How To Debate A Christian Fundamentalist? Start By Asking Do Christians Even Read Their Own Bible?
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 12. 2023
- Christian fundamentalists love to debate with non believers based on that literal Bible. But do they even know their own Bible? I spent twelve years in Christian education and here is what I knew at the end of the day.
If you would like to read a novel about what I think the Apocalypse would be like if Christ ever returned (a tale the fundamentalist will despise) click the link below. And may God bless you---just not the God that floods an entire world.
THE SECOND FALL. By Charles Hurst
www.amazon.com/SECOND-FALL-Ch...
Thanks for watching and don't forget to smash that bell like I smash the Evangelical. For a tale I admit is fiction, check out THE SECOND FALL. The offbeat Armageddon sure to offend the fundamentalist and maybe everyone else. www.amazon.com/SECOND-FALL-Charles-Hurst/dp/B08RR9SJFM
The moment you realise that The Earth is Flat you will no longer be an atheist.
The retarded spinning ball Earth was a massive globalist conspiracy against the Holy Scripture in order
to make Christians look like lunatics.
You better wake up and stop promoting Satanism.
@@CheckmateSurvivor What a complete and utter moron.
@@CheckmateSurvivorEarth's circumference was first accurately measured more than 2,000 years ago by the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes, who at the time lived in the Egyptian city of Alexandria.
@@derekallen4568 His experiment can also prove the Flat Earth.
Next question.
As a child, you have a difficult time accepting that there's no Santa Claus.
As an adult........
I attended a small Christian college for part of my undergrad. The process starts with the assumption of literal Biblical truth, and everything flows from that, so that the questions are shaped for the outcome.
My father is a fundamentalist preacher. Unlike many, he doesn't do topical sermons, but actually goes through a book like a weekly bible study. For example, one week he might do like Romans chapter 1, then the next week the first few verses of chapter 2, and then the rest of the chapter the week after. And he would pick a secondary text, usually from the opposite testament (so, in this example, Romans is NT, so the other text would be OT), that he thinks clarifies the meaning or relates in some way. he wouldn't necessarily do the books in order, so after Romans, the next book might be Job, or whatever, but by the time I became an atheist at around 23 or 24, I'm reasonably certain I had been exposed to every book of the protestant bible, many of them multiple times.
Later, at around 30 years old, I started reading through it from the beginning, but only made it around half way (I think I had just finished Isaiah) before I lost interest.
The problem with my father's way of doing it so piecemeal is that you forget a lot of the context between sermons. Then it's not that hard to find another passage elsewhere and co-opt its context under the guise of putting the main text into the context of the whole bible in order to make it fit your narrative.
Religions are all framed on one template. I present, Moses from Exodus and Jason from Greek Argonautica. Just a few easy steps from a vast network of these.
1. Calling - Both saved as kids.
2. Cyclical pain - Harpies defile Phineas' food daily. Egypt has ten plagues.
3. Supernatural Aid - Jason gets magical help from Goddess Hera. Moses to Mt Horeb to talk to Yahweh and gets the magical staff.
4. Struggle to leave past - Jason and Island of Old Gods. Moses and Pharaoh. Both leave but are chased.
5. Crossing of the Threshold - Jason invokes a Gods help to sail through the clashing Rocks. Moses invokes Gods help to run through the Red Sea. Both barely get through.
Etc.
The Bible is framed on a common template which predates anything Jewish. Most carry the Ark. A few look inside. How well do people know the Bible? Only a few know its true secrets. They might as well worship Zeus and await the return of Jason. Or worship Krishna and await the return of Arjuna. Or use the Force and await Luke's return in modern times.
More current? How about Jesus and Arthur.
Jesus was 'called' as being the only son of God, had 'supernatural powers,' traveled with 'handpicked disciples,' and instructs to seek the 'Kingdom of Heaven Within.'
Arthur was 'called' as the only one who could get Excalibur, had Merlin for 'supernatural powers,' traveled with handpicked, 'Knights,' and seeks 'The Holy Grail.
now that's a comment--cheers,DCF
Reading the bible cover to cover is hard. I don't mean it's difficult. I mean it's a significant time investment that the vast majority of Christians (or most anyone for that matter) aren't willing to commit. I know that's the reason I never read it cover to cover when I was a Christian; and, I must admit, why I still haven't now, as an atheist.
Same, honestly who wants to bother reading through the Pentateuch with all the genealogies and laws about cattle to learn verses for debate when Christians will just pull out the “out of context” card. The only time it’s really useful to learn verses is when trying to show how the god of the Bible is metaphysically or morally inconsistent.
I found that as well long ago so did three pages a day until it was done and scribbled periodic notes. Cheers, DCF
I learned more on the Bible by the Internet then reading one so far and also do know ones that fully read the whole Bible becomes atheist.
People calling themselves Christian don’t want to learn the Bible. Truth can be very elusive and change for a person with study.
They trust their clergy to deliver the truth to them. Get this, I came across a book one time in a ReStore, that claimed Christians HAD to pick and choose the right verses from the Bible. I didn't remember the title, but it said something about "the truth of Christianity" on the back.
@@hitkid2456 they remain selective and only talk about the scriptures that suit their purpose.
My main question about Fundamentalist Christians is which one claims to speak the true word of the Bible? With over 200 denominations in America alone and thousands more globally it leaves you slightly flummoxed to say the very least.
Every. Single. One. Believes they have the true, inspired vision from God, and all of the others are mistaken. Some think it’s just a trivial matter of theology, and the only thing that matters is accepting Jesus. Others straight up believe the other 95% of Christians are also going to hell.
Apparently there are similar disagreements in the Muslim faith too.
The foundation of Christianity lies in the trinity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Every non heretical Christian denomination teaches that.
The difference between our denominations is the view on the importance, tradition and authority of the church aswell as minor details. Not a single non heretical church will teach you different meaning or message regarding Christianity
@@sweetnerevar7030 yes, because that doctrine was officially established in the 4th century. Funnily enough, it was reversed immediately after Constantine’s death, and then reversed back again.
Non heretical? 🤔
Just found you homie. Straight fire!
thanks much,DCF
This is such a great point! I've just started this journey myself on my channel. I'm reading the bible front to back so that I actually know what's in there (and doing in on video for anyone who actually wants to read along). There are stories I never knew and less detail in the stories I thought I knew!
CZcams doesn't like links unless they are from the creator but feel free to comment and let us know when you have a new episode. Guys--he is going verse by verse from beginning to end of the bible. Big undertaking and all could go through the whole bible with his own commentary at your leisure. Very sardonic. It's a start up channel so go support him. Cheers, DCF
This is a very kind comment, @@debunkingthefundamentalist! Thank you! I post every Sunday and Wednesday and post clips from each episode as shorts in between! :)
Thank you for checking it out!
Thank you for another great video. One small issue. I have had to stop watching the screen and just listen. This is because reading one thing and listening to another is difficult for me to do at the same time.
I try to keep that to a minimum few times a video for emphasis.cheers and thanks, DCF
I attended seminary while going to a Megachurch in northern Virginia. While studying the Bible, I would also go to apologist conferences hosted by the church. I would listen to so-called experts lie about key facts as they attempted to refute evolution, cosmology, and any other science that they had decided to brand as secular, while simultaneously lying about the scripture I was studying in other sections of that same church. It was extremely discouraging.
If one studies Jonah, why is it that Jonah after being swallowed by a whale (word did not exist in that culture), Jonah immediately after this occurs, mentions no actual fish in his prayer? After doing research, I found out that by using the same words, one can see a something very different. We did not write the stories, or even compile the bible, so reading these stories without knowing the writing styles, genre, etc, can become a foolish endeavor.
Could you clarify "we did not write the stories or compile the bible"--I didn't quite get that part of what you meant by "we"
Because it was a prophecy of Jesys going down to hell.
@@debunkingthefundamentalist talk about long delay...when I say "we did not write the stories", means that no one who reads and tries to interpret these stories in our modern lens cannot understand a text, merely by reading it, especially if they are not the ones who never came up with the text or stories in the first place. The great flood was taken from the Gilgamesh Epic, which itself was taken from a larger creation, the Atrahasis Epic. If one takes these stories literally, then one claims to have hidden knowledge, or themselves are the original authors of these stories which is absurd.
No they dont want to reaserch the bible or its origins, etc. They believe it on emotions, not rational reasons.
Found the guy who says the exact opposite of what's true.
@@SalvableRuin your gods don't exist. If you actually researched it instead of believing in it because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, you'd see that
@@frozentspark2105“it’s not real because I said so“
Go on, being out your misunderstanding and strawman verses to proof your believe of atheism
@@sweetnerevar7030 atheism isn't a belief you idiot. It's literally not believing in a god. That's it. You've obviously watched one CZcams video and tried to use what you saw to argue.. problem is, you don't know what any of the words you're using actually means.
@@SalvableRuinNo, it's definitely true. It's an internally inconsistent mish mash of various writings. A god would not be that sloppy.
Before I became a Christian, I knew almost nothing about what was in the Bible. I went to church occasionally but not often. When I accepted Jesus, I bought a KJV Bible and read the New Testament straight through and then the entire Bible straight through. Later, I bought a concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary and spent years learning what words were translated to English. I have read the Bible straight through 20 times including 3 times in a 1611 KJV Bible with Apocrypha. I have read many extra-Biblical books like Enoch and the Didache as well as other writings of the early church. I have complained that ministers often don't know their Bible as they should.
There will always be some issues regarding translation because you can't always find a perfect corresponding word but the KJV does a good job. There are not all of the contradictions unbelievers claim. In most cases they are things taken out of context or just misinterpretations. I am more convinced God is real and my Bible is reliable than ever before but I have less faith in so-called experts.
As to how the Bible was created, I reject much of what historians claim. Historians and scientists are often wrong or dishonest because they have an agenda. I fully trust my Bible but I only trust a Bible that began with the Textus Receptus as its basis. By all means, begin to debunk me by asking if I ever read the Bible.
Have you seen how the KJV Bible is mathematically encoded?
@@thevulture5750 I know there are a lot of people teaching about a Bible code. I am not sure what to make about those claims, but I fully trust my KJV Bible. It was translated from the Textus Receptus manuscripts which were the ones trusted as scripture. It is very close to the Geneva Bible, with the exception of controversial footnotes in the Geneva Bible. Of the modern translations, the only one that uses the Textus Receptus as its foundation is the New King James Bible. I know enough about the KJV Bible to have full confidence in it and since I have also read and compared it to the 1611 KJV, I see the Authorized version as faithful to the original, but with modern spelling.
@@jbutero1 The KJV I'm referring to is the updated spelling of 1769.
Example: Christ occurs 555 times in the KJV Bible.
The word truth occurs 235 times.
√555 is 23.5
The mathematical structure shows that it is perfect from God.
@@thevulture5750 You taught me something I didn't know. Thanks. 👍
@@jbutero1Look for a video called "thy word be verified" from a channel called Truth is Christ
The best question to ask, actually for all of us, is how can we actually know that something spiritual is true or not? Whether you look at NDEs, talk to people that have visions and dreams, or possibly even heavenly visitations, ot talk to people that consider the Bible and their understanding of it to be inerrant, they still all end up with different truths.. So, how do people truly know that their interpretation of truth is true? Using the scriptures obviously does not work, or elese everyone believing in the inerrancy of the Bible should be one in understanding.
So, when we keep asking the question how someone knows, it will become sooner or later evident how well he actually can discern spiritual truth from deception.. I think there is only one way we can know, and the fun thing is that the Bible even teaches it, but it certainly has not much to do with a perfect, doctrinal understanding, to some exctent not even with faith, but rather with something that gives value to everything we are and do.
Forget trying to learn the “original Hebrew,” let’s not forget the Gospels were all written in highly-educated Greek, not Aramaic, at least 40 years after the death of Jesus.
The Latin Vulgate is the closest translation to The Great Uncial Codacies which are our oldest, complete copies of the Bible, dating to the late 4th century CE.
That was interesting. My father went to Catholic school growing up and I had no idea what they did or didn't teach him about religion.
I'm not surprised that most Christians haven't read the Bible from cover to cover. I tried to read the Bible like that once, and found that I couldn't get past the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Beyond that I remember some of the stories I learned in church, and the interesting bits and pieces I have heard from atheist youtube. It goes without saying that I won't even pretend to KNOW the Bible.
I said in another reply--my way was to just do three pages a day. Cheers, DCF
Unspecified theist? That's a theist. Just say you're a theist. Why not spiritualist? All manner of supernatural belief holds the burden of proof for it's existence. Yet you have proven nothing. You are a theist if you rely on faith as your 'proof'. It doesn't matter what shade you are.
Interesting channel.
There is no original Hebrew script. Most of it was lost in the Hellenic period. The Talmudic era jews that rejected Christ translated much of the the scripture back from Greek. Most literate jews had greek as their firsts language for centuries.
Fair enough. The most original Hebrew script we have. As the Jews abandoned the Septuagint as a misuse of Holy Scriptures. Your comment is a good point in this grand debate.I had one challenge that the word in Isaiah 7:14 was correct (greek) and the Hebrews altered the word for virgin. Not the other way around. This is a response about the overall matter regarding Greek translation from one of my sources. Some like him and some hate him--Tovia Singer. He seemed to make sense to me---Cheers, DCF
czcams.com/video/3SxtDOfDbNs/video.html
And tgen they found the dead sea scrolls
And have almost the complete book of Isaiah in that I believe dated 200 BC but I have to check on that. Cheers, DCF
@debunkingthefundamentalist the Septuagint wasn't mistranslated. It was a work by jews fluent in Hebrew. Some words just don't go from Hebrew to Greek. But the Parthena was used and accepted for centuries prior to the New Testament. Either way she'd have been a virgin of she wasn't married. Jewish culture in 200bc or whatever year you want wouldn't have tolerated a young unmarried woman who wasn't a virgin as anything other than a whore.
I attended 12 years of Catholic school. 4 at a Jesuit high school. I was an atheist at 14. I read the entire Bible after I became an atheist. The Bible only solidified my position. Then senior year reading the New Testament in an elective class. It was not required.
A slogan at my school was ,'Attend xxxxx Jesuit School and you will become a devote christian or a strong atheist.'
Catholics may indeed believe that Adam & Eve were not actual human beings, but that's not the official position of the Church as stated here. A&E HAVE to be real because Original Sin is real. If it is merely symbolic, then Christ's death on the cross is also symbolic. That is NOT the Church's teaching. Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical in regards to the belief that A&E are only symbolic:
"Pope Pius XII addressed this question in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. He identifies this belief as a “conjectural opinion” and denies the children of the Church the liberty to hold such an opinion. His reason is it’s apparent inconsistency with the transmission of original sin:
'It is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (sec. 37).'"
As an aside, Catholics also believe that the house of Mary and Joseph now resides in Loreto, Italy. The Church holds that it is possible the house was transported there from Nazareth by angels. But, however it got there, it's definitely the real, actual House of Mary because Mary herself said in an apparition that it was indeed the house where Jesus was conceived.
Nonsense never ceases.
For well over 300 years (ever since Newton vs Leibniz) we have defined 0 and 1 (and their geometric counterparts) as follows:
0 = not-necessary
0D = not-necessary
1 = necessary
1D = necessary
(Newton won so above are his definitions. Newton conflated "natural" with "necessary" and was largely ignorant of Geometry.)
A year ago quantum physics proved that Leibniz was actually correct (the universe is "not locally real") which looks like this:
0 = necessary
0D = necessary
1= not-necessary
1D = not-necessary
Since Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology... the implications of the definitions of 0 and 1 changing are world altering.
"Only the zero-of yourself is necessary" is now a true statement (always has been). That's neat to think about.
A little over a year ago the zero-of yourself was not-necessary. See how the facts change over time? Newton really set humanity back with his conflated definitions.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
It's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space is the most important dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Quarks are zero-dimensional color-charged electricity and the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force; the hue-monad (or soul). Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖.
Black holes are ten-dimensional:
Zero is the only number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the only dimension with an event horizon through it.
So, has to include a 0. Got it.
0 and 10 are the first two times we encounter zero in the natural number system (1-9 are nonzero numbers). Their geometric counterparts 0D (quantum) and 10D (cosmological) would then be the event horizon boundaries of this side of the mirror universe.
Theology is Theos and Logos. That's El and Elohim.
El "alone" is on the other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself. Elohim "singularity" is on this side of the event horizon.
Elohim "singularity" is how we see God from this side.
(the event horizon stops us from seeing El)
See how Theology is the two sides of 0? That's the Holy Trinity just imagine an event horizon between El (top of pyramid) and Elohim (bottom of pyramid).
Genesis 1 Elohim (Father and Son "who are one") and Ruach Elohim (Holy Spirit) is the best possible hue-monad (soul). Quantum singularity.
They made the two types of quarks which this entire contingent and less real side of the zero-of ourselves universe is made of: two down, one up (male) and two up, one down (female).
Genesis 2 is a cosmological plurality named Yah Tsebaoth (Yaldabaoth) and that's our true enemy. He's playing all sides against one another and claiming to be God but he has no titles just his dumbass names and epithets (nicknames).
Amos 5
Names of God Bible
27 I will send you into exile beyond Damascus, says Yahweh, whose name is Elohe Tsebaoth.
Amos 5
King James Version
27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is The God of hosts.
OT:
Genesis 1 Elohim is a title.
Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim is a name.
NT:
Christ is a title.
Jesus Christ is a name (this is Yahweh Elohim).
Quran:
Ilah is a title.
Allah is a name. (Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 has 99 names in Islam).
Now that's a response. Cheers,DCF
i am an atheist but have always been interested to hear what people believe and the reasons they have for being convinced those beliefs are true. so far i have mostly only heared from jews, christians, muslims and hindu's but never really from someone who does believe there is a God, but doesnt subscribe to a specific religion. wich seems so much more reasonable to me. as i dont see how we can rule out the possibility of any God, while we definately can rule out specific versions of God people believe in. even tho i dont think lack of evidence against a claim is evidence for that claim. its still a lot more reasonable.
What a lot of people watching my channel don't realize is I want to be proven wrong and reconvert. I understand a lot more now Matt Dillahunty when he says the more you research the further you are away. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalistCheck out InspiringPhilosophy apologetics
You tell ANY believer to get the rest of the world's believers to agree on a SINGLE god, a SINGLE theology, and a SINGLE mythology, before any ONE of them arrogates to themselves to expect ANY non-believer (including those who believe in other gods entirely) to give a moment's credence to anything they have to say about their individual god beliefs. That's the ONLY response ANY of them should ever get.
You know we have the original Bible in Greek which is virtually identical with the oldest Torahs we have found, like the Dead Sea scroll.
The issues you mention are not because the Bible is untrue or anything, it’s because you lack an understanding of old Hebrew and specific wording much of which has changed over the years like with every language, old Greek which also has lots of caveats and especially the historical context of why and how wording was used. And I don’t blame you. Not everyone has the time to literally study a form of a language which isn’t used anymore. But ignorance is not an excuse to dismiss something
That's correct. I am not a scholar in Hebrew nor claimed to be. My video points are based on reading the ones who are. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist than you must be reading very biased scholars. Try to read christian scholars for a change (not saying they arent biased, but atleast get every perspective).
All those arguments you have listed existed since the very start of the Church itself and have been subject of scholarly works and debate for almost 2000 years now
I dived deeply into biblical scholarship, and what I noticed is that the Bible certainly does have mistakes, errors and inconsistencies. For example do we get certain Prophecies fulfilled according to the more modern greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which are not fulfilled though acording to the mor ancient, hebrew version. The dead sea scrolls basically have a difference in pretty much every single verse. Certainly most are just smaller issues, but we also get some bigger ones.
Probably around 50 of the New Testament manuscripts come from within 200 years of the life of Jesus Christ, but no two of them actually match eachother and no one of them excactly matches the text that is represented or preserved in that manuscript as we understand it today in one of our criticle texts.
So, its very likely that changes were introduced during that time period between the composition of the text and our earliest manuscript witness and for the majority of the New Testament they actually had over 200 years to do that.
So to me there is nothing that is perfect except for God, who equals love and truth (which is why to love means to know God, and why to know God means eternal life).. I do not expect the Bible to be inerrant and perfect in every sense, because the Bible itself never teaches it, and there are enough examples of mistakes and errors.. and yet I still can see how God can work through these weakneses to help people to "know God"..
Or as Paul put it, doctrinal understanding and knowing of God, aswell as works, faith, spiritual gifts and working miracles, does not mean people actually "know God"..
@@SimonDaumMusic True, but again most of those changes are wording. The overarching message will still stand unless you really really change wording like with some modern progressive study bibles
@@sweetnerevar7030 To believe that the Bible is true can mean a lot of different things to different people..
I certainly believe the Bible does contain deeper levels of truth, but also can see and admidt to the Bible having mistakes, errors and contradictions.
Others believe the Bible to be inerrant, meaning from the first to the last word its perfect and right in regards to religion, history, morals, ethics and even politics.
But to me, presupposing the “inerrancy” of the Bible is the best way of avoiding the falsification of ones own believes, already knowing what is right and what is wrong even before giving the counter argument any credit, all being justified and signed up by almighty God.
Even if the Bible would have that one, true meaning, its mainly us humans that tend to filter the original meaning through our lenses, which is why, for example, many evangelicals believe in creation ex nihilo, monotheism in the Old Testament, Sola Scriptura, Jesus claiming to be God, and so forth, though the academic consensus disagrees with these interpretations of the scriptures, not because they don't like it or because its against their own dogma, but rather because this is what the facts and the data present, or in other words, because the meaning when certain things were originally written carried a different meaning than what most imposed upon it during the past hundret years..
So I think even if the Bible is perfect, the more pressing question would be how we can spiritually discern truth from deception, and I think the Bible does give a clear answer, but its not the inerrancy and univocality of the Bible...
If that makes any sense..
I found it so much more benefitial on my spiritual journey to see how God gived divine purpose to things in this world not being perfect, including the Bible, it actually has brought me way closer to loving the Bible, and the academia has played a vital role in that..
Best scholars, by the way, are those that do not hesitate one second to present the data and the facts even if it contradicts their own dogma...
so your schools basically took christian versions of pagan stories to use the morals in the stories to teach. without actually reading from the bible i dont think they can really call it biblical.
Well. one always thinks he knows the bible because he was in a Christian school. Then one day you think . . . do I ?
better to have something else to talk about with them, no changing people! theres more to life than religeon. go bowling or something
Catholicism rests on the pillars of Sacred Tradition and scripture , but does not accept Sola Scriptura . Moreover , Catholicism has always taken the position of interpreting scripture on different levels - the literal , moral , metaphysical and mystical .
Waring:
The problem is, religious people VOTE and they often vote to take away other peopel's options. I was badly injured and I want the option to leave. If it wasn't for religion, I would probably have that option. So whatever the basis, religion affects our culture and choices.
No one says it out loud too often, but it is the literal goal of both Christianity and Islam to take over the world, to convert every single person. So when people say "my personal private belief" OK, but the belief is in a religion whose goal is total domination. And it's no wonder that the two religions with that mindset are the biggest.
Peace to you my friend, no offense. Peace and love to everyone.
Hogwash, lots of gobblygook and no details
Never met a group of people more obssessed with the bible than atheists.
Ya know, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read it (:
I'm an unspecified theist not an atheist. Cheers, DCF
I’m now what I call “agnostic theist,” but I want to understand the book I was constantly told was the infallible, literal word of God. How did it take over the world in such a way that I had to accept it as absolute truth despite evidence to the contrary.
@@debunkingthefundamentalist I accept the label "agnostic atheist." Essentially, I live my life as if there's no god, but I also think it's impossible to prove/disprove the existence of a super natural deity.
Anyways, love I your vids! ❤
Atheists read the Bible to try to disprove it while Christians read it to understand it. Atheists for the most part are as ignorant as Christians when it comes to the Bible. Much of what they do is go to web-sites that post supposed contradictions and things they call immoral and they parrot them. I can often spot those doing that. It depends on dedication. What atheists cannot do is make a good argument for a real alternative to how we got here because even scientists can't explain the origins of the big bang. If anyone would take the time to study how stupid the scientific explanation is, I would think it would drive them to Christianity.
Reading the Bible makes atheists.
How so?
@JayCub479
After reading the Bible, there's no way anyone believes that bullshit.
You do make some good points about the ignorance of many many people. However, as a Christian, who never had formal education in theology - I have studied the entire Bible out of a passion for it. I’m very well aware of all of the supposed “contradictions”. I’m very well aware of how those contradictions are misinterpreted. You make a few of those mistakes yourself … for example, when you say “God condoned slavery”. I’m very well aware of the slavery versus - but God did not condone it. This is just one point where I do not relate to the standard lack of education of most people when it comes to the Bible. In fact, one of the reasons that I am a Christian is due to the unison of scripture, and how well it tells the story of how man has failed, given chance, after chance, after chance, after chance of starting over. Every start over is an utter failure - which is the whole point of the Old Testament. You can turn on our news and see that man is a failure. Your only hope is the promised Savior of humanity. You can’t force a person to believe that …. You either sees it or you don’t.
Interesting what you say. In our church library is a copy of a book first published in the 1870's which discusses the "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible". The author's last name is Haley. He does use some of his ideas, but most of it consists of various arguments others have written, some very old, on the various contradictions which critics think exist.This old, old book pretty much covers it all. Explains how these supposed problems really are just that, supposed problems. And even if this book didn't exist, there is much information available online. Is not a matter of a lack of understanding by scholars about any and all potential discrepancies (The Bible is extremely well studied by all kinds of people.), it is a matter of the critics accepting what has been known and understood for ages. A heart issue rather than a head issue.
This fellow who produced this video had a very poor education and seems to assume that is consistent across the board. Assumes most fundamental Christians really don't know scripture. I went to public schools and a couple of secular mega-universities. I was pretty much classed as an atheist until age 28. Too involved to go into the details, but at age 28 I became a Christian. Since then I have read the entire Bible many times and used study Bibles and other references. I would not consider myself any kind of scholar.
I seriously doubt this particular person was ever a real Christian. He confuses believing some church doctrine and, mostly, church membership with being a Christian. They are not the same at all and if he really studied the scriptures and available fundamental writings, he would know this. I serious doubt he was deconverted at all. It is consistent with all those who I have talked with who said they used to be Christians and no longer are, really have no scriptural basis for saying they were ever Christians. There are probably some, but I personally have never actually run into any although I have communicated with numerous people online. Notice how this fellow never gave a single Bible reference, unless I somehow missed it. It is a clear sign of a saved person when actual verses are referenced. A lack of scriptural references shows a noticeable lack of salvation.
Is it necessary to actually know Hebrew and Greek to understand what the Bible says? No! There are numerous scholars who are well versed in the ancient texts and have written extensively. A study Bible which points out possible problem areas is valuable too. Then there are concordances which give both the original words and English words so one can compare the two and make informed decisions.
I find it interesting how he pointed out the rabbi who confronts Christians. He has studied some some particular verses extensively and then confronts others who may not have studied those particular verses as well and in Hebrew. How well would this same rabbi fare if confronted cold-turkey on some other verses. He is stacking the deck in his favor. And then again there are words which can be translated in various ways depending on context. The confronted people would not have the opportunity to study the context on short notice. Who knows if this rabbi has it right or other scholars have it right? The rabbi may be using personal bias as part of the translation. Without more information, it is not possible to really know. But the author of this video accepts his expert and rejects others who may have as good as or better credentials and knowledge.
Many issues with the video's author. You have pointed out some of these issues. Thank you for your comments. God bless and good night.
You said, "I’m very well aware of the slavery versus - but God did not condone it." Genesis 12, ending verses should be easy then. It starts the entire Abrahamic line for billions of humans. Abram got animals and slaves for letting Pharaoh have his wife, Sarai. He also got seconds. That whole start is creepy. Go ahead and make that sound like anything resembling decency.
For us Catholics the Bible is a tool, not an authority. Jesus left no written records. And the Bible is a difficult collection of books to interpret, even for experts. That is why there are so many Christian denominations. Each emphasizes one part of the Bible, not the whole work. (See the Jehovah Witnesses.) And our present education system does a very poor job of teaching students how to think. That is why so few Christians actually read the Bible. It is a hard book to understand, and people no longer have the mental tools to deal with it.
Ah excellent point. Problem is the fundamentalist says it is totally inerrant. That's my line of attack because it can't be. Cheers, DCF
Of course the Bible is not totally inerrant. But you can't debate that with them. All you can say is "is not," to which they reply "is too." They will not accept any logic. They'll just tell you logical arguments are "the law of men" whereas the Bible is "the law of God."@@debunkingthefundamentalist
For 1,500 years, most of the people who practiced Christianity did so without even being literate. They did not have their own personal copies of the Bible because mass distribution with the printing press did not exist until 500 years ago, around the same time Protestantism started to pop up and created its own many interpretations of Christianity and the Bible itself.
The very big difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics practice Christianity by worshipping God through a very specific ritual that re-presents Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross and Protestants believe that they are worshipping God through the constant reading of, misinterpretation of and worship of a book they edited.
Christianity is a mix of both mythology and timeless truth. The Bible reflects that. I think the Catholic Church understands this well. It’s two thousand years old. If a practicing Catholic attends mass every Sunday for two years, they will have heard the entire Bible read out loud in an organized manner that complements the season or holiday during the liturgical year. Through time, wisdom is gained. The Catholics are 1,500 years older than the Protestants. They, nor the Fundamentalist among them don’t yet realize how young and foolish they are
I too am a skeptic. Though I'm no longer a skeptic regarding Christianity. It is true that many Christians do not sufficiently know their Bible -- after all it takes many years of study to become a Bible scholar. A legitimate Doctor of Theology or PhD degree takes as many as five or six years of full-time study beyond a standard four-year bachelor degree. Charles Hurst may have done a decent survey of people who identify as Christians, even "fundamentalist" Christians, but it does not logically follow that NO ONE has studied these issues in the original languages, nor that such study results in a "Debunking of Christianity," nor that these contradictions have not been answered by many Christian scholars, even Catholic scholars, such as Dr. Peter Kreeft.
What is essential to Christianity is the veracity of the claim of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. If that is more reasonable than not, then Christ is who he claimed to be and his teachings recorded in the Gospels can be trusted. Gary Habermas, PhD. wrote his dissertation on that subject at Michigan State University in 1976 (it's available for download on his website). His dissertation committee was composed of all non-Christians, yet they approved the dissertation because of the strength of his evidence and the logic of his arguments.
May I suggest to some who may be skeptical of Charles Hurst's claims, that you do your own honest research by seeking out the best arguments from both sides. I've read books by Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, and other celebrities in the atheist/agnostic league and found they contained a good many contradictions, errors of fact, and logical fallacies.
Find out what William Lane Craig has to say by watching some videos on his CZcams Channel "Reasonable Faith" or his website by the same title; also Gary Habermas on the resurrection. Read Dr. Peter Kreeft's textbook on Socratic Logic, then some books by Oxford mathematician, John Lennox, astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, physicist Alister McGrath, physicist Eric Hedin, philosopher Alvin Plantiga. I could name quite a few more, but you get the picture. I hope that Mr. Hurst will be open-minded enough to realize that there might be some Christians who are a little better educated than he is, and that -- for his own sake -- he might be honest enough to follow the evidence and change his mind. Many agnostics have done just that.
You really think there is more evidence then not that a man rose from the dead? There are so many more plausible explanations. Even if he did, how does that prove the other claims? There are so many flaws in the above statement. By the way, I have seen a mthycist debate Habermas and Habdermas didn't do so well.
You list above all the top apologists, OF COURSE they are going to agree, that's what they do. Watch Bart Ehrman debate WLC on the ressurection.
What do you mean everything he said would be true? WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT he said. Jesus never wrote anything and nothing else was written until decades later. Four different gospels say he said four different things before he died! Whole sections have been taken out or put in.
The claims of Jesus change in each Gospel over time. All the Gospels were after the fact. Pierced "hands and feet"? When they crucify you they piece your wrists not you hands. And it's easy to "predict" the temple will be destroyed if you are writing AFTER it is destroyed.
You were skeptical? About what? How did you resolve the problem of evil. Sex trafficking kids, that's just collateral damage here on earth? That makes sense? No one protecting them? Why not? So they can go to heaven? Be defiled and then go to heaven and what, have your memory erased? Tell me how "skeptical" you were and how you figured it all out now because of Habermas. Paulogia debunks Habermas anyway.
I was brought up as an atheist. I have followed Jesus since I was in my late teens. Jesus as incarnate Logos is the best explanation of reality. I came to know Jesus as truth, meaning, reality and as a person. It’s easy to pull down, but what do you believe as an explanation of reality? The Bible is a complex and wonderful book written over many centuries. I mostly read the New Testament and love the psalms. I can see why you do not resonate with contemporary Christianity!
Why do you think one mammalian species ie homo sapiens on an insignificant speck of dust in the vast cosmos are even capable of explaining reality?
How is Jesus specifically the best explanation for reality?
Believing in supernatural fairytales is not clever at all. You have been BRAINWASHED, BRAINWASHING is an extremely powerful thing. ALL God’s’ and Religions are made up by MAN!!!!! That is why there are so many different ‘God’s’ and Religions ALL thought up by MAN!!!!!
I am an unspecified theist adrian. Cheers, DCF
Once upon a time our athiest friends were saying, " the bible is a myth, not true, made up"... including the Bibles description of hell-- you know, lake of fire, eternal darkness, place of no escape, perpetual torment . Seems something was discovered oh some 50 yrs ago called a black hole; it's been academically described as a black lake, even light cant escape, so much pressure that the heat is incalculable,...seeing any similarities my athiest friends? Our athiest friends and many scholars aren't laughing quite as hardily as several decades ago. There are so many archaeological finds and proofs, historical records, etc which bear out the truth and accuracy of the Christian Bible and its truths. All who have eyes should be able to see .
REALLY bizarre he keeps referring to the "original hebrew" when this is mostly about christians. Hope it was just a troll, otherwise wow.
You must be aware that most of the Bible was originally written in Hebrew?
@@czgibson3086 Seems pretty focused on Christians, (particularly acknowledging that Yeshiva teaches Hebrew). I know Catholic school focuses a bit more on old testament stories than other denominations, but I got the impression that he thought the new testament was originally Hebrew.
@@jamesdavis3851who cares what language it was written in if it’s the oral tradition of illiterate goat herders who thought the cause of disease was spirits in your blood😂😂😂
@@Ichabod_Jericho Many texts from the ancient world contain information that is fanciful or wildly inaccurate but that doesn't mean they aren't worth reading. If you have any interest in the history of human development then you owe it to yourself to read the Bible, whether you are a believer or an atheist like me. Whether you like it or not, it's easily the most influential book ever written.
@@czgibson3086 totally, I encourage anyone to read as much insightful philosophy as they can, no matter what philosopher wrote it. But to just stick to one Bible? Seems like you’d ignore dozens of other philosophies by sticking to one. Also I went to private Baptist Christian school my whole life, chapel on Wednesdays and church on Sundays. I’ve had plenty of the Bible by now 😅
Alledged* contradictions.
Oh, there are many. Such as the two birth stories for Jesus. Or the two death stories for Judas. Or Jesus' last words. I've seen attempts to "harmonize" these things, and they're ridiculous and obviously fake.
@@KaiHenningsen Let's take the one you just mentioned, the one about Jesus' last words.
Where do you get the certainty that the accounts on the gospels are exhaustive? You do realise that's an unwarranted assumption right?
Who says he couldn't have said both things? You?
This ethnocentric approach just shows ignorance.
@@ElficGuy the problem with your approach is that you are creating a fifth gospel. Who authorized you to create a brand new gospel?
@@ptgannon1 I'm absolutely not, I'm just not imposing some random modern expectations onto a nearly 2000 year old text.
@@ElficGuy that's fine unless you are a bible literalist. In that case, trying to tie multiple gospels together to make them reconcile, creates a new gospel.
Once upon a time our athiest friends were saying thr Bible was "a myth, a lie, made up" including its description of hell...you know--lake of fire, eternal darkness, place of no escape . Well, some 50 years ago something called a black hole was discovered and its been described by scholars and academics as a moving black lake, even light cant escape, pressure so great that the heat is incalculable.. seeing any similarities athiests? They all arent laughing quite as hardily now. There are so many archaeoligical finds and proofs, historical records, etc which bear out the Christian Bible. Those who have eyes should see .
I think atheists are still laughing, especially at this comment
@@Jbd0319 I know of 3 who arent, and one who has accepted Christ as Savior in large part due to this and other biblical confirmations .
@@ronbyrd1616 I don’t suppose you think hawking radiation is a “soul leaving hell”?
@@Jbd0319Perhaps entering hell in one direction, and entering heaven in another,...as response to ur factitious question .
No, a black hole is in no way similar to the biblical lake of fire, and I have never seen black holes described as a moving black lake, except by you. There also would appear to be countless black holes in the universe. Does the bible describe countless lakes of fire, with incredible levels of gravitational attraction such that light can't escape? What does the bible say about the event horizon? Which one of the myriad of black holes will non believers be sent to after death? The bible obviously doesn't tell us because the authors had no knowledge of modern cosmology.
Cosmology also shows the bible to be incorrect from the very first verse which states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. We now know that the Earth did not appear until at least 9 billion years after the rapid expansion of the early universe. Interestingly in the time the Old Testament was written, the Greeks knew the Earth was spherical and had calculated its circumference to a surprising degree of accuracy. Of course the OT is rather more full of instructions to the Israelites about ritual sacrifice, slavery and how they should commit genocide than it is concerned with cosmological knowledge.
Modern science and archaeology has shown that there was not, and could never be a global flood, and that the exodus from Egypt is largely a myth. Of course, there is historical evidence of some of the people and the places mentioned in the bible, but these simply form a historical backdrop to the stories that are overlaid over the top of them. This is much like a fictional novel set in World War which describes real places and events, and even has fictional characters interact with genuine historical characters such as Churchill. Despite this, these still remain a work of fiction.
I have no idea whether you are a New Age Creationist. Whether you are or not, this demonstrates an interesting paradigm. There are believers who think that evolutionary science is the work of the Devil, because it does not support a literal reading of Genesis. There are other Christian believers who are able to square the two, regarding the biblical creation story as allegorical, although most are wary of calling it mythical. This just shows how scientific discovery has caused schisms within christianity. The fact is most tenets of Christian belief are matters of faith. The resurrection of Jesus can never be proven historically or scientifically. Even the generations of evangelicals who have been claiming that Jesus was about to return for about 2000 years now were obviously wrong, but it does not definitively prove that he won't ever come back. Despite this, evangelicals today seem to be proclaiming it louder than ever. One even absolutely assured me 25 years ago that Jesus would definitely return with 20 to 30 years. With 5 years to go, I'm not holding my breath.
Posting all of these videos on CZcams only to hate religions you don’t believe in is unethical.
Instead of contributing positively to the world, you spend your time and energy making yourself feel better, acting like an anti theologian, and deconverting people?
And how is it unethical to point out how these religions are hateful, false, irrational, and absurd? How is he in the wrong here? Sounds to me like you don’t have a problem with the hate, harm, and stupidity that these religions cause but are instead upset that he and many others are calling it out. Attacking belief systems of hate and stupidity is a positive contribution to the world. After all, the bigotry, attacks on science, the wars and genocides, the forcing children to carry their rapist’s fetuses, genital mutilation of newborns, the propping up of dictators, and other forms of stupidity and depravity in the name of religion and by people who think that they have god on their side has been such a blessing.
Now, in which of the two are genocide and slavery instructed and defended: the secular humanist manifesto or the Bible?
The truth will not be held back. Get used to it Abrahamic judgmental theistic Pharisees. You get to lie to people. We get to straighten it out.