"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is actually no longer true. Now, it's convincing the world he's the good guy.
When i look at satanists (atheist type) i can only see that meme of darth vader saying: Yo dudes the empire is pretty chill maybe you could like join it or something
There is a chapter in C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters were the tempter's considers whether it is better to have men be atheists and unaware of devil's and their subtle temptations or to heave men be satanists and superstitious.
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” - St. Anthony of Egypt
Y'all have been mad from the Jesus bled out on the cross. You've given the world nothing more or less that 2000 years of unhinged, psychotic nonsense, epitomized most hilariously by your belief that you regularly consume the actual flesh and blood of your long-dead "god."
@@elpepeetesech5405I’d say the people that have gone mad are the people that normalized suicide and depression and mental illness keyword “mental illness” (literally means your clinically insane) say what they want about our “imaginary God” he keeps me happy..
@@elpepeetesech5405it’s definitely the group living a lie. That would be team “survival of the fittest” who simultaneously screams how about how bad the rich are and needing to “help” the poor. Double think is a clear sign of madness. All leftists must participate in double think.
Yeah I was so confused when I saw this. I thought it glitched. I saw a bit of another video rebutting this same video and it had a similar thumbnail. So I thought UA-cam jumped me forward.
@G12o5 No they really don't what are you talking about. The contents are ineerrant and to say otherwise is a modern heresy. Like, severely modern. This is why we have counsels I believe the word you're looking for is the bible is not infallible. This is basic Catholoc theological understanding of the bible
@@SeranaZentha You go through hoops and hurdles just to prove your beliefs doesn't this say something to you it's as if you reached into thin air to find a “sound” argument
I got recommended the "documentary" earlier this week; and over the last few days, recommended rebuttal videos. I was just waiting for Trent to do his work. Patience pays off.
@@kooolainebulger8117 Considering thumbnails are click bait, a rationale human would analyze content themselves. A Christian would match what the original video says compared to their bible to judge its worth.
That anyone would accept this as a "documentary" would be beyond laughable... ...if it wasn't for the fact that whoever produced this clearly intended it to appeal to children - or to those poor souls possessing little more than a child's mindset. One must wonder whether there'll be enough millstones to go around.
And it's as pathetic, reductive, and dishonest as you expected right?? Trent Horn lies for god. It's what he does. The original video is dead on and factually true. No rebuttal possible. As always detractors of the Bible know it best. Because they aren't motivated to lie about it or twist things into being more in line with their 'faith'.
It is amazing to me how obtuse some readers of the Bible can be: it's as if a reader of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment," which recounts the acts and inner life of a murderer, would conclude that Dostoyevsky's novel therefore approves of murder, when in fact, the novel is a powerful indictment of modern ideologies that try to justify certain types of murder.
@@SenorCinema You're applying the secular position that death is the greatest evil because secularism asserts existence ends with life, and applying that to the Christian position that God acted in history, and getting upset that, when looking at history as we believe it is through this lens of secular morality, God acted in a way you disapprove of. God is the one who created life and in fact is causally, though indirectly, responsible for allowing physical death to happen in the first place. You're applying an arbitrary line to what's morally acceptable in your eyes, and saying "creating life and allowing natural death is one thing, but directly causing death is too far!" How on Earth can you logically hold that position?
@@Konxovar0 very simply, actually-it’s the only position that logic would permit one to hold, because it’s the only position there is actual evidence for.
It's a bit of irony. Traditionally, the serpent is seen as the Satan character. If you pull from that then this Satan is telling you some truths (maybe in an attempt to drag you to Hell) but they are in some sense true. If you can't get past the character being used then you're kind of part of the joke.
El was also just the word for "god". I think this may actually be a big problem in discerning what an enscription is trying to actually say. It is similar to English, where we say God speaking of the LORD, whereas 'god' is also just the word referring to any deity; a similar thing happened where el was just the word for any god, but El was also the name of their high god.
Along with this, the God of the Bible is sometimes written as "Elohim," which means "the powers." "Elohim" is a plural word, but for most of the Bible is treated as a singular, with one notable exception in Genesis "Let *us* make them in *our* image."
@@Topsealguy evidence coincides with existing of these people. King Hezekiah has his name carved into ancient rock and Jesus is not debated among history anymore. Jerusalem has obviously existed. So which part isn’t
I saw that video show up on my feed a few months ago. I started watching it and when it got to the part of their being no archeological evidence of the exodus i stopped it and thought “ I hope Trent horn discovered this and does a rebuttal.” I’m so pleased to find that you did!
The archeological evidence of the exodus Trent produces here is SERIOUSLY weak. We basically go from the hordes of people Moses led out to a couple of guys that successfully snuck away and made it to Caanan.
There is no archeological evidence for the exodus though. Thats just a fact. "There is no direct evidence for any of the people or Exodus events in non-biblical ancient texts or in archaeological remains, and this has led most scholars to omit the Exodus events from comprehensive histories of Israel."
I had read about an interesting insight about the Canaanite slaughter narratives. Consider events where God’s wrath is kindled against some people, and someone like Moses intervenes and interceded for mercy on them, or how Abraham kept narrowing down the number of righteous in Sodom that God would not smite them for. It could be that, though God’s mortal judgment against a people is just, he is also calling his people to mercy, which they failed to do with Canaan.
god saved a guy willing to give his two daughters to be r**** by a hole city to save two strangers and god killed his wife that did nothing morally wrong
The "El" thing is possibly the silliest objection. Anyone who's studied the Baal cycle and read Genesis-Exodus can easily see that the Abrahamic books are written almost specifically as a polemic against Canaanite religion. Canaanite mythology cast Baal as the better of two sons of El, but El unjustly favored his other son Yah over Baal. In that light, it's really easy to see the Abrahamic books as setting the record straight, and specifically setting themselves up as an alternative narrative to the Baal cycle. israelite mythology has way less of a "we just copied homework" relation with Canaanite mythology and much more of a Thesis/Opposing Thesis relationship.
You see that yahweh was a son of another God right? You explained that yahweh is a son, brother, once was a husband but like all women in the Bible she was disposable, even if a goddess. Yahweh was the son of Asherah, then her husband but hey inbreeding in cool right?
@@christyadams9235 - No. That’s not implicit in the Bible at all. Yahweh blatantly condemns the worship of Asherah. “You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God that you shall make. And you shall not set up a pillar, which the Lord your God hates.” Deuteronomy 16:21-22 ESV “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth.” Judges 3:7 ESV “That night the Lord said to him, “Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it and build an altar to the Lord your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order. Then take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down.”” Judges 6:25-26 ESV “the Lord will strike Israel as a reed is shaken in the water, and root up Israel out of this good land that he gave to their fathers and scatter them beyond the Euphrates, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the Lord to anger.” 1 Kings 14:15 ESV “And they abandoned all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made for themselves metal images of two calves; and they made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal.” 2 Kings 17:16 ESV
@Filioquist I don't reject islam because of my understanding of what the Quran teaches, I reject it because the doctrines preached by muslims are false, both those prooftexted by the Quran and those proven through other means. I know they're not true because they're incompatible with the religion that has the best evidence (in the form of miracles) in support of it: christianity.
@@SenorCinema Evidence. Anyone can claim to be a messenger from God, therefore the tiebreaker are miracles. The only claimed miracles that I have sufficient (and overabundant) evidence happened confirm the christian revelation.
@@Kibaoftheleaves your statement is too general and opens yourself up to rebuttals like “people disagree with me about r@ping animals, do you think they aren’t broken too?”
@@Devout214I don't think they are broken if they believe in the garden of eden,i just believe they are ignorant. They just need information,you have it in the satan's guide. Also,Berserk is not a cartoon, is a comic book 😑
The biggest flaw with this rebuttal is the assumption that God would desire the continued necessity to have all the Biblical nuances interpreted by Church fathers and scholars. Isn’t it reasonable to expect there would be a clear conscious among everyone if salvation is dependent on an accurate understanding?
There is a consensus amongst Christians regarding what is necessary for salvation. Other details have large discrepancies but do not affect one's salvation. To illustrate my point: Faith: All Christians believe true alive faith will lead to good works. Sola Fide: Some Christians believe you are saved only by your faith, and that no work can earn salvation. Other Christians believe that you are saved through faith and works. No matter what side you are on, if your faith is alive you will have good works to show. So no matter who is right, both sides will be saved.
@neoromanempire that's hardly what his point was. He was speaking of an individual's ability to accurately interpret the bible. If one person can get it wrong so easily, how can we be certain that anyone has the right understanding?
@@nathanstafford8412Well stated. The banter between faith and works should be unnecessary. If the salvation of mankind was the ultimate goal and Jesus being the way to it, why did the actual Son of God find it unnecessary to provide us with his own Gospel? How the Bible was compiled certainly wasn’t the most effective way to prevent confusion and as history demonstrates, actual chaos.
13:29 That's not really a good arguement. Even if God authored life, how does that justify painful death at the hands of a stranger for a child? Its not like they died in their sleep. Also, why can't God, the all-powerful creator of the universe, devise a means of punishing the wicked that doesn't involve or necessitate child murder...
The dollar metaphor also doesn't make sense. Taking my own life away wouldn't be like giving me two dollars and then stop giving me money, it'd be like gifting me a dollar and then taking it away from my hands afterwards
What about Daniel being written 400 years after Daniel? And all but the last of the the prophecies being “correct” because they were written after the fact? How do you explain that. That was a major example of the Bible containing errant writings.
@@Jesudídimo Still eating the fruit is the cause of human death. They did not die right away but the consequence of their sin is death. It's kinda similiar to saying to someone that doing drugs will kill you. After the first time someone does them, he might not die but he might get addicted and, in consequence, die.
There is a very fascinating documentary titled “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus”. It goes into how the archeological dating of ancient Egyptian dynasties may be hundreds of years off based on a misidentification of who the Pharaoh named in Exodus actually refers to. Then when looking at the archeological evidence for a mass departure of Jews from Egypt, it’s true no evidence is seen in the traditionally accepted timeline. However, if you look in the modified timeline, there is evidence for a mass departure of Jews from Egypt.
that's a terrible recommendation. The author has been proven multiple times to be a fraud. If you want some good resource to recommend, point people to Jimmy Akin's 2 episodes on the Exodus, or the longer series by the channel "Ancient Egypt and the Bible" called "Evidence for the Exodus".
I know Inspiring Philosophy has videos on this and other things like the Flood or the Tower of Babel, and refers to what the figurative language might have been talking about,
I’m so glad someone’s covering this video. I saw it in my recommended like a month ago and thought it was a funny gag video. Watched like 15 minutes and turned it off because of the bogus claims in it
@@rizzcool5983 if its not the truth. Why watch it. Its Satan for sake. The fallen angel who lies. Why believe him. I will watch others talk about the Bible but not a demon or Satan. ❤️✝️
@@GlobalBricks1 you think satan made a UA-cam video, or was it satire? You won’t know if it’s untrue until you watch it. How would you know if the Bible is real if you didn’t read it? Your logic makes no sense.
@@rizzcool5983 no I’m willing to hear people out, but when people bring strawmen at me and say it’s fact then they have less credibility. I’m open as a blank canvas or an open page. I’m saying the video made some of the weakest claims against the Bible, and god.
I love it when people try and say the Bible is evil, because people do evil things in it. Then they immediately quote judges. A huge part of judges is that Israel had no king, and because of that Israel fell into chaos and depravity. Shows they just looked up a list of “evil” Bible passages online, and didn’t bother with figuring out the context.
@@PartnershipsForYou it’s not that inconceivable, especially since she’s into Catholic apologetics too, haha. I assume you came to this video to hear a counter argument from Trent? That’s pretty big of you! Glad to have you here
@@PartnershipsForYou are you implying people whose entire identity is based on what kinks they like in bed are better long term partners than Christian apologists. Lol. Get a reality check.
I saw this video a while ago and immediately thought of how much I would love to see Trent destroy it. Thank you Trent, you are the reason I got into apologetics. 🇪🇸
wouldn't it be better to figure an objective way to find which parts of the Bible are literally true and which are not, instead of unconditonally defending your ideology? that tells me you are not looking for the truth behind the Bible stories, but instead how to support a belief system in spite of contradicting evidence.
@@LuzianJ "objective" is the antonym of "subjective", but ok: by "objective" I mean the property of being independent of personal opinions, beliefs, preferences, biases, etc. in addition, "reasons" are not "ways" or "methods", and precisely that's why I advocate for ways of telling apart reality from fiction, that can be tested and adopted by others.
@@LuzianJ a theological reason is dependent on certain beliefs, that's why such reason can never be objective, because it will obviously be biased towards the sacred text or tradition that backs the theological framework. it would be the Bible validating the Bible.
Thank you. I saw the original a while back and was thoroughly disgusted by it. The arguments are level 1 atheist talking points and everyone in the comment sections and the creator were patting themselves on the back for being "enlightened". Thank you Trent for covering this.
And these are pretty much level 2 responses that someone can similarly rebut in one fashion or another. The point of the first is to acknowledge that churches teach certain things to the youth to strengthen the faith and hide others to not diminish their faith. Can you acknowledge that as a bad thing?
"The point of the first is to acknowledge that churches teach certain things to the youth to strengthen the faith and hide others to not diminish their faith." Wrong @ess_Border
@@Boundless_Borderno, since it would only be a bad thing insofar as the things “churches” taught to “strengthen the faith” were falsehoods, since one cannot build faith on lies. Likewise, if they “hid,”or - likely more accurately - didn’t focus on certain matters in order not to diminish the faith, this would only be bad if it were for dishonest reasons. It may be good not to reveal or discuss some things if a teacher or an audience is ill-equipped to grapple with them, because you would be needlessly scandalizing persons who, had they had a larger knowledge base, would not be scandalized receiving the same information. Scandal from the ill-prepared teacher, incompetence, and from the ill-prepared audience, ignorance. Whether the emphasis or de-emphasis is done in order to deceive is what would make it wrong. Not the emphasis or lack thereof itself. A difficulty doesn’t necessarily make a doubt, and as far as the prudence of when is appropriate to address particular difficulties is concerned, this could only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
@@ponti5882 There are false teachings that churches propagate. You can call them simplifications but they are indeed inaccurate teachings. Similarly, churches do hide details so that members don't struggle with their faith. You even agreed to it but you consider it acceptable. While it could be for entirely well meaning reasons it is a simple fact that churches purposefully focus on certain aspects of the faith and ignore others despite potential theological importance. While you may think it is for the greater good (which you allude to) a common reason for deconversions is because the church being not entirely honest despite being well meaning. A nice phrase that encompasses this is that many times the lie is more damning than the truth. The fact that you feel it is right to lie or hide information from children so that they don't struggle with their faith is very telling to the fact that this is closer to indoctrination rather than education.
Thanks for your excellent work in rebutting. It’s interesting to note that atheists often criticize Christians of believing literally everything in the Bible, while they have no problem in doing so themselves.
Even with the simplistic view an atheist isn't believing everything in the Bible when they refute a very basic reading of it. They are simply taking it at face value. Admittedly, it isn't necessarily the best approach but your criticism is extremely off.
@@461weavile Yeah. You're right that the atheist doesn't simply believe "in the Bible." They look at it as another of the fallible yet sometimes helpful works of humans. You're right that if you remove the word everything it is probably mostly accurate.
Oh my! 2:50 I do believe that the exodus accounts of 600,000 adult men (ages 20-60 as per the census back then) left Egypt. What evidence do they say is missing, what is difficult about maintaining such a belief? I'm curious what they said.
Yes. Especially since absence of evidence does not logically mean evidence of absence. What do they expect to find? Tablets from Pharoah praising his loss and the defeat of the gods of Egypt? Footprints and campfires from thousands of years ago in the middle of a desert?
@@zatoichi1 if you believe the entire biblical account it says clearly, they ate bread from heaven, that their shoes on their feet didnt wear out, that they were surrounded by clouds of glory. In other words it was a miraculous existence, so looking for traces of a regular nation doesn't make sense either.
Beyond the lack of archeological evidence (which is, after all, just the absence of evidence) for a mass Exodus event, I have heard it claimed that with so many adult men (plus women and children) the time table doesn't work because of the sheer numbers. I'm just going from memory here but I think things include the red sea crossing etc. Keep in mind I am just going from memory of argument against the large numbers, so do not take my comment as expressing the best argument in that direction; I am not steel manning their argument nor do I intend to strawman it
@@zatoichi1 I do want to say I find it interesting that the Exodus actually speaks about the Egyptian gods as if they were real. But that is a tangential remark.
Christian and Jewish teaching on false gods is not that they are imaginary, but rather demons masquerading and deceiving people into worshiping them as gods.
22:00 To the early Christians including Paul, the resurrection was a sign that the resurrection of the dead was going to happen soon. They were absolutely convinced that the apocalypse was coming; it wasn't just being hopeful.
In Norwegian, we have this old expression: "like how the Devil reads the Bible" ("som fanden leser Bibelen"). This means interpreting something as uncharitably as possible and reading the words in the worst possible sense. This expression is often used in the media when a person claims his position has been misrepresented. I don't know if a similar expression exists in English, but it's just funny to me how the phrase "Satan's Guide to the Bible", to me, culturally, translates as "An intentionally bad and self-serving guide."
Jeptha may not have killed her, but similar to when Joshua gave captured slaves to the levies, she was sent away to never marry and serve God. She laments and asks to go and mourn her virginity. If she was going to be killed as a sacrifice, wouldn't she instead plead or mourn for her life?
The video itself points out that the word "satan" just means adversary. If you have someone speaking against a particular view or idea, then they are an adversary to it, and therefore would be a "satan." The video makers are trying to have fun with that fact, making the video more provocative so that more people see it and hopefully pay attention.
@@michaelweiske702 one of the things that bothered me about the documentary was the beginning where they stressed a distinction between "satan" and the "devil" as two different entities. I have heard arguments for that view in the past, but I think from the book of Revelation it becomes clear that Christians understand them as two names for the same thing. But the documentary was cheeky about it and didn't present any argument at all. It's the same atheist bs from satanists. While satan means adversary or accuser, devil comes from diábolos meaning slanderer. I think a lot of the documentary is slander so...
Satan's guide to the bibe unintentionally portrays the most accurate depiction of the devil possible. Twisting Gods word to lead children into darkness.
@matthewglenguir7204 Education is not biased. When you cherry puck, then exclude information and context with the express purpose of making the subject look bad it is not education. It is deception.
The Satan you believe in is a post-Biblical theological invention. In your own book, God and Satan make a bet over Job’s righteousness, so it seems like they’re on pretty good terms according to your religion.
I don’t understand how people’s reading of the “dash your babes against the rock” psalm can be so mislead. The point of the psalm is that Babylon is so horribly evil that anyone who invades it would feel happy taking the worst, most brutal kind of revenge. It doesn’t say “God says we should smash your babies on rocks” it says “happy will HE be who smashes your babes against the rock.”
In Eastern Orthodoxy there is also a metaphorical reading of this. Babylon is the whore of Babylon, the root of all evil and her "babies" are sins. "Happy will he be who smashes sins against the rocks".
I don't think that's as misread as you think. this is anecdotal but every time I've discussed that with someone they generally understand its talking about retributively killing babylonian children and that's still terrible.
@@Goneforgoodflsh nope not what it’s saying. It’s saying that some societies are so evil and oppressive that the people who successfully overthrow them delight in their misery. It’s not PREscriptive its DEscriptive
Did you actually watch that documentary? Most biblical scholars who point out the issues with the bible are believers. It's not atheists who "misunderstand history", it's believers who pointed out those issues first.
@michaw7408 Did you actually watch the rebuttal? Did you know the people who pointed out that stuff first answered it, and the skeptics just stop there? Did you realize the documentary only exists to stick a finger in someone's eye and won't impress anyone but other edgy, like-minded atheists? That's why they decided to use Lucifer to give the lessons. It's a silly pseudo documentary and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. You are not an honest person. Have the last word if you like.
21:13 "There is a difference between what the sacred author says and what the holy spirit asserted through his writtings". So basically the things you pick out are asserted and the things that are obviously false or immoral are just relativised? It seems that that is what the whole video is about. It's about finding excuses for an errant book written by errant people so you can cling to the belive that it is inspired by an inerrant god.
This was very interesting. The only problem I have is how are people, especially people in the past who were largely uneducated, supposed to know what was hyperbole and what was literal? Or how were they supposed to know to interpret something like "blessed is he who takes the children of non believers to the stone" wasn't condoned by God since it is written in the Bible. This leaves it very likely that passages like this are misunderstood and then used as inspiration to commit henous acts. You'd think that God's book would be careful not to leave itself up for interpretation when incorrectly interpreting the scripture can be so dangerous.
Every time that a real and sincere historian/archeologist has gone out and tried to disprove the Bible it has backfired on them, and they wind up upholding the Bible narrative. The only way, at this point, that these people can NOT believe is willful ignorance and pride. We need to pray for them, that the Holy Spirit should not abandon them to their iniquity, but rather give them the grace of conversion.
"Every time that a real and sincere historian/archeologist has gone out and tried to disprove the Bible it has backfired on them, and they wind up upholding the Bible narrative." Did you mean "never?" As in, that doesn't actually happen and this is just a pleasing fiction theists tell themselves?
@@shassett79 I'm hesitant to reply in case I'm feeding a troll, but it's probably worth it. How do you explain the archeological discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah? Surely you don't think there were nuclear weapons available at that point in history. When you suggest OP substitute the word "never" into his statement, it implies to me that you've never looked for any evidence and instead merely assume your easier perspective is correct. If you'd like I may have some time to collect other examples than the one at the forefront of my memory.
@@donquique1 Have you ever seen the Higgs Boson with your eyes? i'll wait. There are things that can't be known by sight alone. God is one of them. if you want to see God's full divinity and the full humanity that he acquired, you can go to a Eucharistic adoration in a church near you.
The statistics at the end of this presentation are consistent with something that was easily predictable long ago: sola scriptura ultimately undermines confidence in the Bible. Why? Because once someone puts much thought at all into sola scriptura (and Protestantism/Evangelicalism generally), it falls apart. And it’s going to keep happening because Protestantism continues to disintegrate with the opening of each additional (supposedly) Biblical church. Very sad. All easily avoidable too. All one needs to do is read about the early Church centuries before Constantine. Most people won’t do so, however, because they are lazy or afraid of what they will find. If you aren’t into reading, then Google Joshua Charles, Scott Hahn, and David Anders and hear from them - unquestionably, top experts on the Bible and former Protestant historians, pastors, and scholars. There was a reason Christ founded a single Church and prayed for unity
So the Bible condemns child sacrifice (probably just among the Israelites) but it’s ok if god does it because blah blah blah. What kind of crap is this? “God doesn’t doesn’t like it at all but he can and will do it everyday”. Youre seriously confused. Im not persuaded.
And God is Good, whatever God does is good. Then God murders babies. Can we murder babies? No? Why? Cause Only God can do it. But it's good. No It's Only good for God
A little footnote: that altar or statue "of the unknown god" in Athens that Paul spoke about is most likely a statue of a monotheistic god, which means that either Socrates or one of his direct followers made it, since they were pretty much the only monotheists in Greece at the time.
Satan’s guide to the Bible is a great piece of work! I’m glad it’s out there, the Bible is not perfect but inconsistent in a lot of aspects. I hope it goes viral TBH
I wish God had told us which parts are hyperbole and which parts he wanted us to take literally. It certainly would have reduced the number of different factions in The Church and unified the body of Christ.
It's possible God could've done it another way, but God did plan for that. Jesus promised the first Pope that the Holy Spirit would guide His appointed vicar into the fullness of truth. We can be confident in the interpretation because God promised it.
@@461weavile"You can believe us because we tell you that he told us that we defininitely got the authority. Don't mind all the smoking bodies of people burnt on stakes that disagreed with us across time, it's actually what god wanted! Yeah"
@@mathiasrryba First, if the testimonies of at least four people isn't enough for you, feel free to find any dissenting opinions. Boldly claiming "Jesus never said that" is not a persuasive argument. Secondly, are you implying that the Church is not universally persecuted by pointing out the relatively small number of executions perpetrated by the Church? That's a laughable position and I suggest you keep that opinion to yourself to avoid any embarrassment.
@@461weavile There are no testimonies besides Paul who admits he's had a hallucination (but can't decide if it was auditory or visual one). The church has been the tyrannical oppressor for the majority of its existence. Holding Europe by the balls, countries either kneeled to the pope or were getting invaded. Using heresy as an excuse to commit genocides across centuries. My own country back in 9th century had to get baptized as a form of self defense to take away the right to invade and raze us from the catholics.
@@461weavile "The relatively small number of executions perpetrated by the Church" ?? Based on recent admissions, logic, and the law of averages I'm betting that throughout Catholic ecclesiastical history there must be an entire WORLD of children sexually abused by Catholic Clergy. But, hey, I guess those technically weren't "executions".
It's always these aging hippies. BTW, InspiringPhilosophy made a 3hr response to that video 8 days ago. Haven't seen it myself, yet. So, I was pleasantly surprised you also made response. Kudos.
Well... God condemned all humans for the actions of a distant ancestor who did not have the knowledge of good or evil. He finds burnt offerings and sacrifices pleasing. He drowned the world including killing innocent animals. He murdered the firstborn of Egypt including babies, after "hardening Pharaoh's heart" thereby violating free will. He inflicts infinite punishment for finite wrongdoings. He demands worship under threat... remind me of who the "bad guy" is supposed to be again?
Saying gods moralty (eye for an eye doctrine) changed implies god was wrong and wasn't perfect. Also the analogy of "i gave you it so i can take it" implies many things. 1 that life is not our own and we are not given autonomy over our lives, and 2 that genocide/mass murder is fine as long as god does it. With this same logic killing abundant sinners could be justified based on the idea of a righteous cleansing just like in Canaan.
I think it's funny that the people who made the documentary took Satan, the literal main villain of the Bible, the guy known worldwide for being a manipulator and for bending the truth, the guy known as the Father of Lies, and said "Yeah, I'm gonna listen to him"
You're trying to explain why the Bible is not historical by using the Bible to prove it is . Ive watched that vidio several times and l would absolutely love to discuss this with you. SATAN WAS CORRECT IN THE VIDEO.
The video was well done and brought up some interesting points. Of course, it was a bit "comedic" but the subject is heavy. My dad is a pastor, so he also learned about these things in school. He has his Ph.D in theology and can read Greek and Hebrew. Growing up I thought everyone knew this stuff, I thought it was common knowledge and didn't think much about it.
@@danfoxdude its cruel and unjust and he's playing favorites. It's very unfair. We have a conciojs that tells us so. Whos to say God isn't in the spirit of every terrorist , why would we be mad at the terrorist, it was God's will that allowed him to do an attack and he has the right to taks our lives so why be upset with the terrorist? Did God not say to forgive? What's wrong is your argument is flawed and cannot be engaged because you are in control of the question because you can claim whatever you want when you're arguing in favor of the morality of God. Tldr your argument is god can be as cruel as he wants you have to love him
@@danfoxdudeDoubling down on the other commenter, if God is the source of morality, you have a steep bullet to bite. If God says rape, murder, slavery, and genocide are morally excusable in any case, would that make it so?
@@wishfulwaffle4801 that’s a really interesting question but it kinda reads to me like what if two plus two equalled five would it be five. In that universe I guess but that’s just not how this universe is constructed. Conceptually ideas like rape, slavery, murder fundamentally conflict with the basics of justice and fairness which in that case you’re just saying if God was evil would evil be good? I argue the concept of good is woven into the universe itself and is real and concepts like can exist cause God purposely created them. So if the universe in your hypothetical was consistent with that which I can’t imagine a universe it is then it would. Luckily our God is a God of perfect love which is further why we put our faith in him.
I wanted to rebut everything in the comments but realized I’d have to write an essay and at university I didn’t have the immediate time, thank you for standing up for what is true and especially for showing how bad faith every one of these arguments was, there were so many it made it seem weighty when it was really shallow as an argument.
@@manne8575 almost all people are more prone to using their mind to justify their actions and beliefs rather than using the scientific method with logic and unbiased facts to try and nullify their beliefs, desires and actions. A highly intelligent person usually just uses more elaborate arguments to defend their already established conclusions. A six thousand years ago Creationist with a Medical Degree will be just as hard to reason with as an eighth grade school ditch digger who believes the same.
Putting “REBUTTED” in the title doesn’t make the information within the video rebutted. It’s filled with excuses, I was expecting criticism far more in depth than this.
He just went through old apologetic “answers”, aldo he doesnt care if he is wrong because his target audience is people who are already believers. And for those kind of people this sound good enough. BTW. Great profile image
@@t.d6379 no the one I’m talking about is where Candace Owen was somewhat the mod and they were explaining Catholics Vs Prots. Trent wasn’t in full debate mode or anything
So, when something in the Bible is inconvenient (to the Church’s narrative), it is not meant to be taken literally, or it is merely some ramblings from Paul’s “secretary”, but when something in the Bible is convenient, it is most definitely literal AND the word of god. Got it! 😜
“However the documentary doesn’t seriously consider that God is the author of life, and so god does nothing wrong by ending our lives. If I have you 20 dollars today and took 20 dollars tomorrow, I haven’t wronged you because that’s a gift you never had any right to in the first place. God also has the right to end life as he sees fit including through violent means, if that was necessary to make a public judgment against a gravely sinful people.” So what I’m getting from this is that it’s okay for god to do the opposite of what he purveys, to murder, because he created us? Is it okay for a mother to disembowel a child she bore? We have no right to life, and yet we’re held responsible for what we’re given? If the canaanites really were so awful, that’s by gods design and it’s his fault as much as it is theirs. Dr Frankenstein isnt blameless for the sins of his monster, HE CREATED IT, and thus the ethical responsibility of putting him down lies on him as well. God isn’t an exception to a rule just because he created it, he’s just as responsible.
Shhh, just let God continue to drown babies, throw them at rocks, feed them to bears, give them the plague, endorse slavery, commands his army to kill entire cities while telling them to spare the *VIRGIN WOMEN* so they can get r*ped by his soldiers, and the list of evil deeds goes on and on. It's cool because he's God. I guess a mom can easily shoot her ALIVE BREATHING AND CONSCIOUS KIDS because she made them. Hey wait... These same people advocate for this dumb stance, yet, are mad about aborting a clump of cells with no consciousness but God can kill babies and children that are fully alive and ARE conscious? The hypocritical thinking is crazy.
Frankenstein may not be blameless for the sins of his monster, or for the things he did to it, but Mary Shelly is. People don't go around calling her horrible and evil because she created characters and then had them die.
This video was everywhere in my recommendations a few months ago, but I never bothered to watch it. With a title like “Satan’s guide to the Bible” I figured there probably wouldn’t be anything of value. Thanks for making this summary!
Catholics really have the most reasonable, sensible view on scripture. Its very refreshing. Some of the responses like authorship were well thought out and argued well. My fiancé and myself often cringe at these fundamentalist literal interpretations of the bible, when I tell her the catholic teaching she tends to agree with that.
Trent most of this is just special pleading and moving the goal posts. Satan in the movie is correct to point out these things because not only do the scholars seem to agree on this, most Christians agree on the interpretations he's discussing. The main thrust of the points made in the book is that scholars DO know there is nuance when describing the Bible, but most pastors, laypersons, and yes, scholars, accept these inaccurate and error filled interpretations as truth and proliferate them to their congregations and pop culture. To go back and say "well there is a possibility they weren't REALLY saying what they wrote down" is just special pleading and comes off as a dishonest attempt to blur what the movie is saying to try to score points against things that were already addressed.
The end argument about people with the “all or nothing” approach to reading the Bible really resonates with me because I’ve made this exact same observation before, that atheist interpretations of the Bible are very close to fundamentalist interpretations.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is actually no longer true. Now, it's convincing the world he's the good guy.
When i look at satanists (atheist type) i can only see that meme of darth vader saying:
Yo dudes the empire is pretty chill maybe you could like join it or something
What I find funny is they think a guy who only wishes for them to burn and suffer because he can’t share in Gods glory is the good guy 💀
There is a chapter in C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters were the tempter's considers whether it is better to have men be atheists and unaware of devil's and their subtle temptations or to heave men be satanists and superstitious.
And folks will still fall for it. Pray for them
The Devil is a gradualist (just like the Left).
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” - St. Anthony of Egypt
Y'all have been mad from the Jesus bled out on the cross. You've given the world nothing more or less that 2000 years of unhinged, psychotic nonsense, epitomized most hilariously by your belief that you regularly consume the actual flesh and blood of your long-dead "god."
Seems like we’re getting pretty close to that right now
Now the question is, who shall be the ones categorized as mad and the ones categorized as sane?
@@elpepeetesech5405I’d say the people that have gone mad are the people that normalized suicide and depression and mental illness keyword “mental illness” (literally means your clinically insane) say what they want about our “imaginary God” he keeps me happy..
@@elpepeetesech5405it’s definitely the group living a lie. That would be team “survival of the fittest” who simultaneously screams how about how bad the rich are and needing to “help” the poor. Double think is a clear sign of madness. All leftists must participate in double think.
Might want to change the thumbnail a smidgen. The red border at the bottom might make users think they've already watched this video.
Good catch!
Yeah I was so confused when I saw this. I thought it glitched. I saw a bit of another video rebutting this same video and it had a similar thumbnail. So I thought UA-cam jumped me forward.
I saw that as well. I thought it was some sort of trick so that people will go "have I watched that video?" and click on it.
Thanks! Just changed it
50th like
Recognition of genre is one of the most important aspects of biblical interpretation
True. But I find that apologist tend to be hyperbolic about how well it accounts for what is being pointed out.
Just like those war narratives.
True. Provided that it is not taken too far
@@evansplittorff6942 Wrong
@@evansplittorff6942 Idiot
No, it is heretical! Shame on you!
When a fundamentalist becomes a non-believer they really just become a non-believing fundamentalist.
This is sooo accurate.
Accurate
Precisely
This is sooooo common. People swinging from one extreme to another.
Is there truth to a lot of dogmatic atheists being former fundamentalists?
The video is very clearly aimed at the evangelical crowd. The very first section is about those preaching the 'inerrancy' of the text.
It's very telling that modern Christians have given up belief in inerrancy of scripture, but still believe. What will Christians give up next?
It is inerrant, PEOPLE aren't
@@SeranaZenthaOriginal manuscripts of the Bible have a multitude of errors have you watched his video or done your historical research
@G12o5 No they really don't what are you talking about. The contents are ineerrant and to say otherwise is a modern heresy. Like, severely modern. This is why we have counsels
I believe the word you're looking for is the bible is not infallible. This is basic Catholoc theological understanding of the bible
@@SeranaZentha You go through hoops and hurdles just to prove your beliefs doesn't this say something to you it's as if you reached into thin air to find a “sound” argument
Was waiting for this rebuttal when I saw that IP had also made a rebuttal to that video.
Combo of IP and Trent is great.
IP?
@@contextiscool7308 InspiringPhilosophy, a Christian apologetics channel.
@@contextiscool7308 InspiringPhilosophy
Inspiring Philosophy@@contextiscool7308
@@contextiscool7308 Inspiring Philosophy
I got recommended the "documentary" earlier this week; and over the last few days, recommended rebuttal videos. I was just waiting for Trent to do his work.
Patience pays off.
Did you watch the original video?
the phrase "satan's guide" is enough for me not to watch, because why would i hear out the prince of lies?
@@kooolainebulger8117 Considering thumbnails are click bait, a rationale human would analyze content themselves.
A Christian would match what the original video says compared to their bible to judge its worth.
That anyone would accept this as a "documentary" would be beyond laughable...
...if it wasn't for the fact that whoever produced this clearly intended it to appeal to children - or to those poor souls possessing little more than a child's mindset. One must wonder whether there'll be enough millstones to go around.
And it's as pathetic, reductive, and dishonest as you expected right??
Trent Horn lies for god. It's what he does. The original video is dead on and factually true. No rebuttal possible.
As always detractors of the Bible know it best. Because they aren't motivated to lie about it or twist things into being more in line with their 'faith'.
Grateful for your approach and based responses. Have really enjoyed your book "Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties".
It is amazing to me how obtuse some readers of the Bible can be: it's as if a reader of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment," which recounts the acts and inner life of a murderer, would conclude that Dostoyevsky's novel therefore approves of murder, when in fact, the novel is a powerful indictment of modern ideologies that try to justify certain types of murder.
Except you forgot the part where god actually commanded the slaughter of amalekite infants
@@SenorCinema You're applying the secular position that death is the greatest evil because secularism asserts existence ends with life, and applying that to the Christian position that God acted in history, and getting upset that, when looking at history as we believe it is through this lens of secular morality, God acted in a way you disapprove of.
God is the one who created life and in fact is causally, though indirectly, responsible for allowing physical death to happen in the first place. You're applying an arbitrary line to what's morally acceptable in your eyes, and saying "creating life and allowing natural death is one thing, but directly causing death is too far!"
How on Earth can you logically hold that position?
How is God explaining how to keep slaves and what to do with your slaves a “powerful indictment” of those justifying slavery?
@@Konxovar0 very simply, actually-it’s the only position that logic would permit one to hold, because it’s the only position there is actual evidence for.
@@andyghkfilm2287 Did you read what I wrote before that sentence?
Why do they think that using the embodiment of Evil will change our minds?
because they love their master
Easy. Just ridicule the opposing side into submission. That’s what the documentary does.
they are doing it for the pure mockery. Jesus name trembles them.
They're trolling
It's a bit of irony.
Traditionally, the serpent is seen as the Satan character. If you pull from that then this Satan is telling you some truths (maybe in an attempt to drag you to Hell) but they are in some sense true.
If you can't get past the character being used then you're kind of part of the joke.
The 'documentary' reminds me of a saying.
'With a hammer in your hand, you tend to see every problem as a nail.'
What do you mean exactly? I'm not even sure if you're criticizing atheists or Christians here - both groups could be seen as biased.
@@michaw7408😂😂😂
What does that even mean? How does that relate to the video at all? What the..?
Okay so you're not going to elaborate
Ahhhhhh first time being early!!!! Trent, I loved your debates with James White. You did amazing. Keep doing the great work
Trent’s knowledge of Scriptures is very impressive.
I strive to one day be on his level
@@LetThereBeLight-26same
No, ignorant & heretical! Shame!!
@@easternRomanOrthodox dude, I don’t care what stupid denomination you are, his knowledge is impressive, step off.
G@i@@easternRomanOrthodox
El was also just the word for "god". I think this may actually be a big problem in discerning what an enscription is trying to actually say. It is similar to English, where we say God speaking of the LORD, whereas 'god' is also just the word referring to any deity; a similar thing happened where el was just the word for any god, but El was also the name of their high god.
Along with this, the God of the Bible is sometimes written as "Elohim," which means "the powers." "Elohim" is a plural word, but for most of the Bible is treated as a singular, with one notable exception in Genesis "Let *us* make them in *our* image."
That was my point exactly! I am fluent in the Hebrew & I can tell you that Horn & Akin are the biggest heretics of our time! Shame!
El Elyon
@@evolgenius1150 El Elyon refers to the supreme God YHVH the Father, that's in Hebrew. "El" is just a general word for any "god" , whether real or not
Eloheim or El simply is the ancient word for god (lowercase) its a title of a being, not a name of any person
Wow, there's a whole lot of stupid comments here. "Obviously if it happened in the Bible that means God wanted it" seems to be the running theme.
I honestly don’t think they’re suaded by logic or the actual words in the book.
Believing in a book with no evidence is stupid
@@Topsealguy evidence coincides with existing of these people. King Hezekiah has his name carved into ancient rock and Jesus is not debated among history anymore. Jerusalem has obviously existed. So which part isn’t
@@lilshawty2605The part where it claims a ‘god’ exists.
@@AsixA6 yeah but you only feel that way because of your personal experience and feelings. The Bible has matching geography with real history.
Well done. One of your best videos of this year so far. Great audio by the way, sounds natural.
I saw that video show up on my feed a few months ago. I started watching it and when it got to the part of their being no archeological evidence of the exodus i stopped it and thought “ I hope Trent horn discovered this and does a rebuttal.” I’m so pleased to find that you did!
Boy it seems like that original “satans guide” video was really pushed. I had it suggested to me many times. Seems like many others did as well.
The archeological evidence of the exodus Trent produces here is SERIOUSLY weak. We basically go from the hordes of people Moses led out to a couple of guys that successfully snuck away and made it to Caanan.
There is no archeological evidence for the exodus though. Thats just a fact.
"There is no direct evidence for any of the people or Exodus events in non-biblical ancient texts or in archaeological remains, and this has led most scholars to omit the Exodus events from comprehensive histories of Israel."
Then why is there no proof of any plague happening
Trent, your books and videos have brought me deeper and deeper into my faith. Thanks so much
I had read about an interesting insight about the Canaanite slaughter narratives. Consider events where God’s wrath is kindled against some people, and someone like Moses intervenes and interceded for mercy on them, or how Abraham kept narrowing down the number of righteous in Sodom that God would not smite them for. It could be that, though God’s mortal judgment against a people is just, he is also calling his people to mercy, which they failed to do with Canaan.
god saved a guy willing to give his two daughters to be r**** by a hole city to save two strangers and god killed his wife that did nothing morally wrong
The "El" thing is possibly the silliest objection. Anyone who's studied the Baal cycle and read Genesis-Exodus can easily see that the Abrahamic books are written almost specifically as a polemic against Canaanite religion.
Canaanite mythology cast Baal as the better of two sons of El, but El unjustly favored his other son Yah over Baal. In that light, it's really easy to see the Abrahamic books as setting the record straight, and specifically setting themselves up as an alternative narrative to the Baal cycle.
israelite mythology has way less of a "we just copied homework" relation with Canaanite mythology and much more of a Thesis/Opposing Thesis relationship.
Almost like how protestants write polemics against Catholicism. Have you noticed that protestants originally came from Catholics?
If only more atheists understood this...we would have a lot less stupid takes on the Internet.
You see that yahweh was a son of another God right? You explained that yahweh is a son, brother, once was a husband but like all women in the Bible she was disposable, even if a goddess. Yahweh was the son of Asherah, then her husband but hey inbreeding in cool right?
@@christyadams9235 What?
@@christyadams9235 - No. That’s not implicit in the Bible at all. Yahweh blatantly condemns the worship of Asherah.
“You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God that you shall make. And you shall not set up a pillar, which the Lord your God hates.”
Deuteronomy 16:21-22 ESV
“And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth.”
Judges 3:7 ESV
“That night the Lord said to him, “Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it and build an altar to the Lord your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order. Then take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down.””
Judges 6:25-26 ESV
“the Lord will strike Israel as a reed is shaken in the water, and root up Israel out of this good land that he gave to their fathers and scatter them beyond the Euphrates, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the Lord to anger.”
1 Kings 14:15 ESV
“And they abandoned all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made for themselves metal images of two calves; and they made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal.”
2 Kings 17:16 ESV
I love your rebuttals!
Same
He sucks, no El god? ,
"I dont believe in your book but I will tell you how to read it"
For real bruh , they don't even understand the grace of God .
I mean yeah, it's easy to ignore or re-interprete blind spots when you have incentive to believe it.
@Filioquist I don't reject islam because of my understanding of what the Quran teaches, I reject it because the doctrines preached by muslims are false, both those prooftexted by the Quran and those proven through other means. I know they're not true because they're incompatible with the religion that has the best evidence (in the form of miracles) in support of it: christianity.
@@dr.tafazzi how do you know the doctrines taught by Islam are false the doctrines taught in Catholicism are true
@@SenorCinema Evidence. Anyone can claim to be a messenger from God, therefore the tiebreaker are miracles. The only claimed miracles that I have sufficient (and overabundant) evidence happened confirm the christian revelation.
Was waiting for someone of your caliber to take on this series. Thank you, Trent!
Trent Horn got owned by Matt Dillahunty
@@gabrielochoa5829lol. Matt is super cringe.
@@LuzianJ So is christian apologists.
@@PartnershipsForYou lol. Do you live in your mother's basement? And you think Christians have a hard dating life 🤣🤣🤣
This is disturbing stuff. Some really broken people out there.
Happy Feast day of Saint Peter's Chair!
You’re disturbed by a cartoon? Yes there are lots of broken people out there and many of them are priests.
@@Swinefeldcartoons can be disturbing, I was disturbed when I read chapter 375 of Berserk, and I was even more disturbed when I heard of this.
What kind of awful person do you have to be to see an opinion that goes counter to yours and deem those people 'broken'?
@@Kibaoftheleaves your statement is too general and opens yourself up to rebuttals like “people disagree with me about r@ping animals, do you think they aren’t broken too?”
@@Devout214I don't think they are broken if they believe in the garden of eden,i just believe they are ignorant. They just need information,you have it in the satan's guide.
Also,Berserk is not a cartoon, is a comic book 😑
Thank you for fulfilling my request to rebut this video Trent!
The biggest flaw with this rebuttal is the assumption that God would desire the continued necessity to have all the Biblical nuances interpreted by Church fathers and scholars. Isn’t it reasonable to expect there would be a clear conscious among everyone if salvation is dependent on an accurate understanding?
There is a consensus amongst Christians regarding what is necessary for salvation. Other details have large discrepancies but do not affect one's salvation.
To illustrate my point:
Faith: All Christians believe true alive faith will lead to good works.
Sola Fide: Some Christians believe you are saved only by your faith, and that no work can earn salvation.
Other Christians believe that you are saved through faith and works.
No matter what side you are on, if your faith is alive you will have good works to show. So no matter who is right, both sides will be saved.
@neoromanempire that's hardly what his point was. He was speaking of an individual's ability to accurately interpret the bible. If one person can get it wrong so easily, how can we be certain that anyone has the right understanding?
@@nathanstafford8412Well stated. The banter between faith and works should be unnecessary. If the salvation of mankind was the ultimate goal and Jesus being the way to it, why did the actual Son of God find it unnecessary to provide us with his own Gospel? How the Bible was compiled certainly wasn’t the most effective way to prevent confusion and as history demonstrates, actual chaos.
@@neoromanempireyah, James chapter 2 literally tears apart sola fide.
@@HistoryDwarf Brother... Not it doesn't... It just shows you didn't even bother reading what I said.
Whats quite funny with these people is that their idea of Satan isn't even from the Bible, its from Paradise Lost.
13:29 That's not really a good arguement. Even if God authored life, how does that justify painful death at the hands of a stranger for a child? Its not like they died in their sleep. Also, why can't God, the all-powerful creator of the universe, devise a means of punishing the wicked that doesn't involve or necessitate child murder...
The dollar metaphor also doesn't make sense. Taking my own life away wouldn't be like giving me two dollars and then stop giving me money, it'd be like gifting me a dollar and then taking it away from my hands afterwards
9:20 I once saw someone say “if it’s recorded in Judges, you probably shouldn’t do it.” And yeah, pretty accurate.
What about Daniel being written 400 years after Daniel? And all but the last of the the prophecies being “correct” because they were written after the fact? How do you explain that. That was a major example of the Bible containing errant writings.
Thanks!
Devil is twisting God's words. Who could've thought of that
No, he wasn't, he was LITERALLY using gods words to show that what preachers learn in seminary they AREN"T preaching to their congregations.
Bro is literally doing his job
A cartoon character can twist God's words?
@@JesudídimoBut they lost their immortality and died
@@Jesudídimo Still eating the fruit is the cause of human death. They did not die right away but the consequence of their sin is death. It's kinda similiar to saying to someone that doing drugs will kill you. After the first time someone does them, he might not die but he might get addicted and, in consequence, die.
Great Rebuttal! Thank you Mr. Horn for your wise thoughts and comments.
Wow! This was really well done, Trent! Thank you Brother for posting this 🙏
There is a very fascinating documentary titled “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus”. It goes into how the archeological dating of ancient Egyptian dynasties may be hundreds of years off based on a misidentification of who the Pharaoh named in Exodus actually refers to. Then when looking at the archeological evidence for a mass departure of Jews from Egypt, it’s true no evidence is seen in the traditionally accepted timeline. However, if you look in the modified timeline, there is evidence for a mass departure of Jews from Egypt.
that's a terrible recommendation. The author has been proven multiple times to be a fraud.
If you want some good resource to recommend, point people to Jimmy Akin's 2 episodes on the Exodus, or the longer series by the channel "Ancient Egypt and the Bible" called "Evidence for the Exodus".
I know Inspiring Philosophy has videos on this and other things like the Flood or the Tower of Babel, and refers to what the figurative language might have been talking about,
😂😂😂😂
Thank God we have trent on our side.
Really? He’s not convincing in the slightest. All he did was come up with typical Christian excuses.
I’m so glad someone’s covering this video. I saw it in my recommended like a month ago and thought it was a funny gag video. Watched like 15 minutes and turned it off because of the bogus claims in it
Yep❤️✝️
you turned it off because you are closed minded and couldn't possibly even see what the other side has to say.
@@rizzcool5983 if its not the truth. Why watch it.
Its Satan for sake. The fallen angel who lies. Why believe him.
I will watch others talk about the Bible but not a demon or Satan.
❤️✝️
@@GlobalBricks1 you think satan made a UA-cam video, or was it satire? You won’t know if it’s untrue until you watch it. How would you know if the Bible is real if you didn’t read it? Your logic makes no sense.
@@rizzcool5983 no I’m willing to hear people out, but when people bring strawmen at me and say it’s fact then they have less credibility. I’m open as a blank canvas or an open page. I’m saying the video made some of the weakest claims against the Bible, and god.
I love it when people try and say the Bible is evil, because people do evil things in it. Then they immediately quote judges. A huge part of judges is that Israel had no king, and because of that Israel fell into chaos and depravity. Shows they just looked up a list of “evil” Bible passages online, and didn’t bother with figuring out the context.
“In those days there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in their own eyes”
Yahweh seems to condone stoning someone for breaking the sabbath. Does that sound right to you?
Babe, come quick! Trent posted!!
lol a Christian apologist having a girlfriend
Funniest joke I’ve heard all week
@@PartnershipsForYou it’s not that inconceivable, especially since she’s into Catholic apologetics too, haha.
I assume you came to this video to hear a counter argument from Trent? That’s pretty big of you! Glad to have you here
@@PartnershipsForYou are you implying people whose entire identity is based on what kinks they like in bed are better long term partners than Christian apologists. Lol. Get a reality check.
@@PartnershipsForYouSeems like some serious projection. Almost all Christian apologists on YT have nice thriving families.
@@LuzianJ name 3.
I appreciate you going over such a vast variety spanning so many parts of the Bible. It really is impressive!
I saw this video a while ago and immediately thought of how much I would love to see Trent destroy it. Thank you Trent, you are the reason I got into apologetics. 🇪🇸
wouldn't it be better to figure an objective way to find which parts of the Bible are literally true and which are not, instead of unconditonally defending your ideology? that tells me you are not looking for the truth behind the Bible stories, but instead how to support a belief system in spite of contradicting evidence.
@@ALEX-KYLE-g9What do you mean by objective way? Trent gave both linguistic and theological reasons.
@@LuzianJ "objective" is the antonym of "subjective", but ok: by "objective" I mean the property of being independent of personal opinions, beliefs, preferences, biases, etc. in addition, "reasons" are not "ways" or "methods", and precisely that's why I advocate for ways of telling apart reality from fiction, that can be tested and adopted by others.
@@LuzianJ a theological reason is dependent on certain beliefs, that's why such reason can never be objective, because it will obviously be biased towards the sacred text or tradition that backs the theological framework. it would be the Bible validating the Bible.
@@ALEX-KYLE-g9 that is why I said trent also gave linguistic reasons, plus historical accouts of people taking them as non-literal.
You are awesome man! Thanks for doing what you do!
Thank you.
I saw the original a while back and was thoroughly disgusted by it. The arguments are level 1 atheist talking points and everyone in the comment sections and the creator were patting themselves on the back for being "enlightened".
Thank you Trent for covering this.
And these are pretty much level 2 responses that someone can similarly rebut in one fashion or another.
The point of the first is to acknowledge that churches teach certain things to the youth to strengthen the faith and hide others to not diminish their faith.
Can you acknowledge that as a bad thing?
It’s the same here…weird that u can’t see that.
"The point of the first is to acknowledge that churches teach certain things to the youth to strengthen the faith and hide others to not diminish their faith." Wrong @ess_Border
@@Boundless_Borderno, since it would only be a bad thing insofar as the things “churches” taught to “strengthen the faith” were falsehoods, since one cannot build faith on lies. Likewise, if they “hid,”or - likely more accurately - didn’t focus on certain matters in order not to diminish the faith, this would only be bad if it were for dishonest reasons. It may be good not to reveal or discuss some things if a teacher or an audience is ill-equipped to grapple with them, because you would be needlessly scandalizing persons who, had they had a larger knowledge base, would not be scandalized receiving the same information. Scandal from the ill-prepared teacher, incompetence, and from the ill-prepared audience, ignorance. Whether the emphasis or de-emphasis is done in order to deceive is what would make it wrong. Not the emphasis or lack thereof itself.
A difficulty doesn’t necessarily make a doubt, and as far as the prudence of when is appropriate to address particular difficulties is concerned, this could only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
@@ponti5882
There are false teachings that churches propagate. You can call them simplifications but they are indeed inaccurate teachings.
Similarly, churches do hide details so that members don't struggle with their faith. You even agreed to it but you consider it acceptable. While it could be for entirely well meaning reasons it is a simple fact that churches purposefully focus on certain aspects of the faith and ignore others despite potential theological importance.
While you may think it is for the greater good (which you allude to) a common reason for deconversions is because the church being not entirely honest despite being well meaning.
A nice phrase that encompasses this is that many times the lie is more damning than the truth.
The fact that you feel it is right to lie or hide information from children so that they don't struggle with their faith is very telling to the fact that this is closer to indoctrination rather than education.
They can trust Satan, we will trust God. Amen 🙏🏼 ❤
Thanks for your work, Good bless you.
Thanks for your excellent work in rebutting. It’s interesting to note that atheists often criticize Christians of believing literally everything in the Bible, while they have no problem in doing so themselves.
Even with the simplistic view an atheist isn't believing everything in the Bible when they refute a very basic reading of it. They are simply taking it at face value.
Admittedly, it isn't necessarily the best approach but your criticism is extremely off.
@@Boundless_Border I don't know if it's that far off. Get rid of the word "everything" and it's probably accurate on average.
@@461weavile
Yeah. You're right that the atheist doesn't simply believe "in the Bible." They look at it as another of the fallible yet sometimes helpful works of humans.
You're right that if you remove the word everything it is probably mostly accurate.
Oh my! 2:50 I do believe that the exodus accounts of 600,000 adult men (ages 20-60 as per the census back then) left Egypt. What evidence do they say is missing, what is difficult about maintaining such a belief? I'm curious what they said.
Yes. Especially since absence of evidence does not logically mean evidence of absence. What do they expect to find? Tablets from Pharoah praising his loss and the defeat of the gods of Egypt? Footprints and campfires from thousands of years ago in the middle of a desert?
@@zatoichi1 if you believe the entire biblical account it says clearly, they ate bread from heaven, that their shoes on their feet didnt wear out, that they were surrounded by clouds of glory. In other words it was a miraculous existence, so looking for traces of a regular nation doesn't make sense either.
Beyond the lack of archeological evidence (which is, after all, just the absence of evidence) for a mass Exodus event, I have heard it claimed that with so many adult men (plus women and children) the time table doesn't work because of the sheer numbers. I'm just going from memory here but I think things include the red sea crossing etc.
Keep in mind I am just going from memory of argument against the large numbers, so do not take my comment as expressing the best argument in that direction; I am not steel manning their argument nor do I intend to strawman it
@@zatoichi1
I do want to say I find it interesting that the Exodus actually speaks about the Egyptian gods as if they were real. But that is a tangential remark.
Christian and Jewish teaching on false gods is not that they are imaginary, but rather demons masquerading and deceiving people into worshiping them as gods.
22:00 To the early Christians including Paul, the resurrection was a sign that the resurrection of the dead was going to happen soon. They were absolutely convinced that the apocalypse was coming; it wasn't just being hopeful.
In Norwegian, we have this old expression: "like how the Devil reads the Bible" ("som fanden leser Bibelen"). This means interpreting something as uncharitably as possible and reading the words in the worst possible sense. This expression is often used in the media when a person claims his position has been misrepresented. I don't know if a similar expression exists in English, but it's just funny to me how the phrase "Satan's Guide to the Bible", to me, culturally, translates as "An intentionally bad and self-serving guide."
Jeptha may not have killed her, but similar to when Joshua gave captured slaves to the levies, she was sent away to never marry and serve God. She laments and asks to go and mourn her virginity. If she was going to be killed as a sacrifice, wouldn't she instead plead or mourn for her life?
what verses say that?
So glad you did this. Thanks Trent!
This is peak irony. Like am I supposed to trust a guy represented as satan?
the future is so advanced that satire is self authoring
It's trolling
The video itself points out that the word "satan" just means adversary. If you have someone speaking against a particular view or idea, then they are an adversary to it, and therefore would be a "satan."
The video makers are trying to have fun with that fact, making the video more provocative so that more people see it and hopefully pay attention.
@@michaelweiske702 true, but unfortunately, people don't have enough of an attention span to notice the mistakes which are intentionally made subtle.
@@michaelweiske702 one of the things that bothered me about the documentary was the beginning where they stressed a distinction between "satan" and the "devil" as two different entities. I have heard arguments for that view in the past, but I think from the book of Revelation it becomes clear that Christians understand them as two names for the same thing. But the documentary was cheeky about it and didn't present any argument at all. It's the same atheist bs from satanists.
While satan means adversary or accuser, devil comes from diábolos meaning slanderer. I think a lot of the documentary is slander so...
Satan's guide to the bibe unintentionally portrays the most accurate depiction of the devil possible. Twisting Gods word to lead children into darkness.
Why? How is educating the masses of the real danger of religion supposed to be evil?
It's crazy how a long time ago they wouldn't dare admit or openly worship satan , now they push him in music videos and stupid crap like that.
@matthewglenguir7204 Education is not biased. When you cherry puck, then exclude information and context with the express purpose of making the subject look bad it is not education. It is deception.
The Satan you believe in is a post-Biblical theological invention.
In your own book, God and Satan make a bet over Job’s righteousness, so it seems like they’re on pretty good terms according to your religion.
@@matthewglenguir7204 what is dangerous about it exactly?
Really appreciate this video
I don’t understand how people’s reading of the “dash your babes against the rock” psalm can be so mislead.
The point of the psalm is that Babylon is so horribly evil that anyone who invades it would feel happy taking the worst, most brutal kind of revenge. It doesn’t say “God says we should smash your babies on rocks” it says “happy will HE be who smashes your babes against the rock.”
Yes that's how I always thought of the passage. It represents how evil Babylon had become.
In Eastern Orthodoxy there is also a metaphorical reading of this. Babylon is the whore of Babylon, the root of all evil and her "babies" are sins. "Happy will he be who smashes sins against the rocks".
I don't think that's as misread as you think. this is anecdotal but every time I've discussed that with someone they generally understand its talking about retributively killing babylonian children and that's still terrible.
Because responding with evil to evil is the way to go, gotcha
@@Goneforgoodflsh nope not what it’s saying. It’s saying that some societies are so evil and oppressive that the people who successfully overthrow them delight in their misery. It’s not PREscriptive its DEscriptive
Atheists not repackage frequently answered Biblical challenges and misunderstand history challenge.
Level: impossible.
Atheists don’t use straw mans challenge! (99.99% fail!)
Did you actually watch that documentary? Most biblical scholars who point out the issues with the bible are believers. It's not atheists who "misunderstand history", it's believers who pointed out those issues first.
@michaw7408 Did you actually watch the rebuttal? Did you know the people who pointed out that stuff first answered it, and the skeptics just stop there? Did you realize the documentary only exists to stick a finger in someone's eye and won't impress anyone but other edgy, like-minded atheists? That's why they decided to use Lucifer to give the lessons. It's a silly pseudo documentary and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
You are not an honest person. Have the last word if you like.
Frequently answered doesnt mean correctly answered
Apologists answers are garbage which is why the questions keep getting asked.
21:13 "There is a difference between what the sacred author says and what the holy spirit asserted through his writtings". So basically the things you pick out are asserted and the things that are obviously false or immoral are just relativised?
It seems that that is what the whole video is about. It's about finding excuses for an errant book written by errant people so you can cling to the belive that it is inspired by an inerrant god.
Says is not the same as asserted. What’s asserted is what matters.
Absolutely love your videos. Always insightful and helpful!
Good rebuttal, Trent. Your thoroughness & acceptance of nuance & diverse interpretations are a credit to the Church.
This was very interesting. The only problem I have is how are people, especially people in the past who were largely uneducated, supposed to know what was hyperbole and what was literal? Or how were they supposed to know to interpret something like "blessed is he who takes the children of non believers to the stone" wasn't condoned by God since it is written in the Bible. This leaves it very likely that passages like this are misunderstood and then used as inspiration to commit henous acts. You'd think that God's book would be careful not to leave itself up for interpretation when incorrectly interpreting the scripture can be so dangerous.
Thanks Trent! Good work!
Every time that a real and sincere historian/archeologist has gone out and tried to disprove the Bible it has backfired on them, and they wind up upholding the Bible narrative. The only way, at this point, that these people can NOT believe is willful ignorance and pride. We need to pray for them, that the Holy Spirit should not abandon them to their iniquity, but rather give them the grace of conversion.
"Every time that a real and sincere historian/archeologist has gone out and tried to disprove the Bible it has backfired on them, and they wind up upholding the Bible narrative."
Did you mean "never?" As in, that doesn't actually happen and this is just a pleasing fiction theists tell themselves?
Nice Dogmatic BS
@@shassett79 I'm hesitant to reply in case I'm feeding a troll, but it's probably worth it. How do you explain the archeological discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah? Surely you don't think there were nuclear weapons available at that point in history. When you suggest OP substitute the word "never" into his statement, it implies to me that you've never looked for any evidence and instead merely assume your easier perspective is correct. If you'd like I may have some time to collect other examples than the one at the forefront of my memory.
@@shassett79
Uh, no, this kind of thing happens all the time.
@@FBI-1987 Why bother making a claim like this without offering an example?
Thanks Trent. Great video. God bless🙏
"Satan's guide to the Bible" oh, you mean the father of lies is trying to convince me the Bible is evil and he is not? Very interesting implications.
great pfp
Have you ever seen God with your eyes? I'll wait....
@@donquique1 Have you ever seen the Higgs Boson with your eyes? i'll wait.
There are things that can't be known by sight alone. God is one of them. if you want to see God's full divinity and the full humanity that he acquired, you can go to a Eucharistic adoration in a church near you.
He didn't lie in the Garden of Eden, God did
@hardbolts, your profile makes the comment so much better
Babe wake up, a new Trent Horn banger just dropped
God Bless You Trent🙏
The statistics at the end of this presentation are consistent with something that was easily predictable long ago: sola scriptura ultimately undermines confidence in the Bible.
Why? Because once someone puts much thought at all into sola scriptura (and Protestantism/Evangelicalism generally), it falls apart. And it’s going to keep happening because Protestantism continues to disintegrate with the opening of each additional (supposedly) Biblical church.
Very sad. All easily avoidable too. All one needs to do is read about the early Church centuries before Constantine. Most people won’t do so, however, because they are lazy or afraid of what they will find. If you aren’t into reading, then Google Joshua Charles, Scott Hahn, and David Anders and hear from them - unquestionably, top experts on the Bible and former Protestant historians, pastors, and scholars.
There was a reason Christ founded a single Church and prayed for unity
So the Bible condemns child sacrifice (probably just among the Israelites) but it’s ok if god does it because blah blah blah. What kind of crap is this? “God doesn’t doesn’t like it at all but he can and will do it everyday”. Youre seriously confused.
Im not persuaded.
"Do as I say not as I do"
And God is Good, whatever God does is good. Then God murders babies. Can we murder babies? No? Why? Cause Only God can do it. But it's good. No It's Only good for God
Subscriptions-Aron Ra 😂😂😂
A little footnote: that altar or statue "of the unknown god" in Athens that Paul spoke about is most likely a statue of a monotheistic god, which means that either Socrates or one of his direct followers made it, since they were pretty much the only monotheists in Greece at the time.
Thanks be to God ❤
God bless Trent et al. defending the faith in Christ against the attacks of Satan via Atheists
So we take certain things that align literally, but all the weird stuff is poetic license…got it
Satan’s guide to the Bible is a great piece of work! I’m glad it’s out there, the Bible is not perfect but inconsistent in a lot of aspects. I hope it goes viral TBH
I wish God had told us which parts are hyperbole and which parts he wanted us to take literally. It certainly would have reduced the number of different factions in The Church and unified the body of Christ.
It's possible God could've done it another way, but God did plan for that. Jesus promised the first Pope that the Holy Spirit would guide His appointed vicar into the fullness of truth. We can be confident in the interpretation because God promised it.
@@461weavile"You can believe us because we tell you that he told us that we defininitely got the authority. Don't mind all the smoking bodies of people burnt on stakes that disagreed with us across time, it's actually what god wanted! Yeah"
@@mathiasrryba First, if the testimonies of at least four people isn't enough for you, feel free to find any dissenting opinions. Boldly claiming "Jesus never said that" is not a persuasive argument.
Secondly, are you implying that the Church is not universally persecuted by pointing out the relatively small number of executions perpetrated by the Church? That's a laughable position and I suggest you keep that opinion to yourself to avoid any embarrassment.
@@461weavile There are no testimonies besides Paul who admits he's had a hallucination (but can't decide if it was auditory or visual one).
The church has been the tyrannical oppressor for the majority of its existence. Holding Europe by the balls, countries either kneeled to the pope or were getting invaded. Using heresy as an excuse to commit genocides across centuries.
My own country back in 9th century had to get baptized as a form of self defense to take away the right to invade and raze us from the catholics.
@@461weavile "The relatively small number of executions perpetrated by the Church" ?? Based on recent admissions, logic, and the law of averages I'm betting that throughout Catholic ecclesiastical history there must be an entire WORLD of children sexually abused by Catholic Clergy. But, hey, I guess those technically weren't "executions".
youtube kept pushing this to me for some reason and I know I'm not the only one. thank you for covering this!
Remember kids, don’t take the Bible literally unless you do, because the Bible is right, and you can make it so with your own interpretation
It's always these aging hippies. BTW, InspiringPhilosophy made a 3hr response to that video 8 days ago. Haven't seen it myself, yet. So, I was pleasantly surprised you also made response. Kudos.
Why is Christianity always criticized? Who's behind this?
People who are tired of Christianity's cultural hegemony in the West?
@@shassett79jews
@@shassett79 doesn’t sound right. There’s a certain group who’s hated Jesus since the beginning. Trying to erase his message.
If you know, you know
@@crasnicul3371 I hope this is ironic antisemitism, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it isn't.
@@borginburkes1819 Let me guess.... the Jews?
Well... God condemned all humans for the actions of a distant ancestor who did not have the knowledge of good or evil. He finds burnt offerings and sacrifices pleasing. He drowned the world including killing innocent animals. He murdered the firstborn of Egypt including babies, after "hardening Pharaoh's heart" thereby violating free will. He inflicts infinite punishment for finite wrongdoings. He demands worship under threat... remind me of who the "bad guy" is supposed to be again?
Trent is a legend
Lmao ok
in your fractured ret4rd mind, probably
Thank you, Trent, for defending the Truth.
One thing is for certain the Bible is an example of power of storytelling
Saying gods moralty (eye for an eye doctrine) changed implies god was wrong and wasn't perfect. Also the analogy of "i gave you it so i can take it" implies many things. 1 that life is not our own and we are not given autonomy over our lives, and 2 that genocide/mass murder is fine as long as god does it. With this same logic killing abundant sinners could be justified based on the idea of a righteous cleansing just like in Canaan.
I think it's funny that the people who made the documentary took Satan, the literal main villain of the Bible, the guy known worldwide for being a manipulator and for bending the truth, the guy known as the Father of Lies, and said "Yeah, I'm gonna listen to him"
You're trying to explain why the Bible is not historical by using the Bible to prove it is .
Ive watched that vidio several times and l would absolutely love to discuss this with you.
SATAN WAS CORRECT IN THE VIDEO.
The video was well done and brought up some interesting points. Of course, it was a bit "comedic" but the subject is heavy. My dad is a pastor, so he also learned about these things in school. He has his Ph.D in theology and can read Greek and Hebrew. Growing up I thought everyone knew this stuff, I thought it was common knowledge and didn't think much about it.
13:24 dude justifies god killing children violently because God gave you the gift of life and he can take it away by any means necessary
What's wrong for the creator of life to take it away when he literally set the entire universe it's laws?
@@danfoxdude its cruel and unjust and he's playing favorites. It's very unfair. We have a conciojs that tells us so. Whos to say God isn't in the spirit of every terrorist , why would we be mad at the terrorist, it was God's will that allowed him to do an attack and he has the right to taks our lives so why be upset with the terrorist? Did God not say to forgive?
What's wrong is your argument is flawed and cannot be engaged because you are in control of the question because you can claim whatever you want when you're arguing in favor of the morality of God.
Tldr your argument is god can be as cruel as he wants you have to love him
@@danfoxdudeDoubling down on the other commenter, if God is the source of morality, you have a steep bullet to bite. If God says rape, murder, slavery, and genocide are morally excusable in any case, would that make it so?
this is retarded
@@wishfulwaffle4801 that’s a really interesting question but it kinda reads to me like what if two plus two equalled five would it be five. In that universe I guess but that’s just not how this universe is constructed. Conceptually ideas like rape, slavery, murder fundamentally conflict with the basics of justice and fairness which in that case you’re just saying if God was evil would evil be good? I argue the concept of good is woven into the universe itself and is real and concepts like can exist cause God purposely created them. So if the universe in your hypothetical was consistent with that which I can’t imagine a universe it is then it would. Luckily our God is a God of perfect love which is further why we put our faith in him.
They don’t call him the deceiver for nothing
I wanted to rebut everything in the comments but realized I’d have to write an essay and at university I didn’t have the immediate time, thank you for standing up for what is true and especially for showing how bad faith every one of these arguments was, there were so many it made it seem weighty when it was really shallow as an argument.
God send for the lost as always, Trent.
Mankind is a rationalizing animal; not a reasoning one. Alexander Hamilton
You are proof of that..
Explain
@@manne8575 almost all people are more prone to using their mind to justify their actions and beliefs rather than using the scientific method with logic and unbiased facts to try and nullify their beliefs, desires and actions.
A highly intelligent person usually just uses more elaborate arguments to defend their already established conclusions.
A six thousand years ago Creationist with a Medical Degree will be just as hard to reason with as an eighth grade school ditch digger who believes the same.
@@craigbritton1089 Nope I disagree, Trent is correct. Have a nice day.
@@manne8575 a rationalizing with no reasoning: thanks for illustrating the point
@@craigbritton1089 Yeah, atheists are definitely great examples of that
Putting “REBUTTED” in the title doesn’t make the information within the video rebutted.
It’s filled with excuses, I was expecting criticism far more in depth than this.
He just went through old apologetic “answers”, aldo he doesnt care if he is wrong because his target audience is people who are already believers. And for those kind of people this sound good enough.
BTW. Great profile image
@@p.i.6373Dude she doesn't love you.
@@p.i.6373 You’ve hit that right on the nail. Also, thanks. *I love women.* 👍🏻
@@purplesamurai5373 🤦♂️
@@BanginOnWax682 I'm not wrong. You don't love him
On a roll as usual brother. 3-0 debate and now this rebutted. GBY brother
Has anyone seen the Allie debate yet? How was it?
@@t.d6379 saw some of it. Prob will finish. I mean she isn’t at the caliber of Trent or even white for that matter. But she is nice from what i saw.
@GerbyWorrior she was the moderator right? She wouldn't need to be at the same level as the two debaters Trent and White.
@@t.d6379 no the one I’m talking about is where Candace Owen was somewhat the mod and they were explaining Catholics Vs Prots. Trent wasn’t in full debate mode or anything
@@GerbyWorrior oh okay gotcha.
So, when something in the Bible is inconvenient (to the Church’s narrative), it is not meant to be taken literally, or it is merely some ramblings from Paul’s “secretary”, but when something in the Bible is convenient, it is most definitely literal AND the word of god. Got it! 😜
“However the documentary doesn’t seriously consider that God is the author of life, and so god does nothing wrong by ending our lives. If I have you 20 dollars today and took 20 dollars tomorrow, I haven’t wronged you because that’s a gift you never had any right to in the first place. God also has the right to end life as he sees fit including through violent means, if that was necessary to make a public judgment against a gravely sinful people.”
So what I’m getting from this is that it’s okay for god to do the opposite of what he purveys, to murder, because he created us? Is it okay for a mother to disembowel a child she bore? We have no right to life, and yet we’re held responsible for what we’re given? If the canaanites really were so awful, that’s by gods design and it’s his fault as much as it is theirs. Dr Frankenstein isnt blameless for the sins of his monster, HE CREATED IT, and thus the ethical responsibility of putting him down lies on him as well. God isn’t an exception to a rule just because he created it, he’s just as responsible.
Shhh, just let God continue to drown babies, throw them at rocks, feed them to bears, give them the plague, endorse slavery, commands his army to kill entire cities while telling them to spare the *VIRGIN WOMEN* so they can get r*ped by his soldiers, and the list of evil deeds goes on and on. It's cool because he's God. I guess a mom can easily shoot her ALIVE BREATHING AND CONSCIOUS KIDS because she made them. Hey wait... These same people advocate for this dumb stance, yet, are mad about aborting a clump of cells with no consciousness but God can kill babies and children that are fully alive and ARE conscious? The hypocritical thinking is crazy.
Frankenstein may not be blameless for the sins of his monster, or for the things he did to it, but Mary Shelly is. People don't go around calling her horrible and evil because she created characters and then had them die.
The difference between a mother and her child is astronomically different to God and His Creation. We are infinitely separate from perfection
God cannot murder, it's his right to give and take life
And this is how you get to the reasoning that the less perfect people maybe should be taken care of @@m.b.7920
This video was everywhere in my recommendations a few months ago, but I never bothered to watch it. With a title like “Satan’s guide to the Bible” I figured there probably wouldn’t be anything of value. Thanks for making this summary!
Catholics really have the most reasonable, sensible view on scripture. Its very refreshing. Some of the responses like authorship were well thought out and argued well. My fiancé and myself often cringe at these fundamentalist literal interpretations of the bible, when I tell her the catholic teaching she tends to agree with that.
I love waking up to a new Trent Horn video
Trent most of this is just special pleading and moving the goal posts. Satan in the movie is correct to point out these things because not only do the scholars seem to agree on this, most Christians agree on the interpretations he's discussing. The main thrust of the points made in the book is that scholars DO know there is nuance when describing the Bible, but most pastors, laypersons, and yes, scholars, accept these inaccurate and error filled interpretations as truth and proliferate them to their congregations and pop culture. To go back and say "well there is a possibility they weren't REALLY saying what they wrote down" is just special pleading and comes off as a dishonest attempt to blur what the movie is saying to try to score points against things that were already addressed.
The end argument about people with the “all or nothing” approach to reading the Bible really resonates with me because I’ve made this exact same observation before, that atheist interpretations of the Bible are very close to fundamentalist interpretations.
What do you mean very close? They're exactly the same!