Your Toughest Qs on the God of the Old Testament (with Paul Copan)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Recently I interviewed Dr. Paul Copan about his latest book IS GOD A VINDICTIVE BULLY? We addressed tough questions to the God of the Old Testament. In this video, we respond to the toughest questions that we left as comments and take a few lives questions as well.
WATCH: Is God a Vindictive Bully? ( • Is God a Vindictive Bu... )
READ: Is God a Vindictive Bully? (amzn.to/3xJRMTu)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
Dr Copan is arguing that God said if you beat your “servant” with a rod out of frustration and they do not die, you are excused because you are the one who is providing for the “servant’s” medical care.
If today you got frustrated with your dog and beat it with a rod out of your frustration,would you be excused because you’re the one who takes it to the vet? I’m pretty sure this would be criminal animal abuse and certainly would not be considered morally acceptable.
Are dogs today treated better than human “servants” under God’s law in the OT?
The mental gymnastics going on with Dr Copan is crazy. If you've read the bible it's pretty clear that his interpretation runs pretty count to a plain reading of the text. That's why even these explanations are bad. He uses the term "equivalent to a non-forceful rape." Even painting these stories in the best more distorted light possible, he can't escape the brutality of the source material
Because God is Creator and Sovereign over all, there are actions He may take that are forbidden to us. If an individual cannot submit to God’s authority, there will never be enough or adequate explanations. As far as difficulties in the Mosaic Law: Jesus gave the best reason in the hard and sinful hearts of mankind.
*You should consider a career trying to justify the actions of Ba'al, or Molech.*
Paul is trying to answer some deep, down home issues. I understand how deep and down home they are however I’m struggling with his clinical and almost detached explanations. If I didn’t have faith in the over reaching wisdom of God I could never understand. I’m forced to bow to HIS judgement even though history and present events allow destruction on our kids. It’s all SO disturbing.
Not only does He ALLOW the destruction of our kids, sometimes He directly and intentionally CAUSES it. They didn't address any of the many questions that were posted about it, but in the previous video they defended God killing all of the Egyptian firstborn children to punish their parents for the treatment of the Israelites in Egypt.
@@3littlefonzies120 , who said God killed them? Maybe I missed something? Was it not attributed to a lesser (compared to 'El'/Yahweh God) 'death angel' of the spiritual council that rules the 'heavens' and the earth? I mean that's not nearly the worst of things attributed to God's own hand/word.. there's the wiping out of whole tribes of people and then there's Noah's flood... thankfully, by faith, there is likely an unknown gracious and merciful plan for those who were never able to perceive, much less act upon, a righteous faith unto the One True God.. namely the young and the mentally challenged who could never reach or enter into an age of accountability. And, I don't negate the fact that from birth we are wholly sinful and not one of us deserves preservation unto an eternal holy place with God. I digress.
Someone asked me why bad things happen. All offered him was stating that we live in a world of sinners, where I am one of them. We are selfish constantly, and always looking out for #1-ME. Then I asked him to imagine a world where everyone honored God and lived to please him. Would we be killing each other, hurting each other? We would still have to deal with illness, accidents, natural catastrophes, things that never happened in God's "Good" Garden of Eden and the world of that time. We do have the hope that we will live in a world where we will not longer have a sin nature, but rather a nature acquired from Christ himself, a sin-free nature without the ability to commit a sin against our Creator. In a million years in heaven, there will no fear of "slipping" and committing a lie or some transgression against God.
I still don’t feel like I can defend these passages against a non-believer bc I’m not fully convinced by the explanations
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your filtering your interpretation through a or some type of preconceived notions( worldview) for example, one very obvious one, would be that we are products of the Enlightenment and we largely think in a empiricist naturalist sort of worldview about things, who thumb down our nose at prescientific people..only a possibility mind you but a very common one... however water hydraulics, bookkeeping/note-taking General mathematics and algebra and philosophy and theater and the inventing of the wheel and astronomy and knowledge of medicine from plants and perfume/ colognes.. the idea of democracy civil engineering, the Supreme Court concept of precedent... we all kind of get all these from pre scientific people.
..... Jesus loves you in case you didn't know that
I am a believer and I am not satisfied with these answers either as in I do not believe the responses are reflected in the Bible. This is a stumbling block for me. The whole interview.
@@123JustBecause this is not meant as a knock against you but when someone someone tells me that they're a believer I'm usually not convinced or I usually just don't let onto the fact that I'm gonna be skeptical...
..... I'm not going to say that you're not a Believer or you're not a Christian if you don't agree with every single point but at the same time even for a professing Christian this is a heart issue, so the basic question here is ,you got to ask yourself is who are you to judge the one who gave you your sense of morality in the first place.. if you came to that question on your own, it could possibly be that you have a problem reconciling the sovereignty with goodness which is not a conundrum but it seems like it to those who have not dealt with this or the problem of evil type issue before... it could also be the idea that you might possibly think that people are basically good.. mixed in with a little bit of filtering the Bible through your Christian tradition, whatever denomination you are, instead of the culture that you get your Bible from...
Maybe somewhere you want to be the final Arbiter of whatever interpretation has to be interpreted instead of letting the intent of the original authors guide your interpretation....
..Jesus loves you in case you forgot!
@@enoch3874 I’m not judging God, I’m questioning some of the material in the OT using the mind God gave me that He wants me to use for the genuine pursuit of Truth. There are some passages that I’ve prayed about that I just can’t believe we’re inspired by God and to will myself to override my God-given sense of morality and Truth simply to be in alignment with a doctrine of inerrancy is not something I can do without compromising my own integrity. God doesn’t want sheep anyway and Jesus never commanded us to believe in inerrancy. I’m willing to let the mystery be yet the problem remains that I cannot answer an unbelievers challenge when/if I’m asked why God said you can beat your slave with a rod as long as he/she isn’t bedridden for over two days.
@@jonnyw82 you say I'm not judging God.. you mentioned pursuing genuine truth.. you make a comment about your Integrity in comparison to God.
.... for something you say you're not doing, it sure sounds like you are by the way Express yourself.
.... you questioning the biblical doctrine of inerrancy, then it makes sense where you're at.
If biblical inerrancy isn't your approach then when it comes to interpreting the Bible aren't you giving yourself by definition, free reign to believe the parts you want and take out the parts you don't want... what's the point of calling yourself Christian then?
Shouldn't interpretation be more based on what the author's meant to come across rather than filtering our interpretation through our postmodern post scientific methodological naturalistic politically correct ways of thinking?
I don't think summing up your nose at a bunch of pre-scientific people is a good justification... not necessarily accusing you of that but it is common enough.
And if Jesus included the Old Testament as scripture and by definition in his lifetime wasn't familiar with the New Testament... maybe that should have some implication on your thought process...
And claiming to love Jesus don't you think you should Define your interpretation the way he says you should?... I mean Jesus born in the city of David, whom is the Son and Lamb of God... who takes away the sins of the world he's the point of the Old Testament right?...
If you have a problem with the prescribe/describe distinction then I would sincerely accuse you of having a double standard.
Look, I can understand being exposed to a certain part of the text that you never knew existed, that's one thing but what you're saying is a whole another thing...since you're talking words like "inerrancy".. this sort of gives the impression that.. you're a seasoned non-inerrantist.. that makes things a little different.
...... the reason that we have a Doctrine of biblical inerrancy is because from cover to cover there's a chronology and an overarching meta narrative that's the main reason that most Bibles come with a cross reference system... the word inerrancy not being in the Bible is not a very good justification for dismissing inerrancy.
it's just like saying the word Trinity is not in there therefore the Trinity is not in the Bible.... I mean it does kind of sound a little lazy.
Jesus refers to the Old Testament as God's word...
Jesus was a Jew... existing before he was physically born and taking Abraham out of ur of the caldees before then
.. that definitely should have some implication on your thought processes
...
Leviticus 25:44-46 makes clear slaves are human property that can be bequeathed to the slave owner’s children.
QUESTION: If Lucifer, along with a third of the angels, rebelled against God, while in His presence beholding His glory, isn't it possible for mere humans to rebel or sin in the presence of God, even with the promise of eternal life for those who are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ? Unless there's a major redesign whereby we are stripped of our free will, how can we have assurance that we would not do what Lucifer and his cohorts did?
Also, how delusional is Lucifer to think that he could get away with his rebellion? It seems to me there's something else here that we are not privy to.
In Hebrews 8:7,8,9,10,11,12,13 God speaks of His transition from the Law, to Grace under Christ for those who have received And believed in Christ. The Laws are still in effect but Grace gives us human beings, the desire and ability to do what is righteous.
Many Christians don’t understand the reason for the Laws and how they lead to Grace under Christ
I’m curious what you would think of a question that came up in my theological studies of Hell and the eternal fire.
“When we go to hell do we lose the image of God that was gifted to us in creation?”
I say this because all that we can attest to be good in us is only because God is good and He created us as Good. Therefore He did not create something evil but we do evil through sin. So when we fully forsake God and denounce Him as we step into eternal separation from Him, is His image barring attributes stripped from us?
If yes it would make sense why people in hell are never going to repent despite eternal damnation. A lot more I could theorize but I’ll leave it open to you.
Great show, great guest. Provocative and informative. Thanks Dr McDowell.
When Satan tempted Eve in the garden, who turned around and tempted Adam and caused his downfall, the result was that Satan had usurped the dominion of this earth that had been given to Adam. Jesus died to redeem the planet, as well as to redeem you and me! He is currently just about to complete that redemption. He's been waiting for His people to "grow up" to His full stature. Currently, His church (which is His body) --the church of which HE alone is the head--is dwarfed and feeble. The body needs to grow up to be proportionate to its Head! Thankfully, He is about to do a mighty work among His people and Jesus will soon come for them. The book of Revelation explains it all very, very beautifully but spiritual things are spiritually discerned. It takes the Spirit of the Living God to interpret the Words of the Living God for those who seek after His Spirit.
Dr Copan’s justification of the treatment of “servants” (I’ll just call them human beings in this reply) is so beyond the pale. He starts out by saying that these human beings were not treated as merely property as if they were a piece of furniture, but throughout the rest of his argument he is saying exactly the opposite. At 5:15 he says “If you’re going to harm someone, to injury, then you’re only harming yourself, you’re only harming your pocketbook.” Are you serious!?! Only your pocketbook!? You’re harming the HUMAN BEING that you beat with a rod! If you were destroying a chair you’d be only hurting your pocketbook, if you beat a human being with a rod you are harming the literal human being. Dr Copan's argument here is proving that human being in this system were treated as property and not as human beings. This law, and Dr Copan's defense if it, is treating these humans as mere property despite all the other talk in these videos about all humans having dignity as image bearers of God or whatever.
Additionally, his characterization of these human beings as hired workers that entered into a contractual relationship for period of time is inaccurate and incredibly misleading. While it’s true the law seems to limit Hebrew male’s period of service to 7 years and grants these Hebrew male’s more protections relative to others, this is not the case for all human beings in the OT system. Dr Copan fails to mention that I man could also sell his daughter into servitude and females servants were servants for life. “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do” (Exodus 21:7, NIV). (Also the next 4 verses make this sound like sex slavery but I don’t want to get into that now, Exodus 21:8-11). In this case the woman didn’t freely enter into the contract, she was sold by her father, and her indenture isn’t for a defined period of time because she is a servant for life. Also, foreign servants were indentured for life (Leviticus 25:44-46).
As much as apologists like to point to the antebellum South and say how this was so much worse that OT systems (because slavery is ok as long as it's better than another country's slavery system, or is at least in line with cultural norms?), this argument was a common one in pro-slavery rhetoric and post-war apologetics. Pro-slavery proponents frequently argued that slave owners couldn’t mercilessly beat their slaves all the time because they needed them to work, if they beat their slaves, they would lose that labor source while the slave recovered so they couldn’t do this. They also argued that slavery was more humane and just than the Northern factory system because they provided all the slaves needs (food, clothing, medical care, shelter, etc) and really treated them like family members, while the cruel Northern factory owners only paid their workers measly wages and kicked them out to the curb when their shift was done to fend for themselves. Also most slave states’ slave codes made killing a slave illegal with the punishment equal to what it would be if done to a free white man, and prohibited physical punishment beyond “moderate correction.” These laws were used to justify American slavery in the very same way that Dr Copan is defending the OT system here. The slavery apologetic playbook doesn’t change much I guess. It really sounds like these OT apologists found a book from 1850 titled "How to Defend Slavery" and thought "these are great, I'll use these!"
What is your argument against corporal punishment? Such a thing has been common in militaries until recent times. Do you have an argument other than begging the question?
Starting out by immediately and categorically characterizing the Hebrew term עבד as "indentured servitude" and a contractual agreement is ridiculous in light of passages like Leviticus 25:44-46 and an even cursory knowledge of ANE cultures. Statements like that really take away from his credibility and I hope no well-meaning Christian out there repeats this to someone who knows better.
Also the attempt to draw a distinction between what's being described with חזק (literally strong) v. תפש (literally seize) is pretty absurd, given that תפש is used when Elijah says to seize and slaughter the prophets of Baal after their show-down on Mt. Carmel. Aside from just making a blanket statement that something described as forceful is "stronger terminology", contextually there's no real difference in the "strength" of the words being described. Clearly the passage is talking about a forceful seizure, looking at the end of Deuteronomy 22:29 it says the man who "seizes" can't divorce because he has "violated" (ענה) the daughter.
In fact, the root for "violated" is used to describe the exact same "forced" behavior in Genesis 34:2 where וישכב אתה ויענה is usually translated something like "lay with her by force".
Not saying that I actually take the prophetic oracle as “prescriptive”, but I find it interesting how Dr. Copan uses the example of “telling the Israelites to sacrifice their children” as something that God wouldn’t command due to his moral goodness, quoting Jeremiah 19:5. Especially given that Ezekiel 20:25-26 says the exact opposite, that God “gave them statutes that were not good… offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord.”
As a Christian, none of this causes problems for me because I see the Bible as an inherently multivocal text with different theological aims and purposes per book, and even sometimes per chapter or verse. Here Ezekiel has in mind God’s sovereignty and then puts it on the Israelites to distinguish between his “good” v. “defiling” commands, holding them accountable for their own choice to defile themselves. Jeremiah on the other hand, is less concerned with God’s overarching sovereignty (at least to the extent Ezekiel is) and is more concerned about the fact that the Israelites are not only sacrificing their children, but doing it to foreign gods. To hone in on whether God commanded these things or not is to miss the whole point of the passages, or the proverbial forest for the trees. It's the exact same fallacy as those who argue over young v. old earth creationism in Genesis 1 while not realizing that it describes God creating primordial sea dragons (תננים) or that it envisions the earth as surrounded by cosmic waters (המים אשר מעל לרקיע) above a solid "expanse" (or however you argue for translating רקיע) in which windows/floodgates can be opened to bring the torrential rains (see Genesis 7:11).
I get why he wants to try and resuscitate and defend these texts, because he wants to say that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God” and comes down to us without any morally questionable material in it. But the twisted hermeneutics and his selective use of passages (which ironically he himself decries) to defend something that you frankly just don’t need to in order to be a Christian both angers and saddens me. Why? Because I know that another generation of Christians is going to grow up reciting these same baseless arguments, and when they get push-back, they are going to lose, or at least seriously undermine their faith. All for what? To hold on to an unnecessary and misguided doctrine of inerrancy and the Bible as a morally perfect book in all that it prescribes or attributes to God.
@photoionized Thank you for sharing your perspective on this difficult subject. Your way of interpreting these passages is interesting and I have to think more about it but I appreciate people engaging in these questions in an honest way because it helps much more than trying to explain away that which is obvious by changing the meaning of the texts. However, for me it’s very hard to imagine God commanding evil actions to imperfect people who will inevitably follow it through. I find it easier to accept that the author of some of the problematic passages had an errant view of God and falsely attributed evil commands to God. What would be your thoughts of such a view?
@@HeHe-zn4hc Yep, I would completely agree on that. While I view the Bible with a high amount of authority, I recognize that people wrote it, and that their view of God as it pertains to many passages very clearly reflects theological predispositions and worldviews of their Ancient Near Eastern neighbors.
I don't think that they got "everything right" -- but my point is that when we look at the context/authorial intent, Ezekiel clearly isn't intending to say, "look, God, commanded evil things like child sacrifice to our ancestors", his point is, all that happens, good or bad, good commandments or bad commandments is all under the control of God -- it's God's sovereignty that's in mind, not the particularities of the commandment -- and with that context it's very clearly the voice of Ezekiel himself talking about the sovereignty of God. So oversimplifying what's going on in the text either way and saying, "God would never do this" or "look how much of a moral monster God is" completely misses what the Bible is -- the theological out-workings of Israel as they try and make sense of their relationship with God in the world and in their volatile history. The Bible is messy, multi-vocal, and just can't be looked at with any real fidelity in such simple, "proof text" ways.
It's always interesting to me when incredibly imperfect people come into the chat to criticize a perfect God. We are the ones that don't set the morals we get those from Him who created us not the other way around and our view of things is like looking at the universe through a straw so infinitely small and narrow.
How can you claim a perfect god, when it is an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being that condemns individuals to eternal torment?
@johnelliott5859 because it is a choice for us not for him. He allows us the choice to either choose him or choose our own path. No one at the end will be able to say "but if only I knew" most people that say God isn't fair are usually the ones that know who he is and blatantly choose to not follow.
@@jkaise42 ummm? The bible clearly teaches that it is god who does the choosing. Salvation is a gift of god, not of works. God is all knowing. He already knows who will and won't be saved. Free will is common cover for the incoherence of an all loving god who condemns individuals to eternal torment just for being created by that god since all men are created sinful.
In my opinion once you do know the entire picture of the god of the bible, following/worshiping the god of the bible is immoral.
Something that has come up in some comment threads: these passages are relatively easily explained when you take away the assumption of biblical inerrancy. The Bible may have been inerrant in its original format, or it may not have been. Even if it isn't completely inerrant (something the Bible itself never claims) - due to it being written and copied (and modified) by human hands - it can still be god-breathed and useful for teaching and reproof (the actual claim in 2 Timothy).
Things like the exaggeration from killing all soldiers to killing all men and women young and old. This is a case where viewing the Bible as inerrant causes a moral dilemma but acknowledging the human involvement in the Bible makes it easy to point out how the exaggeration (a common occurrence in that time and culture) would be less reliable as a description of the reality and explains the morally questionable aspect as a human addition. It becomes a point emphasizing the victory of God's people over their enemies instead of a literal command to slaughter children.
Some have brought up that forgoing the assumption of biblical inerrancy allows you to pick and choose what verses you feel are accurate, but we already do that even with the assumption of inerrancy by choosing which translation or interpretation we feel is correct. Forgoing the assumption of biblical inerrancy just acknowledges that bias and should ideally push us to understand the manuscript and translation variants (where possible) so we can better understand the context and intent of the human author. We can then use that understanding to help inform our discernment of the god-inspired message.
Good questions and answers. The brunt of the work of answering these questions about OT difficulties seems to involve looking at the text in context, or in other words, seeing what the truth about the text actually is. Who would have thought it?
I left a comment on the first part because of my discontent with Dr Copan’s responses, thinking I was an outlier. It appears that the general audience is unsatisfied by the answers in part two.
Which part was unsatisfying?
These passages are fully understandable if you simply recognize that the passages reflect the prevailing man-made morality of a Bronze Age, dessert dwelling, mostly illiterate culture. And no, The “slave” in Exodus is not the equivalent of a bond-servant. The correct interpretation of the passage is that the slave “is your property” and not “money.” There are innumerable other passages making clear that a slave is human property and that permit the slave owner to keep the children conceived by slaves who are later freed.
It really is amazing to me how much sense it makes when I read the Bible in the context of "ancient desert people wrote this", compared to when I try to read it within the context of a "divine omni-knowing/good creator inspired this".
Well, you have not solved the problem. Have you? In fact, the morality you propose is a recent thing. Why isn't it that the Romans, Aztecs, Japanese and other cultures follow your morality? Why follow yours instead of them?
@@TinesthiaSee my objection to the OP.
@@computationaltheist7267 Never said I was trying to solve the problem. What we today view as fair, right, just, moral, and ethical, is surely different from the views of our ancestors or other societies. Every society ever has come up with its own set of rules and moral codes, all of which differ from each other in some respect, and all of which have changed over time. We know today that all humans are genetically the same. That makes it difficult to justify enslaving a foreigner, as was justified in the Bible, on the notion that the slave is inferior.
@@DPM917 Nowhere did I say that you were resolving the problem.
Your argument that all humans are genetically the same and thus equal is a non-sequitur. Being genetically the same does not mean that treating a fellow man is good. I mean, lions are the same but they have different hierarchies and even brutality against weak lions where the weak are left to die.
Enslaving a foreigner had more to do with land. Because God gave the land to Israel, it was entitled to Israel. A lot of countries that want to keep their national identities do this. Take Israel which does not permit sale of land for to Arabs because it would jeopardize their national security. It says nothing of the foreigners personhood.
I'm still unclear about his answer to my question: "Is there ANYTHING that could show up in the Bible that is so immoral [based on our moral instincts], that you wouldn't give a pass to it?"
He said that we should distinguish between what is "morally difficult/exceptional" and "morally impossible". But he bases what is "morally impossible" on what the Bible teaches about God. It therefore seems that Paul would give a pass to ANYTHING, as long as it's portrayed as consistent with God's character in the Bible. Is this correct? There's NOTHING that Paul wouldn't give a pass to, based on his moral intuition?
He talked a lot about non-theistic morality, but I don't see how it was relevant. We can assume theistic morality exists without assuming the Bible gets it right.
Also, he gives "lying" as an example of something that God would never do. But, in 1 Kings 22:22 God sends a deceiving spirit to the prophets. That's lying. Will Paul commit to not giving a pass to this passage? Or will he find some reason to give a pass to it anyway?
1 Kings doesn’t specify if the lying Spirit spoke up to to Luke other Passages imply; which means “God Sending” = “God allowing to go.”
@@andriod090 I'm not sure what you mean. In 1 Kings, God literally says "Go and do it."
Of course many, many things! The Bible records a lot of human history. It describes a bunch of moral atrocities. However, it doesnt prescribe them
@@incredulouspasta3304 yeah. That’s literally what I mean. The passage has the lying spirit stepping forth and offering to Go, thus God sent the lying spirit - a satan, also known as an adversary. It’s not saying Gold the lying spirit to go put a lie in their mouth, making God the cause of the lie.
@@apracity7672 No, many of these atrocities are explicitly portrayed as prescriptions. For example, Deuteronomy 20:10-15 is a direct command.
A “ loving” God created a universe that holds together with Laws...for instance,gravity and reaping and sowing, are Physical and Spiritual Laws.
He also couldn’t apparently couldn’t create a society without slavery
@@cardcounter21 This world is the result of ppl rejecting God's laws and relying on their own reasoning as being the primary moral standard(including Catholics and Protestants), despite the fact that God's laws were given to us for our own good and well being.
Did Paul Copan actually answer the question whether beating slaves (or children) with a rod is morrally good or bad? If we look at the constitutions of US states we see that slaves had several rights and were protected against cruelty and killing. The emancipation of chattel slaves was also in principle possibe providing laws were passed. Was the ante-bellum slavery therefore not as moral as chattel the slavey in the bible?
Constitution of Geogria 1798 Article IV Sec 12:
Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been Committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection by such slave, and unless such death should happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction.
Constitution Alabama 1819 Slaves Sec 1-3:
SEC. 1. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves, without the consent of their owners, or without paying their owners, previous to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States, so long as any person of the same age or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this State: Provided, that such person or slave be the bona fide property of such emigrants; and provided, also, that laws may be passed to prohibit the introduction into this State of slaves, who have committed high crimes in other States or Territories. They shall have power to pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming a public charge. They shall have full power to prevent slaves from being brought into this State as merchandize, and also to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, to provide for them necessary food and clothing, to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb, and, in case of their neglect, or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit of the owner or owners.
SEC. 2. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petit jury.
SEC. 3. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof; except in case of insurrection of such slave.
Constitution Missouri 1820:
Section 26
....It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary.
First, To prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, this
state, under any pretext whatsoever; and,
Second, To oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all
injuries to them extending to life or limb.
Section 28. Any person who shall maliciously deprive of life or dismember a slave, shall
suffer such punishment as would be inflicted for the like offence if it were committed on a
free white person.
Constitution Texas 1845 Article VIII:
Sec 1
...They shall have the right to pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming a public charge. They shall have full power to pass laws which will oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity; to provide for their necessary food and clothing; to abstain from all injuries to them, extending to life or limb; and, in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves taken from such owner and sold for the benefit of such owner or owners. They may pass laws to prevent slaves from being brought into this State as merchandise only.
Sec 3
Any person who shall maliciously dismember, or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed upon a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection by such slave.
Chazaq in the hiphal or causative mood in Hebrew can mean to seize or to take hold of just like tafesh can also mean to seize or to lay hold of. In the first instance in Devarim it’s clear that it’s defining what is to be considered rape of a married woman and what is to be considered consensual sex between a man and a woman who is married to another man. When it refers to the married woman who is in the city but doesn’t cry out for help being executed also it’s because there is no indication of rape. The verb used is matza meaning to find. The man finds her in the city. When the married woman in the country who is in the field and the man seizes her ( chazaq ) regardless of whether she cries out for help or not she is not to be executed and only the man is to be executed because even if the woman did cry for help out no one would hear. The verb Chazaq is also used in Seferim shmuel when discussing Amnon HaSar Ben David Ha Melek seizing his sister Tamar and laying with her and afflicting her. We know that was definitely rape. A different verb is used in Bereshit in Torah when Laqach is used meaning to take describing Shechem HaNasi Ben Chamor HaMelek taking Dinah Bat Yakov and laying with her and afflicting her and falling in love with her and wanting to marry her. That was definitely not rape. In the next scenario the verb tafesh is used when talking about a man laying hold on a single virgin and having sex with her and when they are caught they have to get married because he afflicted her. The verb eni is used meaning to humble or to oppress or to afflict. The same verb is used about what Amnon did to Tamar and what Shechem did to Dinah and it’s also used when describing how the man afflicted the wife of his neighbor when the man found a married woman in the city and had consensual sex with her as evidenced by her not crying out for help. In that culture to seduce a virgin was to afflict her with a stigma that made her less desirable for marriage which meant she would be much less likely to have a man to be her provider and if she got pregnant she would be much less likely to have a man to provide for her baby. The fifty pieces of silver fine was like alimony and child support in advance because he defiled her and took her virginity. He could never divorce her because he could never say she wasn’t a virgin when he was first with her thus he couldn’t claim uncleanness in her and justify issuing her a get and sending her away
Murder is is treated “blood for blood” and this is why Jesus gave His blood for the sins of the whole world which includes the “the wages of sin is death”, and Leviticus 17 speaks of the “ life is in the Blood”. Life has been taken, and Life of Jesus is keeping the Law. God’s desire is to bring grace.
Christians, my position is simple and modest- with all this justifying that you may find convincing, you have no place whatsoever to accuse atheists of “suppressing the truth” in order to sin and other such tripe. Seriously, it is time for you to stop being so ridiculously rude. I mean this sincerely. If the above video is what you have for a defense, you’ve absolutely no justifiable place to criticize those of us who find this absurd thinking unconvincing. Evangelical apologists, it’s time to be a bit more humble and stop making such grand claims. There may be a god, and that god may be the basis of morality. Bible god is clearly not it. Please, for your love of God and truth, stop being jerks (to use a less emphatic word). Sincerely, Cheers!
Duly noted. Thank you for sharing.
One day God will reveal why he has allowed negative things to happen. We should trust him in the meantime. A parent sometimes hurts a child to keep him/her safe, love is still the motive. There is no better parent than God, but that parent who said he was well pleased with Jesus, still allowed him to suffer horrendously.
@@123JustBecause Sensitive subject, thanks for considering. Highly recommended if atheist-Christian relations are of interest to you: Aplogist/theologian, Randal Rauser’s book “Is the Atheist My Neighbor?” His blog is great too. Cheers!
@@BigIdeaSeeker Thank you for the suggestion. Thank you for engaging in genuine conversation.
@BigIdeaSeeker I have to say that with this comment you are the one who comes off as rude by saying that the God of the bible is clearly not the basis of morality. A more modest claim such as that some passages or parts of the Old Testament is not part of our moral foundation would be more acceptable and good for many christians to consider. I recently finished Randal Rauser’s book “Jesus loves Canaanites” and I agree that he makes a lot of good points.
Q❓️Pls explain Ezekiel 14:9. A Muslim challenged me on this verse, b/ I told him that his god was a deceiver. Maybe the Greek or Hebrew will help. May God continue to bless you ✝️
It's a long answer sis but please be patient and go through it all. You can then screen shot it and shorten it to your satisfaction when trying to witness to your Muslim friend. Hope you find this helpful and God bless.
“They (the Jew’s) said in boast, ‘we Killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' - *but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,* and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, *for of a surety they killed him not.”* [Quran 4:157]
Islam denies that Jesus was crucified. The Islamic view is that Allah miraculously disguised someone to look like Jesus, and it was this other person who was crucified, not Jesus. According to Islam, Allah did an excellent job in lying and tricking everyone. That would be malicious on God’s part and He wouldn’t do such a deceitful thing. It’s interesting to ponder the theological depths false prophets will go to in order to deny what Jesus Christ did for us. How could anyone possibly place their salvation in a god that lies and changes his mind? This quite clearly is not the God of the Bible.
And they (the disbelievers) schemed, *and Allah schemed* (against them): and *Allah is the best of schemers.* [Quran 3:54]
Muslim’s use false translations such as “Allah is the best of secret planners.” The word for “schemers” there is al-makir in Arabic and it means “deceiver.” In any context it is a negative or evil thing to use. Allah is also called the Arrogant (Al-Mutakabbir), The Distresser (Ad-Darr), The Humiliator (Al-Muzil) and the Mischief-Maker (Al-Fattan). Interestingly, this is a perfect description of Satan in the Bible who is called the father of lies:
You are of your father *the devil,* and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because *there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.* (John 8:44) NKJV
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to *stand against the wiles [methodeia: craft, deceit] of the devil.* (Ephesians 6:11) NKJV
What does the Bible say about God Almighty’s nature in regards to lying and deception?
*“God is not a man, that He should lie,* nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19) NKJV
That by two immutable things, in which *it is impossible for God to lie,* we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. (Hebrews 6:18) NKJV
*For God is not the author of confusion but of peace,* as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33) NKJV
Evidentially, these names for Allah only unmask him as Satan in disguise masquerading as God since the True God Almighty is never associated with such wicked names. Is it any wonder then that in Islam, there’s something called “Taqiyya” or “Tuqyah,” where Muslim’s are allowed to lie to advance their cause or their purposes. Muslims, especially Shia Muslims, will tell you that they may lie about their faith only when facing imminent persecution. This is also a lie. According to Al-Bukhari,
Abu Ad-Darda’ said, *“We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”* Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, *“The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”* - [Ibn Kathir on 3:28] Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Quran 3:28]
This is a completely different mind-set to Christianity where we’re strictly taught not to lie (Proverbs 12:22); (Proverbs 14:5); (John 8:44); (Acts 5:3); (Colossians 3:9); (1 Timothy 4:2); (Revelation 22:15). When you point this out to your Muslim friends rather than address it, they will often deflect by using an example from the Bible that is always misapplied and usually always wrenched out of its rightful context. For example, they will say something like, “But didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart? And didn't God decieve a prophet? So, how is the God of the Bible any different?”
But *the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh;* and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. (Exodus 9:12) NKJV
*And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt,* and he pursued the children of Israel; and the children of Israel went out with boldness. (Exodus 14:8) NKJV
The term “hardened heart” is the Biblical way of saying God hands you over to your desires:
*Why then do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?* When He did mighty things among them, did they not let the people go, that they might depart? (1 Samuel 6:6) NKJV
Pharaoh didn't except the mercy of God as God was doing miracles. The Pharaoh and the Egyptians had hardened their own hearts and God instead of drawing them He hands them over to their own desires. When God says He did something in the Bible, He's not the cause of it; He is permitting it. So, He is passive in the sense of, okay that's what you really want? Fine I'll hand you over! We see the same thing in the following examples:
● Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, *indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”* (Exodus 4:22-23) NKJV
God had confronted Pharaoh of Egypt, the superpower of the day who had refused to release the Israelites; the firstborn of Israel. Pharaoh was a very nasty individual from the start who was causing suppression in Israel. Pharaoh was in the attempt to get rid of the baby boys who were to be drowned in the Nile River. And God says that He will personally kill the firstborn of Egypt since Pharaohs not responding. But hold on, read Exodus 12:
For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door *and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.* (Exodus 12:23) NKJV
Wait, I thought God would smite the Egyptians? But here is says its not God doing the smiting, the destroyer is. So, who's actually killing the firstborn of Egypt? Not God but the destroyer. So then why is God held accountable? Because ultimately no one can do anything without God permitting it. So, He's not the one doing the act but permitting the act to be done and justly upon a people who deserve it.
● God allowed Satan to tempt David to number Israel:
Again, *the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel,* and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1) NKJV
Now *Satan stood up against Israel,* and moved David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1) NKJV
The question is, who incited king David to count the fighting men of Israel? The writer of 2 Samuel 24 begins by saying that God did the inciting but in the beginning of 1 Chronicles 21 the writer states it was Satan? The answer is, Satan did the inciting; God gave him the permission. We have to understand something about Satan, he doesn’t make a peep without God’s permission. God is sovereign over all and that includes Satan who is a created being. The writer of Chronicles clarifies the statement in 2 Samuel 24 to help us understand that many times Satan is God’s instrument of discipline and sometimes He will use the work of the enemy in our lives to bring about His purpose, to accomplish His will and to get our attention.
We see this over and over in Scripture. Just read the book of Job where Satan did some pretty awful things to him and in each case, God gave Satan permission e.g. (Job 2:1-7). God can use Satan in various ways, with the result being the refining, disciplining, and purification of disobedient believers (1 Corinthians 5:1-5); (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). In the case of David, he had already made a deliberate choice to sin and so God explicitly allowed Satan to move in and further tempt David as a punishment. Satan was given permission under God’s sovereignty so that God’s will might be done. So again, God wasn't deceiving Pharaoh, He handed Pharaoh and the Egyptians over to their unbelief. God did not actively harden Pharaoh's heart; He played a passive role in handing them over to what they already desired; the rejection of God to worship false gods and goddesses. Pharaoh's heart was already hardened! What you need to understand is that every time God brought a plague, He showed Pharaoh mercy but Pharaoh became more hardened when God would hold back the plague revealing He was the One True God. In light of God's mercy, Pharaoh became more and more corrupted where he reached the point of reprobation. There is no comparison here!
Keeping all that in mind, as you know sis, they'll also use the example of Ezekiel 14 and say, "See see, the God of the Bible is a deceiver!" Now, they’re wrong and them running to the Bible still doesn't help the disturbing contents of their Quran but lets use two translations:
*“And if the prophet is induced to speak anything, I the Lord have induced that prophet,* and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9) NKJV
*And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet,* and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9) KJV
A surface reading of this verse, out of context from the rest of the Bible, can seem as though God caused these prophets to lie and then punished them for doing so. But this simplistic reading is incorrect. Israel did not seek God, and false prophets continually plagued them as a result. By the time of Ezekiel's writing, Judah's sins had separated them from God to an extent that required severe and imminent punishment. For generations, they had beaten, scorned and killed God's true prophets, who always brought a message of repentance that could have saved them from punishment. At the same time, Israel sought out and glorified false prophets who told them that they would not suffer, saying, "Do not prophesy to us right things; speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits" (Isaiah 30:10). Israel got exactly what they asked for, and this spirit of wilful rebellion is the context of Ezekiel 14:9.
Because the people had turned away from God so thoroughly and had so stubbornly refused His true prophets, God finally rejected them and turned them over to punishment. Ezekiel 14:9 is understood to mean that God, at that point, withdrew Himself from trying to correct the prophets and stop them from speaking lies. Rather than continuing to simply tell them that they were wrong, the time came to show them that they were wrong by carrying out the long-withheld punishment. This punishment was not a surprise-it had been clearly laid out from the beginning in Deuteronomy 28:15 and warned of repeatedly and with tears by all of God's prophets.
So, what does it mean that God deceived the false prophet who deceived the people? Is God actually speaking lies and deception through the prophet? Is His mouth uttering deceit, trickery and lies? Or is this simply the Biblical way of saying God finally gives someone who hates Him and wants deceit over to what they want?
And even as *they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind,* to do those things which are not fitting; (Romans 1:28) NKJV
In Ezekiel 14, God is permitting an unclean evil spirit to inspire a false prophet to give his people who hate the true prophets and hate God and the truth what they want to tickle their ears. We get context in the following passage:
Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 *Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’* And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”(1 Kings 22:19-23) NKJV
The context for both Ezekiel 14 and 1 Kings 22 is false prophets. So, the king of Israel wants to go up in battle against Ramoth Gilead and he asks Jehoshaphat, king of Judah if he'll accompany him in this battle. Jehoshaphat instructs the king of Israel to first inquire of God. So then the king of Israel has prophets prophesying and they all tell him thus saith the Lord, go up for he'll give you victory in battle but this was a lie and never came from God. Now, Jehoshaphat wasn't comfortable nor convinced with their prophesying so he asks in verse 7, is there an actual prophet of God and in verse 8 it is revealed that there was indeed one and his name was Micaiah. It's in verses 6 through 13 that we see the king of Israel brought together 400 false prophets and one after another they tell him exactly what he wants to hear, that he would be victorious in this battle. Then verses 14 through 20 we see that the one true prophet of God, Micaiah doesn't tell the king of Israel what he wants to hear and the king wants none of it. He wants to be lied to. He dismisses the true prophet of God and couldn't care less what God has to say. Then we finally see in verses 21 through 23 a lying spirit coming forward and saying he'll deceive the kings prophets (they’re not real prophets). God didn't put the spirit in them, He said go ahead. At that point what difference did it make? The false prophets had no regard for truth or God and neither did the king. The false prophets were deceivers and the king was already self-deceived by the time the lying spirit went out and God says give them what they want!
Is this at all similar to Allah deceiving both believers and unbelievers into thinking Jesus died on the cross? Muslim's have no business speaking on the Holy Bible because they can't read it fairly even if context smacked them in the face. The reason they do run to the Holy Bible is because they cannot defend what is inside their Quran and so it’s much easier to deflect and divert you elsewhere.
Good question!
Hang on. Let’s slow down a bit. I may have misunderstood, but regarding the very first example (beating one’s servant), it *sounded* like Dr Copan was saying the following:
“The Bible sometimes records when God’s people were wrong. BUT in this case they were at least less wrong than the surrounding societies. And they were at least willing to charge the ‘owner’ with murder if he killed the servant, which is good.”
Is that an accurate summary? If so, I’d appreciate a clearer condemnation of the non-lethal beatings…
What makes this more frustrating is the often made claim (fair as far as it goes) that God worked WITH cultures, even cultures that got things wrong occasionally.
I respect that as far as it goes. After all, we can say that God works with modern societies (eg the free choices of certain Congressmen).
The difficulty is that modern societies don’t literally hear from God the way that the ancient Israelites supposedly did. That’s a big deal.
Paul Copan did not IMHO address any aspect of this question and danced right around the whole topic and it is not like Sean to not call out very kindly this kind of thing but he didn’t! What?! Honestly.
Let Scripture interpret scripture:
"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" Proverbs 13:24
This is not giving any kind of license to beat your slave, this is laying out a warning against over doing it. The specific infractions for striking a slave are not given... But using other scripture one would be safe to think they would be similar severe infractions of insubordination that would typically result in a child receiving the rod.
Nor does the text say you SHOULD hit your slave... It just says they will be avenged if you murder them.
If non-lethal beatings are simply corporal punishment, then you need to answer why is that wrong without begging the question?
I’m sorry Sean and Mr. Copan, I have been left very frustrated with these answers.
Why is that?
Re Jephthah, doesn't it say that his daughter is visited yearly by other women? Not all offerings and burnt offerings are death and killing.
Re David and punishment, man cannot change God's prescribed punishment, but God can, and Nathan came with options directly from God. Also, the child of adultery died
At 44:00 describes Jesus's actions to redeem us as “Jesus Christ, God stepping into this world, getting his feet dirty and his hands bloody, to rescue us out of misery, out of evil, to bring about reconciliation with God, to guarantee that evil will not have the last world.”
Why did God not do this at the time of the flood instead of wiping out all humans and animals? Wasn't Jesus's sacrifice purely out of grace and love and not earned by any of our actions?
I was thinking about this the other day, and the reason I came up with was that the fossil record is testament that God judges sin, and although He is patient, His patience doesn't last forever.
Secondly, I read that Eve thought that she had given birth to the Saviour immediately, where it says, "... I have begotten a man YHWH..." The words, "with the help of.." are not in the Hebrew but are there for clarification, so why did God wait so long?
"...But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son,..."
Gal. 4.4.
- KJV
I was disappointed that the Jephthah answer did not include a discussion of the Hebrews 11 reference to Jephthah…I would love to hear any of insight on that.
Thanks, Lisa, for noting this. I was just addressing the question directly. I would add that Jephthah did exercise remarkable faith, putting his trust in the Lord and rising up against all odds, given his background (birth, hostility of his brothers, his being rejected, etc.). I could had added these things, but we were trying to tackle as many questions as possible. Sorry about that.
And IF God were a bully, who would accuse Him of NOT having the right to be that way?
Simple it would be a very poor example proving he's not a god of love.
Paul Copan harmonizes the horrible stuff in the bible as well as Muslims harmonize the horrible things in the Quran.
Could it be that God’s wrath is God’s love acting upon a context of evil and injustice?
If nothing exists outside of god (He is all in all and creator of everything spiritual and natural ), then where did sin come from, and why was it allowed into His creation?
Why should people scream in pure, perfect torture forever and ever?
God is the potter, we are the clay. He makes us what we are, and only gives the gifts of new birth, faith, repentance, etc. to certain, select few people. This is absolutely undeniable.
So, how can a “loving” god blame, and torture, anyone?
He doesn’t even want us to question Him about it. There’s no answers about my questions in the Bible, or anywhere else.
I’m not attacking you. I only addressed the questions to you because you assume that God is all love, and that he only does what he does out of that love. I just can’t possibly believe that he is motivated by love most of the time.
Bless you
@@SFTV73 I appreciate the sincerity in your tone and hope to honor you with the same respectful reply.
Sin is the byproduct of real freedom. God, who is love, granted freedom of choice to His creation because real love cannot exist unless it is freely reciprocated. The problem is that with real choice comes the potential that the creature will choose the opposite and that is what happened. Every creature’s existence, including the heavenly host, is dependent on something outside themselves. Being dependent and having exhaustible resources has a corrupting effect. Yahweh alone is incorruptible because only Yahweh is self existent. He cannot be corrupted because it is not possible for Him to gain anything He doesn’t already possess. All sin is divergence from God’s prescribed design in hopes of gaining more than what God has decreed to be good. It is a highly probable condition that stems directly from God’s desire for real love to be possible with real freedom.
Jesus was tortured and died for the sins of humanity. By our acceptance or rejection of His work on the cross we participate in the vote that took place on Good Friday. Some shouted “Crucify Him!” while others mourned the injustice. Your sin and my sin made it necessary; if reconciliation with Holy God were to be possible. The necessity of the Cross is the clearest example that a loving God sees punishing crimes as the only appropriate satisfaction for justice. Our society demands justice on so many issues, hence the social justice wars. Unless the punishment fits the crime we declare injustice. So what is the appropriate justice for participating in the murder of the eternal Son of God? Deicide! Christ died for our sins, so our sins either put Him up there because we demanded that He be silenced or, through trust and faith, our sins were placed upon Him for God to punish and remember no more.
By rejecting Jesus Christ we cast our vote with the ones who demanded his silencing and murder. Most people console themselves, believing themselves to be “good people” because Christ’s authority and kingship are not felt in their lives; but they would ultimately and regretfully demand silencing Him if His rightful claims upon their lives, as God, impeded their desires. We are all fine with Jesus as long as He sits quietly in a church pew. The minute He makes demands of me -He’s got to go! And if Heaven is a place where His rules are absolute -then that sounds like Hell.
I tend to think that Hell is excruciating because all wholeness, peace, love, and joy flow from God’s Presence. Hell is simply where we are separated from the experience of the goodness that flows to us through relationship with Him. The Bible never expressly says that God tortures people but rather that they ARE tormented, even “in the presence of the angels and the Lamb” Rev. 14:10. In my mind there is a difference between the active participation in creating agony which defines torture and simply being a passive witness to the torment that ensues when people have rejected relationship with the God. They have chosen a barren existence where no good thing exists. People go to Hell because they choose it. The Presence and dominion of the Holy God is detestable to them.
Sorry this was a long response but it’s a HUGE topic!! I don’t know where you stand with Jesus but I sincerely hope I you draw near to Him more everyday. Bless you, my friend!
@@jakesenkow7684
Thank you for responding sir. I have disagreement with you on some topics. I see more of God creating vessels for destruction, and others for eternal life. And, that He has a plan for everyone before He began creating.
I thank you for your time.
Blessings to you and yours
@@SFTV73 The gift of existence is exactly that and God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on both the just and unjust. He generously gave life and provision to people He knew would have perverse hearts that experience evil as good and good as evil. He predestined to heal the spiritual senses of some to perceive the Gospel rightly -not as the “stench of death” (2 Cor. 2:16) or “foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:18) that “natural man” perceives. It’s not an issue of God being unfair to those He doesn’t heal because fairness deals with merit and the wages of sin is death. God is fair to those who are condemned but GRACIOUS to those He sanctifies. I chose Hell but God chose me…and healed my heart to respond to the Gospel. If a billionaire decides to share his wealth with some but not with me it doesn’t make him unfair. I didn’t do anything to deserve his generosity. In God’s case, I’ve actually done things to warrant His wrath. Grace is not merely undeserved favor (as though I were neutral) it’s ill-deserved favor (my sin has provoked God and caused the agony of Jesus).
So yes, God DID create some for destruction only in as much as He graced them with life but would allow them to bear the consequences of their own sinful choices. While others God predestined to give a new heart with spiritual eyes to see and hears to hear and desire to repent. For those who are condemned God allows their choices to stand. For those who are sanctified God’s choice stands enabling us to taste and see that the Lord is good.
@@jakesenkow7684
I was born in sin and a slave to sin. I can only make sinful choices as a result of being cursed with birth into a sinful condition. If God never chose to save me from the sinful condition in which I was born, I will bare those sins that God put on me (or, allowed to be put on me) via His sovereign will.
So, it is completely senseless to me to say that people should be tormented to the point of torture for sins that are supposedly completely brought on by the individual who was created in those sins. It’s even sadistic to do such a thing.
Good seems to want to display all His attributes, even if it means the ETERNAL suffering ( which is very torturous) of most, and the rescuing of very few.
I appreciate your efforts and time, sir. Thank you sincerely.
However, I’ve heard the arguments that you’ve presented, but they really don’t answer the questions I’ve presented, because those answers aren’t clearly explained in scripture, except that by putting together all that God reveals about himself and coming to a conclusion.
We’re not going to agree, but I sincerely appreciate your interaction.
A Prayer For My Family of Faith:
🔥🔥 Father God, who has no equal, how I delight in acknowledging You as the One and Only True God!! I bow at Your holiness, knowing the 'consuming fire' 🔥 that You are!!
I ask for "endurance to adorn" Father for my sisters and brothers in the body, the Bride! Because heaven will be forever, and we have that forever to rest. Father I ask that You enable stamina in Your Son's Bride, to "run onward" in service to, Our forthcoming Groom; none Other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself!! Make everything we have within us worthy of giving Jesus honor and glory!! That request we are aware, can only be possible by yielding Fully in walking by the Spirit so as not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh, O God Almighty! When I say, "run on" Father, I mean, run on in good works, literally as if we're already in heaven, carrying out a task that Jesus asked us to perform for Him! Running on in praying right until our Groom takes us on a heavenly honeymoon! Running on in our never talking down to anyone, but, like Jesus, coming beside someone to relate, listen, share, show compassion and above all, Love through the Spirit! Planting even the tiniest seed through "as unto Christ" works and then begging the Spirit to draw unsaved men and women, boys and girls to the Savior and Join IN, enter INTO The Bride by grace alone through faith!! Knowing that by "running on"; daily, busy in Your Kingdom's work, that None of this labor will be in vain! Knowing that our "faithful continuing" IS the Bride Adorning Herself, more and more in beauty for her Groom, about to sweep her off her feet!!!! For Preparing is Serving, and Serving is Preparing! Synonymous with each other, in perfect Holy unity, led completely by the indwelling Holy Spirit!! How honored your servant is to compose this prayer that will be placed in one of Your heavenly bowls of incense filled with this Bridal request! A sweet savor unto our King - Groom - Jesus, and unto You Eternal Father of All!! In the name of the singular most handsome and (perfect in every way) holy, and (saving Name), ((still for those we refuse to give up on!!!!)) - Jesus, I sincerely pray, Amen and Amen!!!! 🔥🔥.
If the next generation is not to be punished for the sins of the father then no one should be blamed for Adam and Eve's sin. No one is tainted by original sin.
Copan's minimising of statutory rape of a minor is a quite unbelievable moment. If you end up using that as some kind of an excuse you know you have taken a wrong turn somewhere
We simply can’t view this though in our culture today. Thousands of years later. I’m struggling also.
@@shellyk3472 this logic doesn't work if it's the word of God though. Why should he be bound by the cultural norms of the day?
Aw the virtue signal, though. It is playing exactly to the cultural norms of our day. providing covering fire for your moral shortcomings.
@@CJFCarlsson so being against statutory rape of minors is virtue signalling. Nice one.
@@georgegabriel5808 yes. if you are against it on the other side of the globe and 3000 years ago but do nothing about it in your time and neighbourhood, of course, but you know that and it is a nice one- Much better if you start looking for the eternal values so that you do not have to strike poses all the time.
great stream bruddas. Glory to God
Thanks!
Thanks so much
Volume seems lower than normal. Couldn’t hear on my bike ride.
Dr Mcdowell - awesome.
This guy.... Prevaricator
It's ok. Wrestle with it. It's as important as the point you become convinced of an argument. And allow the Holy Spirit to be a part of the process. I'm convinced of many more of these arguments than not. But, there are a few things I'm struggling with.
Well said!
Just ordered two of Mr Conan’s books.
Ave Christus Rex
No wonder these apologists have a full time job,it's a full time job explaining away all the nasty bible stuff.
The Law was meant to “purge” the Hebrews of impurity....they were consecrated to to God.
An oath made to God is honored more in the lives of the Hebrews, than the life of the family member.
Really?? Right out of the gate the response is circling around medical care and other nonsense! I am a believer and love this channel and Sean-you keep things real but IMHO this question was let off the hook with no answer. (The striking of a servant) which is Question 1.
🎉
This apologist was terrible. This is what he should have said - it's a way about how to read the bible:
Ok, here goes...
Let's take the whole slavery issue, in fact I will take a real mean sounding one from Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to use as an example of how to read the bible, it's about sex slavery
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Did God write this? No Moses did
Is God pro forced marriage?
Is this passage inspired by God? Yes
When you consider historical arc, in those times according to Greek, Egyptian and Persian law, captured women were property and you kept the hot ones as sex slaves and if bored with her, sold her on as a sex slave. Moses obviously thought this terrible and introduced some laws around how to treat captured women.
By forcing marriage the women gained the same rights as your other wives, and if you tired of her you could not see her, but divorce her and she was free. The clipping of nails and shaving of head were ancient Jewish mourning rituals. So you gave her a month to mourn her family who you've just killed. Barbaric by today's standards, but a step in the right direction for its time. In fact it was revolutionary.
The reason we still read and debate Moses is because God breathed life into his words, hence he has not been forgotten like countless others.
The bible is a progressive document. As people get to know God, things get better. And often when you come across a crazy sounding passage, you have to ask yourself did things get better or worse the day that new law came into effect.
The thing to remember is this law is not the final revelation of God ( which is in fact the risen Christ) but as I said before, it's a step in the right direction.
Another example is Abraham - when he went up the mountain to kill his son, he was doing what was normal for the time, yet he came down the mountain a heretic as his son was still alive. He moved his people away from human sacrifice to animal - a huge leap in the right direction.
Then along came Moses who said they're killing far too many animals and winnowed it down to one animal sacrifice per family per year - another leap forward.
And then along came a guy called Micah who dared to suggest they never needed to sacrifice all along, and they killed him as a heretic, then many years later realised he was right and called him a prophet.
All through the bible you see this progression.
Those crazy laws, especially the ones in Exodus and Deuteronomy were written for a people who had spent 400 years as slaves and as such had to learn to live again. Those laws were not final, but they were needed for that time to help move the people forward.
So when you see a law about beating a slave and the subsequent punishment, that was the first time any slave had any right - prior to that you could get away with killing them without punishment. Again, barbaric by today's standards, but a step in the right direction.
So, a couple of important rules when reading the bible:
1. Realise God didn't write it - and it sometimes says things man said, God said, and even what man thought God said.
2. Consider historical arc/context - what were things lilke before those laws came into being, and did it make things better than the day before they came into existence?
3 Genre confusion - are you treating a poem has history? A song as fact? Are you reading someones cries of anger, despair and need for revenge as something God wants or condones?
4. The bible does and should contradict itself - otherwise a book written by 40 authors over 1500 years that didn't would suggest it had been interfered with. Those contradictions are/can be explained and you will see they end up not being contradictions in the end, despite (on the surface) being blatantly contradictory.
People are people, from a DNA-unique 1 MINUTE old embryo to a 100 yr old Alzheimer’s patient…Gods intrinsic perfectly loving moral character demanded relationship and WE broke it, causing the disintegration of the human race, all humanity is culpable…He is not wanting any to perish-then and now. He does not change, lie, or wish evil. We are the evil wishers. Hallelujah for the redemptive red line of Christ which runs throughout eternity…mind boggling.
👍
With all due respect, this conversation is difficult to listen to and not very satisfying to address the issues.
In our country, the Constitutional Laws are often based on Mosaic Law because the Law is still over the pagan culture, to bring order and lawfulness. Within the Christian Church those who believe and call Jesus their Lord and Savior are under Grace, but the Laws that hold all things together are still in effect in the world.
I think Copan is genuinely trying his best to make sense of all of this but if we are all being honest, his answers do not address the title of the book or this video. It’s clear that the character in the Bible known as “God” written by ancient people with narrow world views is 100% a Moral Monster and a Vindictive Bully. Just accept that your wrong and the truth shall set you free. It must be exhausting always routing for the anti-hero lol
God said “do this” the Israelites Don’t do it and we are to accept that this is what God has intended when he said “these things are punishable by death” because the Israelites didn’t obey God? Sounds like shaky ground to me.
I don't think it is as simple as they didnt obey God. Abraham made a covenant/contract with God. Both sides have things that they have to do under that contract. God continually and the Israelites continually disregarded their end. Or at least thats how I've come to understand the Old Testament
Questionable interpretation to excuse a questionable god.
Any “employees” out there? An OT “slave” had it way better than we do. P S: we HAVE to go to work Monday. Just saying 😇
Plus you only get to keep the portion of your labor that the public corporations (govt) deems necessary. Much worse than private slavery where you could at least potentially buy your freedom.
Earth was around thousands of years before god then someone invented him.
You would think Satan would have figured out by now all the Evil he has dinspired is part of God's plan to bring about the most good? If I were Satan, I'd do nothing. Maybe Satan is stupid?
Being stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36).
God the creator both good and evil. The creator of us all says we are ALL in slavery in a spiritual debt. Our father Satan uses the broken law as a weapon for his power unto death. How by condemning us day and night. Making us feel never worthy never able to meet Gods standards. He uses our flesh weaknesses our human nature to seduce justify our sin. A slave cannot oppose his master because he is in perpetual debt to his owner. In fact God says slaves work hard try and please your master. Masters treat your slaves justly. How you treat a slave is what God looks at. In a broken world, broken by the broken law, now we are under a curse. . Adam was the natural man who fell first brining in death, Christ is the spiritual first fruit bringing us life.
🙂👍
It literally makes me want to throw something against the wall when I hear Copan, yet again, claim that the people talked about in Lev. 25:47 and following are the same people/slaves talked about in the preceding passages. He knows darn well this is not the case, and yet he continues to repeat this. It's the only time I know of that Paul is just simply dishonest. Many other times he just takes a minority or fringe view on some things or talks about something that isn't really relevant. But this is outright dishonest. And he knows it frankly. It is beyond a face palm moment. And he really is better than this frankly. It's simply beneath him and I'm surprised that he continually does it.
Dr. Copan said if he saw rape for fun allowed by God then he wouldnt trust the Bible.
QUESTION: How is Deut 21:13-14 NOT rape for fun? Because he kept her in his house and dressed her up for 30 days first? That makes rape for fun okay?
Douglas I just compared several translation on verse 13 and 14 and it said she basically took off the cloths she was captured in. I would think this would be good as they are probably in pretty bad shape from war. It says nothing about dressing her up for 30 days. Do I agree with this whole passage, heck no but I also won’t read things into scripture that isn’t there
@@Notevenone Hey thanks for the reply. I am getting the idea of "dressing her up for 30 days" from the previous verse:
"Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured."
My interpretation of this portion is they are attempting to strip the captured girl of her former identity by shaving her head, cutting her nails, and taking off her clothes.
An obvious parallel that comes to mind is when missionaries took Native Americans children from their families, gave them Christian names, and sent them off to boarding school to learn all about the Good News. This is, by definition, ethnic cleansing.
If you believe God ordered the ethnic cleansing of the wicked Canaanites that's okay. If you believe God took pity on the young girls and wanted the Israelites to save some of them and give them a fresh start on a new life, that's okay too. But don't let apologists off the hook. It's ethnic cleansing by definition. At least own that.
Apologists always tack on "for fun" when they are doing this line of reasoning (i.e. torturing babies "for fun", or raping "for fun") as if they are acknowledging there are times where it would be allowed if it's not for fun? I suspect they realize that doing things like drowning babies (in the flood), could seem like torture so they need to work in a back door to let God off the hook.
@@3littlefonzies120 Right, that makes total sense. And drowning babies isn't necessarily torture. It's a form of killing. And God gave life, so why can't He justly take it away? I don't think you understand that God is holy and He literally can't even be in the presence of sinners let alone refrain from completely destroying them. But He has refrained because Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice and paid for our sins so we can live. That's how much God loves us. But He is still a holy powerful God and is far from safe.
@@PlacidLight Wow, I had to read all these comments to find the FIRST ONE nailed it for me. God is NOT SAFE!!.
It is evil for a god or for anyone else to force someone into the type of existence that they might hate to exist in.
Sounds like you hate your existence. Repent and cry out to God of Bible
Ah, your experience with sin is impacting you.
@@preacherforjesuschrist.3806 the fact that I and billions of other life forms were forced into the type of existence that we suffer against our will in bothers me and shouldn't have ever happened.
@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn You are a victim. Yes, I agree. We that are born are victims of sin. God has not left us alone. He has made away to return to Him thru the blood of Jesus Christ. But now it's on you and what u want to do with this truth. Romans 10:9
@@preacherforjesuschrist.3806 it is true that I and billions of other life forms are victims of existing and suffering against our will. But it is not true that anybody needs to be saved or forgiven by jesus or that anybody even needs to know about jesus at all.
He is doing a terrible job. Interview me instead and I will give you much .or sensible and better answers