I'm a physics professor and a faithful Catholic. The idea that science and Catholicism are at odds is so absurd to me that I wouldn't even know where to begin to address this position. The later Wittgenstein did a good job at showing why many philosophical problems are just linguistic misunderstandings, and, in my opinion, pretty much dissolves the science vs Catholicism debate.
I would respectfully have to disagree with your stance. Modern science most definitely are at odds with that of theology and God. This is because modern science has completely diverged into a secular field. It has been divorced from its origins when it used to be synonymous of natural philosophy and the study of the Book of Nature. Catholicism doesn’t have the greatest history of being tolerant with new scientific ideas, look at Galileo and his oppression from the Catholic Church against his worldview of the world systems. He was considered a heretic until he was shown to have been correct. Look at your modern university science courses in biology, I was required to take evolution for my biology major. We learned of a common ancestor, and secular creation stories. It was antithetical to the story of Genesis, completely at odds with the Christian worldview of creation. In conclusion, Galileo was a man of God who sought after truth. He was the father of science, but it has evolved. Modern science has diverged drastically from the renaissance , the western Christian origins they came from. So “modern science” is at odds with Christ. If you think science is about finding the truth through the scientific method then you’re stuck in the 1700s in a time when there was a revival of Greek thought and scientific exploration, seeking after Gods creation. Now in 2024, science has a new meaning, it is secular, anti-Christ, antithetical to Christianity. The Christian scientists are laughed out of the field, look at what happens to creationists like Stephen Meyer.
The Bible describes a flat Earth with a solid dome covering it. This was the standard cosmology of the ancient Near East. So, you would be wrong. Look up the below from a Biblical scholar: *"Genesis 1:9-10 - God Creates Dry Land not the Planet Earth!"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
@hephaestusfortarier249 it is possible to interpret the Bible in a way that is at odds with science. However, we don't have to interpret it that way. And in fact the CCC teaches that faith and science cannot contradict each other as truth can't contradict truth. Regarding evolution there is eg. theistic evolution which harmonizes science and Christianity.
I remember being in high school thinking that both were incompatible, i'm only 26 now but i consider myself to be highly successful in what i work at which is computer engineering. Digging dip into my career has only made me more of a Theist and drove me to Christianity.
A very good appraisal. Prof Lennox is a gentleman and a scholar and has done so much to advance Christian education and to get it through to those who otherwise may be totally bereft of that kind of education, especially many quite well-educated people indoctrinated from a young age by the cult of scientism. Growing up with no Christian education makes you very unwise to the world and without that biblical wisdom to rely upon totally at sea when life's hard challenges come.
Thank you so much for this Elisabeth! I have been influenced by the books of Professor Lennox for some time. I haven't read this one yet but I now certainly intend to do so. I think that part of the problem is when science is elevated to "scientism" which tends to make science into an all embracing category that cannot be questioned and therefore is viewed as the ultimate answer to everything.. On a more light hearted note I remember being amused by a quote I saw once on a Church notice board that said: "God doesn't believe in atheists." Once again thank you for all that you do. Your videos are such a blessing! God be with you now and always. 🙂🙏
Great review Elizabeth! Such a dense topic to cover. It brings about a bible verse I carry with me " He gave medical knowledge to human beings, so that we would praise him for the miracles he performs" Sirach 38:6. P.S: you had me smiling at a book rating of 9.35807 :)
@@BiblicalBookworm If you say we eat bcoz we are hungry , one can ask why are we created being eating beings , or like this? ... The scientist refers to unknown creator? Anyways, I can't wait for your next episode 🙏
@@richardlaiche8303 The untreated Creator designed us this way in sovereign authority, but no one can explain why ... thru evolution, logic or experimental knowledge .
Science is beautiful; it deserves to be loved for itself, as it is a reflection of God's creative thought" Lemaitre 😮❤ thank you Elizabeth for your explanation about science and religion
It has to be said a zillion times: science is a particular method to gain knowledge and we are far away to know everything. To know the origin of the Universe and another zillion things, and maybe we won't ever know. But to believers is almost impossible to cope with this.
I'm not sure what you mean. The point of this video is that science does not aim to answer all questions, it only aims at answering scientific questions
@@BiblicalBookworm First of all, I appreciate your response. If science as a method deals with the natural, observable world. What kind of questions would be outside the human knowledge ?. Maybe the human knowledge will never know what's really inside a black hole. But I guess you mean other kind of things ?
@@juancarlosv5136 Natural sciences aim at answering particular questions about nature. Philosophy for example, aims at answering completely different questions like what is love and what types of love are there. Philosophy also discusses ethics. Theology is often considered a subcategory of philosophy as it answers similar questions and approaches them similarly. You might have heard before that "God is love". While the natural sciences can tell us what hormones are present in the body when we love, they can't tell us what it means to act lovingly or what the concept "love" is. Similarly, the natural sciences can't discuss what ethical behaviour is. In that sense, the natural sciences and philosophy/theology don't compete with each other as explanations of reality.
@@BiblicalBookworm Your exposition is very didactive and mainly I agree with you. But pushing things a little bit further, it has been said that philosophy sinks when it goes freely without considering natural sciences. If we go to the past and think about the kind of things and conclusions arisen from philosophy when scientific knowledge was almost inexistent ... I can well understand the aims of the different disciplines that you mentioned but reality is just one thing, even if we can (like?) to see different facets from it (sorry for my english it's not my first language)
@@BiblicalBookworm science and religion have nothing in common. Nothing One is about faith, the other is about evidence, investigation, testing, falsification, and peer review. What you said about science requiring faith isn’t true. What you’re doing here is you are conflating two different uses of the word faith. When it comes to math, I don’t need faith to believe that 3+3 = 6. When it comes to science, I don’t need faith to believe in gravity, when gravity has been proven over and over again in a myriad of different ways. Also, what you said about how amazing it is that math is able to understand the universe; why is this amazing? You do realize that the reason that math was invented in the first place was to help us understand the world and the universe. If math was invented to help us understand the world and the universe, then why would it be amazing that math does exactly what it was invented to do? Does it also amaze you that sledgehammers are good at knocking down walls, even though that’s what they were designed to do? Does it amaze you that refrigerators are good at keeping food cold, even though that’s what they were designed to do? You do understand that our brains are made of the exact same stuff that the universe is made of (atoms). So why is it so hard to believe that our brain can understand the universe when our brains are made of exact same stuff the universe is made of? Science and religion are polar opposites. Let’s look at a few things that are in the Bible, and you tell me how scientific these things are: -The planet earth being created in six days -Talking snake - Talking Donkey -Talking bushes - Man living in the belly of a whale - A virgin getting pregnant and giving birth - people living to be 900 years old -people walking on water -A person dying and then coming back to live three days later This is just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on. Now, on the other hand, let’s look at a few things that science has discovered over the last three centuries that are NOT mentioned in the Bible: -Gravity -Germs -Molecules and atoms -Other solar systems, and galaxies. -The speed of light -Photosynthesis -Laws of nature Long story short, the Bible is not a science book. I would also like to say, with respect to your gender, the Bible is not a pro woman book. All you have to do is read the Old Testament to see that. Science is about evidence and testing; religion is about faith. The two do not comport with each other.
@@AtlasBookkeeping Thank you for addressing these important topics! I agree with you on more points than you might suspect, and the points where we disagree are likely due to misunderstandings, so let me try to clarify: 1. Regarding science requiring faith: you’re right, we don’t need faith to believe that scientific facts are true, and I didn’t say anything like that in the video. What scientists need faith for is to believe that human brains are actually capable of recognizing truth. They also need to have faith that the universe is comprehensible/that solutions can be found. 2. To say that “math was invented in the first place to help us understand the world and the universe” is at best partially true. People still debate whether math was invented or discovered. Either way, the fascinating thing about the applicability of math to science is that oftentimes discoveries which were made in math for the sole sake of math are applicable to the real world (eg. complex numbers). 3. Not everything in the Bible can be interpreted literally. 4. Regarding people rising from the dead the question arises whether miracles are possible. I will make a video about that in the future. 5. You are right, the Bible is not a science book. 6. I’m not sure which passages in the Old Testament about women you are referring to but what I can say is that the Bible contains difficult passages for both genders. If there were no such difficult passages it would seem a lot like the Bible was made up by humans to feel better. And if the Bible only contained passages that were uncomfortable for women that again would seem a lot like it was made up by men to suppress women. 7. Both science and religion contain reasonable and complementary explanations of reality. Therefore, the two can comport with each other.
@@BiblicalBookworm I mean it’s just so compact with so much information that’s why but I love that in “can science explain everything” his Irish wit and personality is written in it. The other is just mostly information. And some wit.
Greetings Lady Elizabeth, Key Thoughts :- -> Review Insights highlights that, "Science is Simple Appreciation and Subtle Interpretation of Creation by God Almighty in all aspects." -> Amused by review with Scientific thoughts on God's Creation in creative way in every aspects. -> Thanks. Good. With regards, Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
@@BiblicalBookworm Im just meme-ing at the general state of contemporary people who worship science and hold it as the axiom of morality. These utilitarian types
@@BiblicalBookworm i believe I made that comment early on the video with regards to your atheist colleague proposing the objection. I dont mean anything by it just meme-ing, God bless you!
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
One of my hobbies is reading Biblical Hebrew. It was my "covid project" lol. I've gotten quite good at it and went over Genesis with a fine tooth comb! I was amazed to see how much overlap there is with other Near Eastern mythologies. It has made by faith in Catholicism so much stronger!
Isn’t it convenient for religion that anything supernatural, by definition cannot be tested, proven or disproven. In my humble opinion, why even give it a second thought if this is the case?
As John Lennox says; he cannot 'prove' to you that his Wife loves him. There's an experiential side to life... and for many people that's all that's needed for them to have faith.
@@StuartDesign John Lennox needs to stick to mathematics. You can definitely prove love exists by the actions of people in love. It’s a real thing, unlike deities. Try again.
It seems to me that there is some confusion between two related, but not the same, topics. Belief in God, and Christian faith. The resurrection was also to confirm to us the teaching of Jesus, but we absolutely do not need the resurrection to believe that God exists. The Scripture makes it very clear, in many places. Everyone, even who has never heard about Jesus, can and should recognize that God exists. - Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:20) Whoever denies God's existence, especially with the knowledge of the world we currently have, knowingly denies truth given to everyone. Even if we didn't have the resurrection, it wouldn't change a thing on sufficient reasons to believe in God, it's not a "game changer" in that point.
Hi. I have worked in a workplace whit to ateists and i never talked whit them like God never exist, i just talk to them like they know God exist, because they do, and they agreed that they knew God exist, it is just a mindgame, i think a bible teacher said that Romans 1 or 2 says that God has shown to them that He is real. Thank you
This discussion seems doomed out of the gate as "religion" doesn't really explain anything. Religion is a set of beliefs. There is philosophy of religion that tries to explain those beliefs, and there is science which could explain any religious claims that are testable, and so far is undefeated at refuting any its (rigorously) testable claims of miraculous phenomena, so I don't see how this discussion is even coherent.
Christianity had a demythologizing effect on ancient Paganism which made possible what we understand as "objectivity" today. And the pagans were by no means stupid! We're talking Aristotle and Plato here. They just couldn't get out of a certain way of seeing the cosmos as necessary. Stanley Jaki has done a lot of work in this field.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by 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
From my personal experience, science and the Bible are not compatible. The main point why they're not compatible is that the Bible makes promises that can be scientifically verified and don't produce the expected results. Repeatedly, throughout the Gospels, Jesus promised miraculous powers to all those who believe in Him. He explicitly stated, without any caveats other than faith, that believers will just have to believe that what they ask for they have received and it will be theirs. He explicitly stated that believers will be able to heal the sick and raise the dead just like He did. No believer has been able to pass the scientific test on this matter. No believer has been able to heal the sick and raise the dead in an organized, controlled study, that could be replicated and assessed via the scientific method. The numerous studies on intercessionary prayer offered conflicting results - some of the patients who were prayed for experiencing an improvement of their conditions while others a worsening of their illnesses.
@lucianseekinglove Healing is only given if it is God's will, and this is where many people, including Christians, make incorrect conclusions. You hear a lot about these instant healing preachers, and they are just there for the show. Instead, we should get to know Jesus better by having a devout relationship with Him, He is not a just quick dial 911, and afterward, we forget about Him.
@@0i7PX72Nga, that is not what Jesus said in the Bible. You're adding caveats that are simply not found in His teachings. Also, an omnipotent God who is able to stop suffering, but chooses not to, is not all-loving.
@lucianseekinglove I'm not adding anything, God has His own will, but we can ask Him anything, He gave us choice to choose good or bad, and if we choose wrongly, we have to learn it via suffering, you cannot have free will without suffering in the current world.
No person that loves you and has your best interest at heart would grant you every wish. This caveat does not need to be added explicitly as it follows logically.
@@BiblicalBookworm, no person who is not omnipotent. Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent person. He was the one who designed the consequences for every action. He could have designed the world in such a way that there are no bad consequences. He could have designed the world in such a way that we didn't need to learn anything, but rather be created with all the knowledge necessary for our autonomy. So, no, the caveat does not follow logically for an omnipotent being.
Funny how people attempting to debunk Genesis take it out of context wrt the original audience it was made known to, it's not a scientific account but an historical account- duh 😅
What does not comport to reality as we perceive it; we must deem false The claims of no known religion comports to reality. Ergo, they are all false,including Christianity
You think angels,men living in fish, rising from the dead, feeding 5000 with 2 x McFish burgers comports to reality as we understand it ??? There are several religions older than Christianity. Does that make them true???
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 I understand your concern. 1) some passages in the Bible must be interpreted metaphorically. 2) I agree, people rising from the dead is not normal everyday experience. But just because something isn't normal everyday experience doesn't mean it's not true. Time dilation and length contraction according to the special theory of relativity are not normal everyday experience either. Either way, thank you for raising this concern - as I see its relevance I'll make a video about it soon.
@@BiblicalBookworm But here's the thing. We don't actually know what reality is, we must depend on our senses as a close approximation. Our perception of reality excludes rising from the dead as much as it excludes time dilation (for the layman). So if we're logical, we should refute these Moreover, if you must believe the supernatural, you should believe such claims from all religions. Yet you don't. In fact, you probably wouldn't believe the exact same claims made in the bible, if they were made by another culture just a decade ago. It suggests we are bound by our upbringing, our childhood conditioning Of course, if we don't have to take biblical claims literally, we may summarily dismiss them as fiction, written by authors who wanted to manipulate readers into behaving in certain ways
I'm a physics professor and a faithful Catholic. The idea that science and Catholicism are at odds is so absurd to me that I wouldn't even know where to begin to address this position. The later Wittgenstein did a good job at showing why many philosophical problems are just linguistic misunderstandings, and, in my opinion, pretty much dissolves the science vs Catholicism debate.
I absolutely agree!
Cool!
I would respectfully have to disagree with your stance. Modern science most definitely are at odds with that of theology and God.
This is because modern science has completely diverged into a secular field. It has been divorced from its origins when it used to be synonymous of natural philosophy and the study of the Book of Nature. Catholicism doesn’t have the greatest history of being tolerant with new scientific ideas, look at Galileo and his oppression from the Catholic Church against his worldview of the world systems. He was considered a heretic until he was shown to have been correct.
Look at your modern university science courses in biology, I was required to take evolution for my biology major. We learned of a common ancestor, and secular creation stories. It was antithetical to the story of Genesis, completely at odds with the Christian worldview of creation.
In conclusion, Galileo was a man of God who sought after truth. He was the father of science, but it has evolved. Modern science has diverged drastically from the renaissance , the western Christian origins they came from. So “modern science” is at odds with Christ. If you think science is about finding the truth through the scientific method then you’re stuck in the 1700s in a time when there was a revival of Greek thought and scientific exploration, seeking after Gods creation. Now in 2024, science has a new meaning, it is secular, anti-Christ, antithetical to Christianity. The Christian scientists are laughed out of the field, look at what happens to creationists like Stephen Meyer.
The Bible describes a flat Earth with a solid dome covering it. This was the standard cosmology of the ancient Near East. So, you would be wrong.
Look up the below from a Biblical scholar:
*"Genesis 1:9-10 - God Creates Dry Land not the Planet Earth!"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
@hephaestusfortarier249 it is possible to interpret the Bible in a way that is at odds with science. However, we don't have to interpret it that way. And in fact the CCC teaches that faith and science cannot contradict each other as truth can't contradict truth. Regarding evolution there is eg. theistic evolution which harmonizes science and Christianity.
Pray for my sister, she has been astray for about 7 years now. Haven’t spoken or seen her since then. She is a prodigal, one day she will return. 🙏
I will pray for her! 🙏
I remember being in high school thinking that both were incompatible, i'm only 26 now but i consider myself to be highly successful in what i work at which is computer engineering. Digging dip into my career has only made me more of a Theist and drove me to Christianity.
💯
A very good appraisal. Prof Lennox is a gentleman and a scholar and has done so much to advance Christian education and to get it through to those who otherwise may be totally bereft of that kind of education, especially many quite well-educated people indoctrinated from a young age by the cult of scientism. Growing up with no Christian education makes you very unwise to the world and without that biblical wisdom to rely upon totally at sea when life's hard challenges come.
Thank you so much for this Elisabeth! I have been influenced by the books of Professor Lennox for some time. I haven't read this one yet but I now certainly intend to do so.
I think that part of the problem is when science is elevated to "scientism" which tends to make science into an all embracing category that cannot be questioned and therefore is viewed as the ultimate answer to everything..
On a more light hearted note I remember being amused by a quote I saw once on a Church notice board that said: "God doesn't believe in atheists."
Once again thank you for all that you do. Your videos are such a blessing!
God be with you now and always. 🙂🙏
I discovered Prof. Lennox recently and now I'm a huge fan!
God bless you too!
I love your channel. Thank you for doing this episode. Please continue your ministry.😊
I'm happy to hear that, thank you!
Great review Elizabeth! Such a dense topic to cover. It brings about a bible verse I carry with me " He gave medical knowledge to human beings, so that we would praise him for the miracles he performs" Sirach 38:6. P.S: you had me smiling at a book rating of 9.35807 :)
Glad you liked it! 😊
John lennox is the tallest Christian figure in the 21st century. A modern prophet of our times.
I really like him too! He's truly an inspiration!
Science can explain the nutritional content of my meal, but can't explain why do we eat in the first place.
Brilliant review, Elisa as usual.
I'd say it can also explain why we eat but it can't explain why eg. a particular cake was baked 🙃
@@BiblicalBookworm
If you say we eat bcoz we are hungry , one can ask why are we created being eating beings , or like this? ... The scientist refers to unknown creator?
Anyways, I can't wait for your next episode 🙏
@@richardlaiche8303
The untreated Creator designed us this way in sovereign authority, but no one can explain why ... thru evolution, logic or experimental knowledge .
Science is beautiful; it deserves to be loved for itself, as it is a reflection of God's creative thought" Lemaitre 😮❤ thank you Elizabeth for your explanation about science and religion
Thank you for sharing this beautiful quote!
You're awesome! I'm so glad I found your channel. Please keep doing what you're doing. May God bless you.
Thank you! Welcome to the channel! God bless you too!
A fantastic explanation, so philosophically deep!
Glad you liked it!
great job
Thank you! 😊
It has to be said a zillion times: science is a particular method to gain knowledge and we are far away to know everything. To know the origin of the Universe and another zillion things, and maybe we won't ever know. But to believers is almost impossible to cope with this.
I'm not sure what you mean. The point of this video is that science does not aim to answer all questions, it only aims at answering scientific questions
@@BiblicalBookworm First of all, I appreciate your response. If science as a method deals with the natural, observable world. What kind of questions would be outside the human knowledge ?. Maybe the human knowledge will never know what's really inside a black hole. But I guess you mean other kind of things ?
@@juancarlosv5136 Natural sciences aim at answering particular questions about nature. Philosophy for example, aims at answering completely different questions like what is love and what types of love are there. Philosophy also discusses ethics.
Theology is often considered a subcategory of philosophy as it answers similar questions and approaches them similarly. You might have heard before that "God is love". While the natural sciences can tell us what hormones are present in the body when we love, they can't tell us what it means to act lovingly or what the concept "love" is. Similarly, the natural sciences can't discuss what ethical behaviour is.
In that sense, the natural sciences and philosophy/theology don't compete with each other as explanations of reality.
@@BiblicalBookworm Your exposition is very didactive and mainly I agree with you. But pushing things a little bit further, it has been said that philosophy sinks when it goes freely without considering natural sciences. If we go to the past and think about the kind of things and conclusions arisen from philosophy when scientific knowledge was almost inexistent ... I can well understand the aims of the different disciplines that you mentioned but reality is just one thing, even if we can (like?) to see different facets from it (sorry for my english it's not my first language)
@@juancarlosv5136 I agree!
Absolutely amazing the number of fallacies that were made in this video.
Please elaborate
@@BiblicalBookworm science and religion have nothing in common. Nothing
One is about faith, the other is about evidence, investigation, testing, falsification, and peer review.
What you said about science requiring faith isn’t true. What you’re doing here is you are conflating two different uses of the word faith.
When it comes to math, I don’t need faith to believe that 3+3 = 6.
When it comes to science, I don’t need faith to believe in gravity, when gravity has been proven over and over again in a myriad of different ways.
Also, what you said about how amazing it is that math is able to understand the universe; why is this amazing?
You do realize that the reason that math was invented in the first place was to help us understand the world and the universe.
If math was invented to help us understand the world and the universe, then why would it be amazing that math does exactly what it was invented to do?
Does it also amaze you that sledgehammers are good at knocking down walls, even though that’s what they were designed to do?
Does it amaze you that refrigerators are good at keeping food cold, even though that’s what they were designed to do?
You do understand that our brains are made of the exact same stuff that the universe is made of (atoms).
So why is it so hard to believe that our brain can understand the universe when our brains are made of exact same stuff the universe is made of?
Science and religion are polar opposites.
Let’s look at a few things that are in the Bible, and you tell me how scientific these things are:
-The planet earth being created in six days
-Talking snake
- Talking Donkey
-Talking bushes
- Man living in the belly of a whale
- A virgin getting pregnant and giving birth
- people living to be 900 years old
-people walking on water
-A person dying and then coming back to live three days later
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on.
Now, on the other hand, let’s look at a few things that science has discovered over the last three centuries that are NOT mentioned in the Bible:
-Gravity
-Germs
-Molecules and atoms
-Other solar systems, and galaxies.
-The speed of light
-Photosynthesis
-Laws of nature
Long story short, the Bible is not a science book.
I would also like to say, with respect to your gender, the Bible is not a pro woman book.
All you have to do is read the Old Testament to see that.
Science is about evidence and testing; religion is about faith. The two do not comport with each other.
@@AtlasBookkeeping Thank you for addressing these important topics! I agree with you on more points than you might suspect, and the points where we disagree are likely due to misunderstandings, so let me try to clarify:
1. Regarding science requiring faith: you’re right, we don’t need faith to believe that scientific facts are true, and I didn’t say anything like that in the video. What scientists need faith for is to believe that human brains are actually capable of recognizing truth. They also need to have faith that the universe is comprehensible/that solutions can be found.
2. To say that “math was invented in the first place to help us understand the world and the universe” is at best partially true. People still debate whether math was invented or discovered. Either way, the fascinating thing about the applicability of math to science is that oftentimes discoveries which were made in math for the sole sake of math are applicable to the real world (eg. complex numbers).
3. Not everything in the Bible can be interpreted literally.
4. Regarding people rising from the dead the question arises whether miracles are possible. I will make a video about that in the future.
5. You are right, the Bible is not a science book.
6. I’m not sure which passages in the Old Testament about women you are referring to but what I can say is that the Bible contains difficult passages for both genders. If there were no such difficult passages it would seem a lot like the Bible was made up by humans to feel better. And if the Bible only contained passages that were uncomfortable for women that again would seem a lot like it was made up by men to suppress women.
7. Both science and religion contain reasonable and complementary explanations of reality. Therefore, the two can comport with each other.
I love that book very simple and straight to the point but I definitely prefer God’s undertaker Has science buried God? Also by John Lennox
Really? I'm currently reading that one and I liked "can science explain everything" a lot better!
@@BiblicalBookworm I mean it’s just so compact with so much information that’s why but I love that in “can science explain everything” his Irish wit and personality is written in it. The other is just mostly information. And some wit.
Hi Elisabeth, have you seen miracles like healing and people raised from dead and so om!!!!!!! Thank you
No. By definition miracles are the exception and not the rule. If they happened often they wouldn't be miracles 🙃
I have seen!
You're very charming ☺️ glad I found you. God bless!
Thank you! God bless you too!
More specifically, epistemology, science, and psychology when honestly understood are irreconcilable with the belief in god
Please corraborate your assertion with logic or credible sources.
Greetings Lady Elizabeth,
Key Thoughts :-
-> Review Insights highlights that, "Science is Simple Appreciation and Subtle Interpretation of Creation by God Almighty in all aspects."
-> Amused by review with Scientific thoughts on God's Creation in creative way in every aspects.
-> Thanks. Good.
With regards,
Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Would recommend the will to believe by Willam James
Intriguing title, thank you for the recommendation!
Wonderful video thank you! Science nerds are lame
Why lame? Did you really mean to use the word lame here?
@@BiblicalBookworm Im just meme-ing at the general state of contemporary people who worship science and hold it as the axiom of morality. These utilitarian types
@@BiblicalBookworm i believe I made that comment early on the video with regards to your atheist colleague proposing the objection. I dont mean anything by it just meme-ing, God bless you!
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
One of my hobbies is reading Biblical Hebrew. It was my "covid project" lol. I've gotten quite good at it and went over Genesis with a fine tooth comb! I was amazed to see how much overlap there is with other Near Eastern mythologies. It has made by faith in Catholicism so much stronger!
Isn’t it convenient for religion that anything supernatural, by definition cannot be tested, proven or disproven. In my humble opinion, why even give it a second thought if this is the case?
As John Lennox says; he cannot 'prove' to you that his Wife loves him. There's an experiential side to life... and for many people that's all that's needed for them to have faith.
@@StuartDesign John Lennox needs to stick to mathematics. You can definitely prove love exists by the actions of people in love. It’s a real thing, unlike deities. Try again.
If you have faith, it's because you want to believe. Afterwards you try to rationalize and justify your believes
It seems to me that there is some confusion between two related, but not the same, topics. Belief in God, and Christian faith. The resurrection was also to confirm to us the teaching of Jesus, but we absolutely do not need the resurrection to believe that God exists. The Scripture makes it very clear, in many places. Everyone, even who has never heard about Jesus, can and should recognize that God exists.
- Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:20)
Whoever denies God's existence, especially with the knowledge of the world we currently have, knowingly denies truth given to everyone. Even if we didn't have the resurrection, it wouldn't change a thing on sufficient reasons to believe in God, it's not a "game changer" in that point.
I agree!
i recommend to watch deepak chopra
Who is that?
Why? Isn't he deep in new age?
Hi. I have worked in a workplace whit to ateists and i never talked whit them like God never exist, i just talk to them like they know God exist, because they do, and they agreed that they knew God exist, it is just a mindgame, i think a bible teacher said that Romans 1 or 2 says that God has shown to them that He is real. Thank you
I understand where you're coming from. However, for many people God's existence is far from obvious.
This discussion seems doomed out of the gate as "religion" doesn't really explain anything. Religion is a set of beliefs. There is philosophy of religion that tries to explain those beliefs, and there is science which could explain any religious claims that are testable, and so far is undefeated at refuting any its (rigorously) testable claims of miraculous phenomena, so I don't see how this discussion is even coherent.
I just think it's important that we talk about how the foundations of western science was laid by The Catholic Church. Our history is being forgotten.
💯
Christianity had a demythologizing effect on ancient Paganism which made possible what we understand as "objectivity" today. And the pagans were by no means stupid! We're talking Aristotle and Plato here. They just couldn't get out of a certain way of seeing the cosmos as necessary. Stanley Jaki has done a lot of work in this field.
This has nothing to do with the gods and speculations of the bible🎉
Have you watched the video?
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by 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 am familiar with much of this scholarship which is precisely why I am a faithful Catholic.
From my personal experience, science and the Bible are not compatible. The main point why they're not compatible is that the Bible makes promises that can be scientifically verified and don't produce the expected results. Repeatedly, throughout the Gospels, Jesus promised miraculous powers to all those who believe in Him. He explicitly stated, without any caveats other than faith, that believers will just have to believe that what they ask for they have received and it will be theirs. He explicitly stated that believers will be able to heal the sick and raise the dead just like He did. No believer has been able to pass the scientific test on this matter. No believer has been able to heal the sick and raise the dead in an organized, controlled study, that could be replicated and assessed via the scientific method. The numerous studies on intercessionary prayer offered conflicting results - some of the patients who were prayed for experiencing an improvement of their conditions while others a worsening of their illnesses.
@lucianseekinglove Healing is only given if it is God's will, and this is where many people, including Christians, make incorrect conclusions. You hear a lot about these instant healing preachers, and they are just there for the show. Instead, we should get to know Jesus better by having a devout relationship with Him, He is not a just quick dial 911, and afterward, we forget about Him.
@@0i7PX72Nga, that is not what Jesus said in the Bible. You're adding caveats that are simply not found in His teachings. Also, an omnipotent God who is able to stop suffering, but chooses not to, is not all-loving.
@lucianseekinglove I'm not adding anything, God has His own will, but we can ask Him anything, He gave us choice to choose good or bad, and if we choose wrongly, we have to learn it via suffering, you cannot have free will without suffering in the current world.
No person that loves you and has your best interest at heart would grant you every wish. This caveat does not need to be added explicitly as it follows logically.
@@BiblicalBookworm, no person who is not omnipotent. Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent person. He was the one who designed the consequences for every action. He could have designed the world in such a way that there are no bad consequences. He could have designed the world in such a way that we didn't need to learn anything, but rather be created with all the knowledge necessary for our autonomy. So, no, the caveat does not follow logically for an omnipotent being.
Funny how people attempting to debunk Genesis take it out of context wrt the original audience it was made known to, it's not a scientific account but an historical account- duh 😅
What does not comport to reality as we perceive it; we must deem false
The claims of no known religion comports to reality. Ergo, they are all false,including Christianity
In what way does Christianity not comport to reality as we perceive it? If Christianity didn't comport to reality it wouldn't have lasted 2000+ years
You think angels,men living in fish, rising from the dead, feeding 5000 with 2 x McFish burgers comports to reality as we understand it ???
There are several religions older than Christianity. Does that make them true???
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 I understand your concern. 1) some passages in the Bible must be interpreted metaphorically. 2) I agree, people rising from the dead is not normal everyday experience. But just because something isn't normal everyday experience doesn't mean it's not true. Time dilation and length contraction according to the special theory of relativity are not normal everyday experience either.
Either way, thank you for raising this concern - as I see its relevance I'll make a video about it soon.
@@BiblicalBookworm But here's the thing. We don't actually know what reality is, we must depend on our senses as a close approximation. Our perception of reality excludes rising from the dead as much as it excludes time dilation (for the layman). So if we're logical, we should refute these
Moreover, if you must believe the supernatural, you should believe such claims from all religions. Yet you don't. In fact, you probably wouldn't believe the exact same claims made in the bible, if they were made by another culture just a decade ago. It suggests we are bound by our upbringing, our childhood conditioning
Of course, if we don't have to take biblical claims literally, we may summarily dismiss them as fiction, written by authors who wanted to manipulate readers into behaving in certain ways