It could be, there are people who have prophesied events. Even in dreams I've seen things that happen later in my life. Since we are also spiritual beings we have in some way the capacity to enter into the 4th dimensional realm, time realm, and see things outside of time. It is still an interesting mystery

Thanks

Yes, the concept of good and evil as well as Divine Omniscience is something that has been talked about for hundreds and hundreds of years by many Christian theologians, philosophers, and apologetics. There are tons of work on the issue of God Omniscience, while still allowing free will. Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher as stated in his Transworld depravity argument, where that any given possible world, the person will at least do a wrong action, just once, or many times in his life. God cannot take away the free will of an individual person, as you pointed out, he will be taking away the free will of that person. We will be just robots endlessly following every command by force from the creator. That would not be considered love, if all the actions, which would even include evil, God will take away. God cannot take away the free will of an individual person, regardless of if it being good or evil, because that would go against his own nature of good. God could have taken away our action of doing evil, but then he would be forcing us every single time we could be committing a wrongful action. We are not Robots; we are humans with the capacity to commit good and evil. If God would take away that freedom from us, if the situation is good or evil, he will be taking away who we are as humans. Robots are commanded to follow all the orders that humans have for them, even if that means taking away free will. Unfortunately, this is not considered love.

While God being all loving, created humans with the capability to go beyond any creature he has created, with the capability to commit even the most atrocious acts, because of the fact that we as humans are loved by our creator, and not forced. Free will is a gift, and it is a gift that goes both ways, committing good, and evil at the same time. God himself gives us our conscience to determine, what good and evil is. So, we do not have an excuse for committing evil, since we know what good and evil is. So murdering, will be something that all rational humans will know not to do. In conclusion, God being all good, cannot take away even the capability of doing good and evil, because that will go against God's own nature, or God himself. We are not robots that God created to force us to worship him at any given will, as well as take our ability to not commit even the evils of acts. While at the same time, God gave us the conscience to know what good and evil is, so therefore, we do not have an excuse when we commit something evil in our lives.

@@edgarcardenas8215 Thank you for your response. Well, I don't think we really need Alvin Plantinga that people will do wrong, I figured out that myself. Making mistakes is part of being human, as a matter of fact, I think it would be impossible not to go through life without making mistakes. I also don't believe god can take away free will since I don't believe any gods exist. Now I don't remember saying at any point "God cannot take away the free will of an individual person, as you pointed out, he will be taking away the free will of that person". I do remember how in Exodus god took away pharaohs free will by hardening his heart (Pharaoh was going to let the Israelites go, but god wanted to show off his powers, like killing all the innocent 1st born Egyptian male children, which of course is not an act of an all loving god. Can you imagine the pain & suffering of the parents of these children & families). How do you know what goes against god's nature? I mean god gave rules on how to own slaves(Leviticus 25:44-46) and never said "you shall not own slaves", nothing even close to that. So it is in god's nature to allow slavery, which is immoral. Or is Leviticus another error in the bible? You say "If God would take away that freedom from us, if the situation is good or evil, he will be taking away who we are as humans." My bad, I didn't make clear what I was trying to say. An all powerful & all knowing god would be capable of making people with free will, but still not able to commit evil. Say a guy wants to rape a women. So he goes up to her and as the guy reaches out he collapses and is unable to move. The will was there, but the ability to carry out the evil was stopped. So god wouldn't be taking away free will, he would have created people unable to carry out the evil act. Then when that person dies he can answer to god. Note: I don't believe there is an afterlife, there might be, but there is no "GOOD" evidence to warrant belief in one. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to live forever, but that is just wishful thinking.

@@edgarcardenas8215 There is no "GOOD" evidence humans were created. Every piece of empirical evidence has shown humans came about by natural causes. Coming from natural causes it all makes sense that we are capable of committing atrocious acts. Natural explanations also explain why some people are good while other are bad. All humans are capable of doing irrational things given the right circumstances, but yes, most people won't commit murder and most people won't commit atrocities. Well, if you go by the evidence in the bible alone god is not all good, let alone looking at the world we live in. For example - Can you explain why a loving god would command people to throw rocks at someone until they died just because they pick up some sticks on the Sabbath? I am talking about Numbers 15:32-36. The Bible only says this man was found to be picking up sticks on the Sabbath, nothing more than that. If anyone tries adding more to this story than I am going to ask show me your evidence and where did you get this from. Sorry I have to say this you would be surprised how many times Christian make up stuff like he deliberately went against a command from god so he deserved death, which of course wasn't in the story. If true then everyone that broke one of his commands deliberately should be stoned to death. Also, even if he did it deliberately that crime does not fit the punishment and would not be justified even if this was true. Also, According to the bible god created evil - Isaiah 45:7 " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Also, According to the bible we don't have free will, our future is predetermined, we can't do anything to change it, that is what pre-destiny means. Ephesians 1: 3-5 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." So It is right there in the bible; we don't have free will as our fate was determined before God created the world. In order to actually have free will we of course would be able to determine our own destiny and fate, but since we can't we don't have free will, that is if you believe what the bible actually says(something not very popular with Christians). I will try to reply to your older responses, but it may take me awhile. Peace

@@SalemK-ty4ti Not a problem. Well I think we have to fist figure out, one, that the if God takes away all evil actions that a human does, even rape and so forth, do we as individuals have the free choice of deciding our own free will actions? Not necessarily, since God in every aspect would be controlling our actions, even when committing evil. So in reality, humans are not totally free in that regard, which would make God a God that controls the will of the individual, not give him the option to choose good and evil. That is what makes us much more unique than any other creature, is that we as rational creatures, have the capacity to choose good and evil, and not just choose good, or evil. But rather, God allowing us the ability to see the good and evil, and permitting us to choose from it, without taking away the will of the individual. God sees humans as humans, not some creatures he would want to totally control. Now, we all have the option in deciding whether or not to rape an individual, through our conscience, God gave us the ability to choose good or evil. In Alvin Plantinga's Transworld theory, it states that in any possible world, people would choose evil rather than good. Even if it is the possibility of God interfering in every evil action that humans will do, that would make it as though God would be controlling our actions, since every human being at some point has done atrocities to a degree. If there are no moral laws that humans have establish, people would be committing evil atrocities, given the case. There is no possible world that human beings will totally do good, since people have the option of committing evil. Which is a gift that God has bestowed upon us, since God gave us the ability to choose what is good, and what is evil, as we see from the tree of knowledge. A God that wants us to choose him, not forces us to choose him, or show us that he could stop all acts, which if he his a God that controls all evil actions, then we would not live in a moral free world, rather a world that is controlled by God. So, taking away all evil actions, such as raping and so forth, will make God a God that violates the totality of our free will. The other point that maybe would come out, is that why would God not make us good, and not have the slightest ability to commit evil, well that would make God again be a God that violates the totality of free will, and we are not robots to not have the capacity to choose. Again, the bigger question would also be, why would God allow certain evil to happen, such as the ones you provided. Well, this issue for the skeptic, is much more of an issue that deals with emotion. Which if you think about it, every moral dilemma or issue that deals with morality, deals to a degree of emotion. So, from a logical point of view, and not an emotional point. God allows certain evils to happen, in order to bring about a better good. An example would be, that if God allows a rape to happen of an individual woman, that women herself would be suffering, not totally suffering, because at one point the suffering deteriorates, because the women as acquired hope for something, which gives her happiness. So, in the short term of her life, she does suffer, but in the long term, she does find hope, and a lot of cases is through the Christian Religion. Now God could have allowed that for the better good, when that individual woman, after she felt pain of her rape, now is giving her testimony of hope to other women in her same situation, as well as even preventing those rapes to happen. Again, if God stops every single bad action that a human has, he will neglect the totality of the free will an individual has, which would not be a good God, rather a God that controls the totality of the individuals free will, which would mean the evil actions as well. So, God used her situation for the better good. Now, I could give you many situations of things that happen similarity, with different possibilities. We could conclude that there are several logical ways to have evidence of an all-loving God, while at the same time evil happens in the world. The burden of proof is on the skeptic, to point if it is impossible for an all-loving God to exist with suffering in the world to exist. So far, there is many different logical possibilities for an all-loving God to exist with suffering still existing in the world. This also applies to the Pharos hardening the heart, and the slaughter of the first birth of Egypt's. There could be different ways in that if the first born would be alive, there would have caused much more harm or deal more killings to the Israelites. So again, there are different logical possible proofs for an all-loving God in a loving world. Now the concept of slavery in the Old Testament, has also been used against the Jewish and Christian Religion. When we think of the term slavery, we think of the slavery that was occurring in the Americas, with the abuse of African Slaves. Now let's not get the same picture and say every person that is a slave had the same treatment across the centuries in different cultures. In many societies, the term slaves, were more fitted to be, servants, or people who would work for several years, in order to pay a debt, like indentured servants. The culture through the ancient world had a culture of slavery, which was common at that time. Now certain cultures had slavery or servanthood to a greater or lesser degree of treatment. We see in Leviticus 25:53-54, "53 He shall treat him as a worker hired year by year. he shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. 54 And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. Notice how it states, "he shall not rule ruthlessly over him", which sounds like it is going against an ill treatment of the servant. It also gives us a view that debts are forgiven as well, in a certain period, which is not the same as an African slave in the Americas, we see this in Deuteronomy 15, " At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed." My conclusion if God takes away all the evil actions, or stops the evil actions of any individual human, then that would be violating the totality of a person's free will to choose good and evil, which would make us robots who do not have the option to freely choose good and evil, which would make God an arbiter of morality, not a God that allows his creatures the ability to choose good and even evil. If God allows evil things to happen, it is for the greater good, as I have provided. My question also would be, by what standard do you as an atheist say something to be good and evil? If you are a moral relativist, or a person that holds to subjective propositions, then that would make it that it is only true to the individual, but not true as a whole. Which would make it not truth, since people could decide on their own good and evil, which would make evil and good arbitrary to the human. So, you could say something is evil, but what is your standard of good and evil? If you do not have a standard, or it is subjective, then that means that even the concept of rape or killing or murdering is just the opinion of yourself, but not a universal truth, which would not make it truth. Also, the Christian world view hold to a God, that even though there is evil in the world, he is a God that still cooperates and take care of us, give us the option to decide on good and evil, and not forcing us to choose all the good, but as humans are, have the capacity and free will to choose good and evil, not by force. As compared to the Atheistic world view, where there is no God, morality is subjective, and every human has their own version of what is good and evil, and at the end of the day, there is no justification for rape, murder, killings, and so forth, because we all die, which to a degree, would be a nihilistic world view. Through my conversion, I found the Christian world view to be more satisfying, from a philosophical and logical world view, but also an emotional one. Where God came down as God to die in the cross for us. This was a long thread, my apologies for that. I also do not want an endless regress of comments over and over again. If you like, you could directly message me in KZbin, without again, have the endless regress of comments of comments. I do not have a problem if you message me more questions you have about Christianity, :)

Again, the bible is the inspired word of God, which apostles wrote as well as their followers. With any document, we need to have some sort of basis of interpretation. Otherwise any letter, document, or simple written account in late antiquity and foward, should be read and expected to sound right. In reality that is not the case. Even cops themselves when identifying a letter in a crime scene, need to identify its historical, textual, and hermenutic meaning, in order to indicate its truth.

I'm not convinced of the claim that the Bible should be clearly written to the extent that every individual on earth would be able to interpret the text correctly in every condition possible on the sole reason that God inspired the Bible. As long as we believe humans wrote and translated the Bible multiple times, we have room for human errors, mistranslations, and misinterpretations. You would expect there to be various interpretations of a written form of events that were passed down in oral traditions just like any other written text. Human nature is to interpret the same thing in different ways depending on the individual because no two humans have the exact same subjective experiences. If God wrote the Bible then perhaps we could expect the text to be perfectly and clearly written but if this were to occur, this would have the be communicated in an entirely different format beyond human comprehension because written text, no matter how clearly written, can almost always be interpreted differently by different individuals (i.e. an individual with psychosis may have wildly different takeaways from the same written text compared to a healthy child and a child may have a different takeaway than an 80-year old man). Multiple factors like age, life experiences, subjective beliefs about the world, and mental states can all influence the way any one individual perceives, reads, and interprets any written text, even text inspired by a deity. This is not the deity's fault but rather falls on the human being. -Steal

@@outofthebox7235 I always wonder why do you think that god inspired the bible? I mean there is zero empirical evidence for this claim. It is just like the god claim, there is zero empirical evidence that any gods exists, including yours? Now using logic and reasoning I would expect an all knowing and all powerful god to be able to get his message out clearly to everyone he cares about. Using logic if the bible isn't clear enough that every individual on earth can interpret it then god doesn't care about every individual on earth. Not to mention the fact that billions of people haven't even heard of the bible, you know China, parts of Asia & the many islands in the pacific and of course parts of Africa. So god can't even get his message out to every individual on Earth and you don't see a problem here? So thanks for helping me make my point here that you agree the bible isn't clear enough and admit there are problems with oral traditions, human errors, mistranslations, and misinterpretations. This is exactly what I would expect of ancient man's writings just like all other holy books, like that of the Hindu's holy books, the Quran and the book of Mormon, the bible is just another holy book that has contradiction and errors in it. So why would any reasonable person trust a book that has all these problems. When I read the bible it seems so obvious these stories are by imagination of Bronze-age people. Talking donkeys, talking snakes, a man losing his strength because his hair was cut, the entire world being flooded with only 8 people and 2 of a kind(what ever a kind means) surviving. Clearly donkeys and snakes can't talk, people don't lose their strength because they get a hair cut and there is zero empirical evidence of a world wide flood. These are just tall tales written by ancient man and not something inspired by an all loving and all knowing god. Then what about all the evil teachings in the OT? Look at the story of Lot who the bible says is a righteous man. Lets see, Lot takes in 2 strangers(who are angels) into his home. Then all(not most, but all meaning every man) of Sodom's men want to have sex with these 2 strangers that Lot let into his home. All the men of Sodom are pounding at Lots door saying send out the 2 strangers so we can have relationships with them. What does Lot the righteous man do? He says to all the man in Sodom, leave these 2 strangers alone, instead take my 2 virgin daughter's and have sex with them instead, but leave these strangers alone. So Lot gives his daughters to all the men in Sodom to be raped (which must have included lot's daughters fiancés since they lived there). Later in the story Lot's daughters get their father drunk and he impregnates both his daughters. I see no reason to believe a man who allows his daughters to be gang raped by all the men in Sodom is NOT a righteous man. I think it is disgusting. Lot is a terrible father and Lot is certainly not a righteous man. This story would have been inspired by an all loving god, but to Bronze-age people who thought of women as property this story may have seamed fine. I would expect an all knowing god to be capable of writing his message clearly enough so every adult would be able to understand his message. That is what all knowing means, god should know how to get his message out. Of course I am not talking about people with mental illness or brain damage, which an all knowing god would understand their conditions because according to Christians god created them this way. I also asked Edgar If he agrees with me that "Mark 2:26 were it states that Abiathar was the high priest, yet in 1 Samuel 21:1-7 the high priest is actually Ahimelech not Abiathar." is a contradictions. Peace.

@@outofthebox7235 Also for Edgar. I did hear him say that he uses apologetics to help prove the contradictions true. That is not how science works or how being critical works. When you are searching for the truth you try to prove things false, that is how science and critical thinking works. If it can hold up to scrutiny we accept it as a tentative belief, nothing is science or critical thinking is held 100% true, with the only exception of I think therefor I am. See I believe we should all use good methods for finding the truth and not bad, unreliable methods for finding the truth. This is important because our belief are the acceptance that a claim is true as a result of being convinced. Now you can be convinced for good reasons or bad reasons & if you really want to be convinced of something you will be more prone to accepting bad reasons for your beliefs. That is why I use critical thinking(AKA skeptical thinking). 1. Don't confuse Cynical thinking with Critical(Skeptical) thinking. When you tell a cynical person something, they might ask you for your evidence for your claim. If you present good, demonstrable evidence of your claim, no matter how great the evidence you have that should be convincing to a reasonable person, they don't care to hear the truth, they just won't believe your claim. When you tell a critical person something, they will ask you for your evidence for your claim. If you present good, demonstrable evidence of your claim, the critical person has no choice but to believe your claim. 2. Don't use Faith as it is an unreliable method for finding the truth. You can believe anything using this method, like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and any other religion or supernatural claim. If faith was a truly reliable method then we would all be believing in just one religion. 3. Don't use personal experience as it is an unreliable method for finding the truth. We see every religion using personal experience as a method to support their belief, like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and any other religion. They all have testimonies of people's personal experiences. If personal experience was truly a reliable method then we would all be believing in just one religion. 4. Don't use holy books. Every religion has these and people can clearly see the mistakes and contradictions of others religious books, but have cognitive dissonance when it comes to their holy books. Like when in Islam the moon was split in half, only Muslims believe this claim, but there is no demonstrable evidence this ever happened. Or in Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead, only Christians believe this story with no demonstrable evidence to support this claim. I mean all religions have apologist to try and explain away the contradictions and errors in their holy books. The point is all religions use holy books as a method for their beliefs, but if a holy book was really true there would be only one religion. Remember all religions have lots of bad evidence & bad reason for their beliefs but not one piece of demonstrable, empirical evidence(AKA GOOD EVIDENCE) to warrant belief in any of them. Peace

Not necessarily using subjective morality. I was wrong when I stated I believed in the once saved always saved. I believed in objective morality, otherwise, you will be left with subjectivity, which leads to not reason, since reason leads to truth, and subjectivity by all means does not give us a standard of truth, but rather a mere opinion.

I encourage you to check out our podcast on subjective morality where we discussed these issues more deeply with a Philosophy Professor: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2O5lqOKgZirjtE

Actually we have not evovle to the good, as the 20 to 21 century has shown, there has been more deaths due to war and famine. I figured when evolving, we would evolve for the better, not the worst. Again, naturalism is very subjetive, since at any point, we could believe certain premises to be truth, and others to be false, any given time. Yes certain people did horrible acts to justify slavery and so forth. But that does not represent every christian as a whole, people have the free will to decide on wheter they want to do good or evil.

Yes you just stated the Euthrypo dillema. This works on the basis if there are two premises. But that does not neglect that there could be a third premise. Which is God is good, because he his a good. We dont need a platonic form to tell us the good, simply because we have an intelligent being to understand and communicate with people, and share a relationship with us. Now again, what are the basis of you stating that murder is wrong? I agree people could say murder is wrong, but what is your justification to consider murder is wrong? if an individual person states murder is good? how could you from an atheistic worldview justify your own claim?

I think all humans have the capability to know what is right and wrong, the point that i made is how do you justify your good, on the basis of an atheistic world view. Which is what i went through as an atheist. Everything leads to a subjective view, which is a mere opinion. So someone could say is normal to kill an infant, on the basis of their own good, how do you justify it using your atheistic worldview? I mean are you going to say he his wrong? on what basis? Also, we dont pretend we are good just to go to heaven. that would make it a sin for an individual person to have. We do good, because God is good, and we understand to be good, through being more like God, "Theosis"

It states he could not do miracles there, it does not state, " he does not have the ability to do any miracles", or, "God cannot do any miracles without people believing in him". Why he could not do miracles there, could simply be explained in such a way that God himself wanted people to have faith in him. As how it is described in Mark chapter 2, 3-12, "And they *came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”. But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-He *said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” Sometimes God wants us to have faith, so that the miracle could fulfil, but that does not mean that he cannot do miracles. Nowhere does it state that God does not have the power to do miracles.

It states he could not do miracles there, it does not state, " he does not have the ability to do any miracles", or, "God cannot do any miracles without people believing in him". Why he could not do miracles there, could simply be explained in such a way that God himself wanted people to have faith in him. As how it is described in Mark chapter 2, 3-12, "And they *came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”. But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-He *said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” Sometimes God wants us to have faith, so that the miracle could fulfil, but that does not mean that he cannot do miracles. Nowhere does it state that God does not have the power to do miracles.

Also in Mark chapter 5 verses 6 to 9,When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me,(E) Jesus, Son of the Most High God?(F) In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!” he did a miracle I'm driving out the spirit. So even in Mark chapter you claim he cannot do miracles, he still healed, which is a miracle in itself. So again looking at the context of everything is very important.

Matthew 13 58, "And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. This is a parallel text from Mark, he states, he did not do any miracles there, this explains why Jesus did not do any miracles in the gospel of Mark. Again looking at the whole context is very important

Notice there also, the parallel text from Matthew gives us a better and clear understanding of Mark, where he states, " he did not do any miracles there". Clearly again Jesus had the ability to do miracles, even in the lack of belief, like heal and so forth, or even heal a paralytic. As well as even when Thomas was doubting, he showed him his true presence. As well as when Peter doubted him in his walk in the river. So there has to be a clear understanding why at certain times, Jesus did not want to do miracles, or could not do miracles. Because he did not want to show his ability to unbelievers, or another reason. Again looking at the whole of context from comparison other Gospels that are parallel to the text is very important

Again the Bible is not meant to be read and fully understood without the interpretation. This is a protestant view as well as some atheist do this mistake. Look at the overall context, comparison of the other Gospels, look at the text in Greek, and so forth, in order to fully understand the meaning.

I never stated that it is okay that the bible has contradictions. What i stated is, that even if a document has contradictions, does not imply the whole of the document is wrong. The same way as if I myself write a story surrounding the life of my mother. Maybe somethings i might have exaggerated, but that does not mean the whole of the narrative is wrong. Again, translations are hard to do, even when you translate from modern era languages. That is why you have to look at the original. Scholars will point that as well, that you have to look at the original langauge, in order to identify the meaning of scripture. Though again, what has translated the original meaning of scripture, is the tradition that has also been passed down since the first century, that does not state the bible is contradicting. I agree, the persons should not just read the bible and expect to fully grasp it, they should look at the historical reliability and magesterium, to identify the right meaning. Again, the early church never stated that we should just read the bible as we see fit, but through the eyes of the church and tradition.

Hello, my name is Edgar Cardenas. I was in the podcast. To answer your question about the statement of clumsiness in scripture. I would say that this problem is with anybody translating the works of any ancient language. From Latin, Greek , Syriac, Coptic, Aramic, Hebrew, and even modern era languages. Many linguistics or even people who translate languages to English have this problem. But again, as i provided you evidence of not only language, but of historical as well from St Justyn Martyr, Tertulian, and even the Gospel writers, to give a better indication about the non contradictions found in scripture. Now, as a Catholic, i believe the magisterium, as well as tradition is the interpreter of scripture. So a person just taking a bible, and reading it as such, is mistakenly incorrect if they want to know the dogmas of Christianity. God himself gave us the Church to interpret scripture, and the traditions that come from it. The early church had the leaders of the church to interpret any theological view. But again, this happens even when trying to find the interpretation of any anitiquity as well as modern day text. There suppose to be interpreters. So i agree getting the bible, and reading it, while getting your own interpretation, is wrong. As many protestants and atheist a like do.

Well yes i don't have a problem if you do look at many different sources. When coming back to Christianity, I had to look at different sources as well so that I could be sure about the faith. Now to answer your questions on Isiah 53 8, we have to look at the overall passages of Isiah, not just one verse, in order to understand the context of it. When it comes to interpreting, or finding the meaning of any text, when it comes to religious or non-religious, we need to look at the overall meaning, or texts before, or after the verse. In Isiah 42 1-6 we read, "Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations. "He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside." A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice." Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long." So said God the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the One Who stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and what springs forth from it, Who gave a soul to the people upon it and a spirit to those who walk thereon." I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations." Chabbad . org. Here God is speaking about an individual, not a nation. This follows Isiah 49:1-13, "Hearken, you islands, to me, and listen closely, you nations, from afar; the Lord called me from the womb, from the innards of my mother He mentioned my name." And He made my mouth like a sharp sword, He concealed me in the shadow of His hand; and He made me into a polished arrow, He hid me in His quiver." "And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast." "And I said, "I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity." Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God." "And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength." And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you." So said the Lord, "In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and I will make you for a people of a covenant, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages. To say to the prisoners, "Go out!" and to the darkness, "Show yourselves!" By the roads they shall graze, and by all rivers is their pasture. They shall neither hunger nor thirst, nor shall the heat and the sun smite them, for He Who has mercy on them shall lead them, and by the springs of water He shall guide them. And I will make all My mountains into a road, and My highways shall be raised. Behold, these shall come from afar, and behold these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Sinim. Sing, O heavens, and rejoice, O earth, and mountains burst out in song, for the Lord has consoled His people, and He shall have mercy on His poor Chabbad. org. As Joseph Blenkinsopp, in his, "A History of Prophecy in Israel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996, 101 points out, "But the problem is that the mission assigned to the speaker includes the task of bringing Israel back to its God, which task must be ascribed to an individual or collectivity within Israel, not to Israel itself. It seems, then, that the passage has been expanded to allow for a certain identification between the prophet and Israel, while still describing the prophet’s own sense of mission to Israel." Notice they are talking about the servant, an individual, not a group, this follows Isiah 50, 1-9, So said the Lord, "Where is your mother's bill of divorce that I sent her away? Or, who is it of My creditors to whom I sold you? Behold for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away. Why have I come and there is no man? [Why] have I called and no one answers? Is My hand too short to redeem, or do I have no strength to save? Behold, with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make rivers into a desert; their fish become foul because there is no water and die because of thirst. I clothe the heavens with darkness, and I make sackcloth their raiment "The Lord God gave me a tongue for teaching, to know to establish times for the faint [for His] word; He awakens me every morning, He awakens My ear, to hear according to the teachings." The Lord God opened my ear, and I did not rebel; I did not turn away backwards." I gave my back to smiters and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I did not hide my face from embarrassments and spitting." But the Lord God helps me, therefore, I was not embarrassed; therefore, I made my face like flint, and I knew that I would not be ashamed. He Who vindicates me is near, whoever wishes to quarrel with me-let us stand together; whoever is my contender shall approach me. Behold, the Lord God shall help me; who is he that will condemn me? Behold all of them shall wear out like a garment, a moth shall consume them. Chabbad . org. The servant suffers short of a death. Now in Isiah 52 13- 53 12, they mention the servant suffering leads to his death. "Behold My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and he shall be very high." As many wondered about you, "How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!" So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed." Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 2And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? 3Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 4Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. 5But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed. 6We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us. 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. 8From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand. 11From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. 12Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors. Chabbad. org. Notice when we look at the context, it is talking about a servant, an individual, not a nation or group of chosen people.

The concept of before in luke 2:2 is not incorrect, again as I mention to you, the bible is not supposed to be a book to be read just as a book to be interpreted by any person. If you need any theological advice as well as if you need help interpreting the meaning or texts in the bible, you ask the magesterium for advice. This applies to Protestants as well, when trying to interpret the bible, they seek the scholars for advice, who are proficient in Greek, or know their historical theology. Again, translations are always going to be a problem, in any language. So the best advice to do, is whenever you are struggling with texts, or want to seek help understanding the new testament, you ask a scholar. I mean anybody could ask a scholar for advice. It is not hard.

We would love to have Edgar respond to your comments in a future podcast. Let us know what you think about this. We think it'd be a great opportunity to dive deeper into these issues. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's very interesting to hear different perspectives and I love myself a good debate. -Steal

​@@outofthebox7235 You can go right ahead and use my comments. I hope you do see where I am coming from on my perspective. I am always open minded to good evidence, yet I have been asking Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindu's for just one piece of empirical evidence for the existence of their god('s) claim. Sadly, most admit they don't have any and the ones that do respond give me arguments like the Kalam cosmological or fine tuning, Etc. Etc., which even if I granted it was true(I don't) it would only prove a god or gods existed. They would still have a long way to go to prove their god(s) claim. Please note, I don't claim a man named Jesus didn't exist, I actually believe a person or possibly more then one person are the bases for the legend story of Jesus. I am also open up to the possibility he might not have existed at all and of course he might be what he claims to be(I just don't see any good evidence to warrant belief). To me it really doesn't matter if a man named Jesus existed, what I am sure of there is no good reason to believe he was a deity. I mean today millions of followers in 126 countries believe Sathya Sai Baba is a deity. That he was born of a miraculous conception and did many miracles including heeling people. When he died in 2011 there were 500,000 people at his funeral. Amongst the attendees were many high ranking religious and government officials, including the Prime Minister of India and a future Prime Mister of India. Now I don't believe he was a deity and I don't believe he did miracles(there has never been a confirmed miracle to ever happen via science). Yet there is far more evidence for him doing miraculous things then just the oral stories passed down for decades before these stories were written down in the gospels, none of which can be confirmed. Do you see the problem I am having here with your story? Why do you believe the Jesus story is true? What method and types of evidence are you using to conclude your claims are true and the Hindu's and Muslims claims are false? Most importantly, "Did you ever seriously consider it might not be true?" Peace

@@outofthebox7235 I want you to know it is not just the lack of good evidence outside the bible that makes me believe Jesus is a legendary myth character, probably based on a real person, but it is the evidence right in the bible about Jesus that makes me believe these are just made up stories(probably based on a real person but exaggerated as the story was told person to person over decades before being wrote down). If you seriously read the 2 nativity stories in the gospels you would have realized these are "NOT" the same story, contradict one another and one of them is made up if not both. I am going by what the gospels actually say, anyone who tries to change these stories of course would need to provide evidence, otherwise it is speculation/conjecture(AKA making stuff up to change the stories to try and make them fit one another). 1. Matthew story had Jesus being born in or before 3 BCE* - Luke's story had Jesus being born in 6 CE*** or later. At best only one of these birth dates could be true since you can't be born from a women twice. How do you tell which one is true? The only reasonable thing a logical person would do is hold off belief until such time as we have a method to prove one of these is true and one of these has to be fake(AKA a made up story). Logically one of these is fake, but since the bible has so many of these problems iI would be reasonable to think both are fake, made up stories. 2. Matthew's story had Mary & Joseph go from Bethlehem with Jesus to Egypt for 2 years(until Herod the great died) then go to Nazareth - Luke's story had them go from Nazareth to Bethlehem then 41 days after Jesus' birth going back to Nazareth. 3. Matthews story had 3 wise men(the Magi) and Luke's story had no wise men(Magi) in it. 4. Matthew story had an angel warning them (Joseph's dream) about Herod the great**to go hide in Egypt for 2 years after Jesus was born - Luke's story had no mention of Herod the great** at all - maybe since when Jesus was born in Luke's story Herod had been dead for at least 5 years. (Note: there are no records of Herod the great** having all the children 2 or under being put to death and his life is well documented and something like this would have been recorded. The fact is there is no recording of this event ever happening except in the gospel of Matthew). 5. Matthew story has no mention of the census of Caesar August while Quirinious*** was governor of Syria (6 CE to 9 CE) as Luke's story does. We have some contradictions here. First contradiction - When was Jesus born? In Matthews story he would have had to be born no later than 3 BC* and in Luke's story no earlier than 6 CE. That is a minimum of 7 years difference (they didn't have a zero year). Second contradiction - In Matthews story they went from living in Bethlehem to Egypt for 2 years before going to Nazareth, and in Luke's story they went from living in Nazareth to Bethlehem(for the census)then back to Nazareth 41 days after Jesus' birth. Note: if you need me to I can show you how I got 41 days from Jewish traditions. The 3rd contradiction - In Matthews story Jesus was born in a house(they lived in Bethlehem) and in Luke's story Jesus was born in a manger(they lived in Nazareth but went to Bethlehem for the census). Another problem with Matthews story is the wise men (Magi) were from the east meaning Bethlehem was to their west. But the story has the wise men (Magi) following a star in the east, which of course would be taking them in the wrong direction if they followed it. Just saying. Note, I once had an apologist tell me the wise man followed the star to the east when they left Herod the great in Jerusalem and went to Bethlehem, but Bethlehem is almost directly North of Jerusalem, so they would be going North, not east when they left Herod the great**. * In Matthew's story Jesus would have had to be born no later than 3 BC since they had to stay in Egypt for 2 years until his death of Herod the great who died no later than 1 BC. ** we know it was Herod the great who died no later than 1BC because his son Archelaus took over reigning in Judea which is the reason in Matthews story they went to Nazareth. *** he became governor when Caesar Augusta order the census in 6CE. Side note, in Matthew's story an angle in a vision(dream) warned Joseph & Mary not to go back to their home in Bethlehem because now one of Herod the great sons was in charge in Bethlehem. Using logic then, it would be dangerous for them to go to a place where one of Herod the greats son was ruling. The problem here is at the same time one of Herod's sons was ruling over the area of Bethlehem another one of Herod's sons was ruling over the area of Nazareth. So using logic if it would have been dangerous for Joseph, Mary & Jesus to go to an area where one of Herod's sons was ruling. So why then go to Nazareth where another one of Herod the great sons was ruling? This doesn't make any sense. Remember in Matthews story Mary & Joseph lived in Bethlehem and in Luke's story Mary & Joseph lived in Nazareth. Logically you can't live in both area's as in these stories go. Another problem is Luke's census. Census's are done for taxing purposes and one would need to be counted in where they live, not where their ancient ancestors lived over so many generation ago(we are talking more than 20 generation here, do you know all your family tree 20 plus generation ago?). And what kind of husband would have his 8 to 9 month pregnant wife go 80 miles with them either on foot or donkey for a male census? I mean Mary could have stayed with her family, no need to take a chance taking this dangerous trip to Bethlehem. This story doesn't make any sense on so many levels, like it was just made up by ancient man.

@@SalemK-ty4ti We appreciate you stimulating this deeper conversation, check out our response to your constructive criticisms and questions here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2HHZmepba6rn8k

Woah that's so weird, it seems like moving to a new place made you stop dreaming that for some reason. What kind of puzzle?

Thanks for the sub!

Thanks!

I like VR too, but just like anything in life, moderation decreases the chances of negative consequences. I have nothing against technology itself and I respect other people's free will when it comes to that

@@outofthebox7235 well for me i also don't see it as negative consequences at all i see it as a positive thing to me in my opinion but thanks for sharing your opinion i appreciate it

@@shawn6306 Likewise

Amen brother!