that "the scriptures" were opposed to ongoing drunkenness, not drinking. Even the infamous clobber verse, "look not on the wine when it lies red in the cup," is about a lifestyle of drunkenness. So even as a Christian I was comfortable with drinking, because so is the bible.
I like to bring up Duet 14:26 when the subject of alcohol comes up. "And you may spend the money on whatever your heart desires: on oxen, sheep, wine, other strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household." NASB
Turning water into wine was Jesus's first miracle for crying out loud. It wasn't healing a blind person or raising someone from the dead, it was to keep a wedding party going. Drinking was not only cool, it was job one.
All of these response videos (and some comments) show the need for Christians and other people of faith to study hermeneutics and the differences between ‘rational’ faith (which in my opinion is oxymoronic at best) and revealed faith. It is amazing how the projects of even famous Christian thinkers like Kierkegaard haven’t penetrated this knee jerk reaction for absolute certainty in one’s faith.
Nowadays, pointing out that the Bible endorses slavery really rubs a lot of Christians the wrong way, many of whom now have vested interest in promoting the idea that God's always been against it. This is a recent idea, too, as you pointed out. I think it takes courage to point out something that people don't want to see or believe. Kudos to you, Dan.
I have zero interest in what people say god did, because people seem to be the only ones speaking for a god who seems unable to speak for himself. Any god with the intelligence and power that people say he has, would immediately see the flaw in using people who can't prove anything about him as his perpetual mouth peace.
I always love how those who use Genesis 2:24 as an argument against polygamy ignore the idea that if Moses authored that text and Moses had 2 wives, clearly they are reading something in Genesis 2 that was not originally meant. If anyone knows the meaning of a text, it is the author of that text. Just as nobody knows Harry Potter more than JK Rowlings, and nobody knows Star Wars more than George Lucas, Moses knows what Genesis 2:24 is about more than anyone else. So if Moses had two wives, Genesis 2:24 has nothing to do with the idea of a man having just one wife and no more than one.
Also the Law of Moses has provision for multiple wives, and there's the law about a man marrying his brother's wife if he dies with no children, which doesn't worry if the man is already married.
3:32 Notice how he renegotiates the text by slipping in the words "every day". If we all agree that getting drunk is not a sin and some of us get slightly drunk on rare occasions, there will be no effect on the body (or society) and his argument falls flat.
Dan is logical and correctly understands how these things exist. He does not negate the importance of God and the concepts of goodness. I'm glad my LDS friend here understands that data doesn't take away, it actually increases understanding
"... and lean not on your own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5-6) is a prime example of why most believers are intractable in their faith and will not be swayed by reason or physical laws that are materially self evident. If their experience is anything like mine was when I was a believer, the suspension of reason and reality are not just encouraged, but expected. To do otherwise is to test God and ensure oneself of an eternal damnation.
When Paul said for men to "possess [their] vessels in holiness and honour and not passionately" the fathers of the catholic-orthodox church decided that to have 53x with 53xual desire was a sin! Then it was a short hop, skip, and a jump for St. Anselm to fully develop the doctrine of Original Sin even though it was present in embryo in Paul's day as the "sin nature". And this is why many Christians to this day, feel utterly unworthy of anything good.
Apologists trying to be clever never seems to end well, especially when they take aim at Dan. What's even better is the calm and respectful manner in which Dan schools them. I've learned so much watching these vids. Cheers, Dan.
His drunkenness argument is completely stupid, yes its harmful it done to an excess, but when done to a moderate amount its no big deal. Eating chocolate cake to an excess will do bad things to your body but that doesn't mean that chocolate cake is sin.
You should reference doctrine and covenants section 26 verse 2. This is a really interesting law of Of heaven and speaks further about what you're saying
"If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." Exodus 21:3-4 So if the slavery in the bible was like modern day employer/employee relationships, how does an employer go about giving an employee a 'wife'? and what if the employee is a female? does she also get a wife? so is the bible condoning lesbian relationships? But what if the female employee doesn't lean that way and wants a male husband? will the employer oblige and provide the female employee with her sexual preference? And as an employer myself, wtf am I supposed to do with a bunch of wives and kids i'm stuck with if the employee decides to hand in his two weeks notice and states that he doesn't want to keep the wife and kids? Does god realise how expense these wives and kids are to feed, especially in this economy? And what happens if there's an economic downturn and I'm forced to let go my male employees, as was the unfortunate case during COVID lockdown? do they keep their wives and kids or not? The biblical employer/employee relationship really isn't conducive to modern day industrial relations laws.
2:30 is it the same author though? Ephesians isn't one of the uncontested letters of Paul, though those other quotes sound like 1 Corinthians (which is Paul).
To be fair, *iff* an interpretation of the Bible were true and *iff* that interpretation included the Bible being the "inspired word of God" who is the ultimate authority, *then* the Bible would have inherent authority and not just authority by agreement, but only in that single interpretation. "Iff" here making "if and only if."
You would still have to come to an agreement on all that though. Short of God physically appearing and declaring that for everyone to see and hear, it's still a matter of opinion. However, I think it is a very Christian thing to think that something only can have one absolute truth meaning. I heard a Rabbi once say that if the scriptures only had one meaning, they would largely be worthless to us.
@@ChrisRobison You're confusing what's accepted and what's authoritative. There is only one order for the universe, yet physicists may differ about what the order looks like. Similarly, there is only one law, and Christians may differ about what the law looks like. The difference between the two is that when a physicist develops an incorrect theory, their error is realized either within their life or someone else's life. When the Christian makes an error, they realize it in in the next life. Thus agreement and consensus have nothing to do with it since the Christian view acknowledges that law has been established before humans even began to discuss the matter, similar to how an order to the universe was established before humans existed.
@@amrojjeh "Similarly, there is only one law, and Christians may differ about what the law looks like." How do we know that? You can't say, "because the Bible tells us so." That's an opinion stated authoritatively. That's the problem with comparing reality (physical laws) with what we think are spiritual ones. We can test and experiment with physical laws to learn how things work and as long as results are reproducible, eventually your findings get classified as a theory of something that you can use to predict things with a lot of confidence. That is not true of the spiritual side. You can't test God and force results to define laws, that's why it's faith based and as a result makes it very hard for any man to authoritatively speak on anything spiritual.
@@ChrisRobison That's a red herring. Whether or not one can trust the Bible is unrelated to whether the Bible can be a source of authority. The fact is Christianity's last prophet is Jesus, and there's a strong support for his existence, and so Christians, as followers of Christ, are supposed to do what he endorsed and avoid what he forbid. The task becomes figuring out what he endorsed and what he forbid, and that has nothing to do with agreement or consensus.
I want to push back on one of those premises, though I don't think you specifically disagree. Why should we assume that a creator God, if one exists, is "the ultimate authority"? Authority isn't just some magical power or property, it's a negotiated social relationship. The God of the Bible has power, not authority; that is, he CAN do things, but in no way does it follow from this that he MAY do things merely because he is capable of it. Sure, God CAN publish a book full of all of his preferences for how people behave, and he CAN punish or reward people who don't follow his prescriptions; no one can stop him from doing so. No credible political philosopher nowadays would argue, however, that this grants God the RIGHT to punish or reward people for doing whatever he does[n't] want them to do. And that's just his opinion, really, as it is not possible for God to actually PROVE that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and without assurance of those things we're within our rights to conclude he may be wrong in whatever the Bible records him saying. I see absolutely no reason to accept that there is any justification for God being able to do anything about anyone rejecting the Bible, or believing that any part of it is factually or morally incorrect. At best, we would have a supernatural and very powerful being who claims to be the omnipotent, omniscient, and (debatably) omnibenevolent creator of the universe, who is conveying to us the truths about moral facts. If we accept that being's claims, and we want to know what true moral facts are and conform our lives around them, then we might consent to Biblical authority; but if we DON'T accept that, or we DON'T care about moral facts, or we DON'T want to structure our lives around them, God is wholly unjustified in doing anything about it. Which isn't to say that an omnipotent God, if one existed, might still harm us if we don't obey its strictures, but it would be a brutal thug and tyrant if it did so, which to me is something an omnibenevolent God would not do.
How I would love to see some of the Apologia Studis Evangelical guys run into you on their street debates, I am certain that would give you endless views on RU-vid and would actually be quite a lot of fun to watch :)
2:30 I guess it's possible that I'm just misunderstanding you here. But when I heard this, my thought was "Not necessarily". Because the only time an agreement between two or more people is needed for this is when someone feels like they need such an agreement. Any single person can have an imagined conversation (or intuition) with "God" about any given text, and then derive a narrative of "authority" from that; without agreeing with any actually-existing people. Once that happens, if they are a parent, then they can trick their gullible kids into thinking the parent shares an agree with some other humans or spirit-people. But they don't really need any such agreement to happen in reality before they can imagine being privy to some transcendent authority.
I know Dan says the Bible doesn’t explicitly say being drunk is sin but doesn’t Galatians 5:19-21 imply that it is? Love Dan’s content because I fact check him and he’s right, but this is the first time I’m not sure.
It’s ludicrous to think the Tiktoker is more defensive of Biblical slavery than his Blackness being threatened by slavery apologetics. Black Christians on the internet seem to be having their Kanye turn.
There are a few people in any sufficiently large group who are willing to sell out the others if it brings them money, power, influence, prestige, and/or approval.
In that guy's defense, I think far too many employers wish that (and act like) their relationship with their employees were that of master to debt slaves.
God doesn't make mistakes change mind about eternal covenant made on Sinai and instead sends a man god idol Trinity pagan human sacrifice Calvary to replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament then a Quran then a book of Mormon then ...... That man was correct.
William Wilberforce was a christian abolitionist who play one of the biggest roles in abolishing England's involvement in the slave trade and slavery overall. He used the biblical commands that tell us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to do to others as we would have them do to us. The Jewish dispensational slavery is an entirely different thing from what we would see as slavery in the antebellum south or the transatlantic slave trade. The whole "bible condones slavery" argument has been debunked and is now just a desperate attempt to delegitimize God's word.
Lev 25:44-46. God says I can buy people from the nations around me, like Canada and Mexico (or Senegal), and I get to keep them as property forever (as long as they are not fellow Israelites) and pass them down to my heirs. Or did I read that wrong?
@@VulcanLogic Different type of slavery, and different covenant. Instead of one nation as God's people it is now open to all. You need to read the bible in its entirety.
@@TS-ee7jx *Slavery* Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. *The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.* However, you may purchase male or female *slaves* from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your *slaves* like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) *The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.* If you buy a Hebrew *slave,* he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your *slave* and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a *slave,* then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a *slave,* and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the *slave* may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the *slave* will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? *The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?* When a man sells his daughter as a *slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a *slave* girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them! *What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.* When a man strikes his male or female *slave* with a rod so hard that the *slave* dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the *slave* survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the *slave* is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) *You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.* *Slaves,* obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are *slaves* should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) *In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.* The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
@@TS-ee7jx A critical analysis of the Bible shows it isn't "God's word" as the below Biblical scholar points out. "So for example, when we read carefully what Yahweh says in the book of Leviticus, namely that the Aaronids (the sons of Aaron only), are high priests contrary to the Levites, that they alone are Yahweh’s mediators and the Levites are reduced to mere ministers of the Aaronids, that only through sacrifice can one atone for sins and not confession as preached by the Levites, or more precisely the Levite’s Yahweh, etc., *it can be no coincidence that in these laws and commandments,* ***which are placed on the mouth of Yahweh,*** *that Yahweh himself is presented advocating and legitimating the very views and beliefs of the specific priestly guild writing the text, and, contrary to the views and beliefs of their rivals, the Levites and the Levite’s Yahweh!* We will examine this more closely when we get to the contradictions in these books. But in short, this was the function of ancient literature, and we are allowing these ancient texts to speak for themselves. *In this particular case, the Levites and Aaronids wrote specific texts that each advocated their religious beliefs, views, and their position as high priests* ***by writing these sentiments directly into the mouth of their god!*** But just studying the Bible alone, scientifically, affords us the occasion *to see that many of these so-called words of Yahweh are* ***actually the very words of the texts’ authors.*** When we see numerous texts employing this ancient literary technique, and moreover, ***presenting Yahweh as the spokesperson for their own views and agenda,*** *and* ***contrary*** *to Yahweh’s other words in other texts written by other authors employing the same technique,* how can one conclude otherwise. In other words, when in the composite text that we now call the Bible we find: Yahweh declaring that only Aaronids can officiate as his priests and Yahweh declaring that all Levites can officiate as high priest; Yahweh declaring that sin is atoned through confession and Yahweh declaring that sin is only expiated through the sacrificial cult, no exceptions; Yahweh declaring that he gave laws and commandments at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that he only gave the Ten Commandments at Sinai; Yahweh commanding to exterminate all the Canaanites without pity and Yahweh declaring to tolerate them and live in their midst; Yahweh declaring that the wilderness generation were disloyal and rebellious and Yahweh declaring that they were a paradigm of loyalty and faith; Yahweh declaring that he may be offered sacrifices at any altar and Yahweh declaring that there is only one altar where sacrifices are to be offered up; Yahweh declaring that the people saw him at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that they only heard his voice; Yahweh declaring that circumcision is an eternal covenant and keeping the land depends on observing this very commandment and Yahweh declaring the Mosaic laws as the covenant and keeping the land is dependent on keeping these laws; Yahweh declaring that he dwells in the midst of the people and Yahweh declaring that he only resides in heaven; Yahweh commanding Passover to be celebrated by all at Jerusalem and Yahweh commanding it to be celebrated at each person’s home; Yahweh commanding that animals for consumption must be ritually sacrificed and Yahweh commanding that they don’t have to be sacrificed ritually, etc. ***one must conclude that Yahweh is being used by these authors, each with their own contrary views and beliefs as a spokesperson for each of these authors’ agendas.*** These are all the personal, and competing, views, theological beliefs, and religious systems of our biblical authors. And this is only the tip of the iceberg." *"Studying the Bible"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
I detest philosophy. I am a right brained vertical slotter Engineer. However, its nice ( nice as in precise) to hear a biblical scholar apply philosophy to apologists misusing logic 👍. I have no idea if that makes sense, cos I am a simple person 😂
