If the Bible Is From God, Then How Did He Do It?

This is the second half of a pair of videos about the origin of the Bible and the implications of what we assume in regards to that question. Was that way too complicated? I think it'll work...
Huge thanks to everyone who supports the show at patreon.com/tmbh. I can't say thanks enough!

[@xmdksiskdueu5999]

I want to thank you i was at the brink of leaving Christianity to Atheism and i prayed to him and he brought me to your videos i thank god for this and i thank you for opening my eyes

[@BennettSanderson]

Love it. You are brave to attempt this. I started to slow clap (metaphorically) at 13:35 and went all the way to the end. I think the pressure to "vote" and fully support a position is strong inside the church because openness implies doubt. And doubt implies a lack of faith. And a lack of faith implies faithlessness. Did we learn this from partisan politics or the other way around? We mock the Pharisees for their over the top legalism, but we have a very convoluted form of of it today. The really interesting thing is that we can see it outside of Christianity as well. On issues such as climate change, immigration, abortion, etc. if you are undecided or nuanced in your opinions you are treated like a heretic by both sides. Keep up the good work and take care (of yourself and your family).

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Very well said. Thank you for this.

[@Paulthored]

Agreed! 👍😇✝

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Okay, sure, but if your opinion differs from mine on the one of those that matters then you have no right to speak, exist or eat legumes.

[@Heeby-Jeebies]

Ya know what, Matt? I like the cut of your jib. I don't share your faith, but I absolutely love and respect that you don't pretend to be the Arbiter of Truth, and you make a good attempt to fairly represent other arguments. Because of that, you now have my attention. Looking forward to learning more from you, dude. Keep it up.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I greatly appreciate it. Thanks for being here!

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

(Catholic here, reviewing the video) The speaker in the video does try to be fair about presenting the Catholic view of scripture, and Vatican II does say that the books of the Bible are written under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, as did the Council of Trent and other councils. But I think his tripod analogy needs some fine tuning. If we are going to refer to God's revelation to us as a tripod, the three legs should be (1) the Bible, (2) the Church Fathers' interpretations of the Bible (the Church Fathers lived closer to the time of Christ and the apostles---some of them knew the apostles personally---and can tell us how Christians interpreted scripture in the early days of Christianity), and (3) the Church's Oral Tradition, or Teaching Tradition, as described by 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The pope has a more limited role than the speaker in this video understands the pope to have---when it comes to defining doctrine the pope is not supposed to introduce new doctrine, he is only supposed to uphold the doctrine already handed down, perhaps sometimes to explain it more clearly. General Church councils, such as Nicea, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I and II, are also only supposed to uphold doctrine already handed down. Lets take Purgatory, for instance. Tripod leg #1: what the Bible says: 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, Matthew 5:25, Luke 12:58-59, and 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 are clear that Purgatory exists, but people who know little or nothing about Purgatory might read these passages and not catch on that these passages are indeed about Purgatory. The actual English word "Purgatory" is not there but the concept is. Tripod leg #2: the Church Fathers: St. Augustine (a.d.354-430) St.Gregory (a.d. 540-604) and Terullian (a.d. 160-220) taught that Purgatory exists and that we on earth can pray for the poor souls in Purgatory and have Masses said for them, to reduce the time and severity of their sentence in Purgatory. Tripod leg #3: the Teaching Tradition of the Church: as far back as there are historical records there are reports of the early Christians gathering in the Catacombs (underground Christian burial sites) so that Masses could be said for departed Christians, and there are records from all over the Roman Empire showing Christians believing in Purgatory or Metanoia (Greek word for Purgatory), and Christians praying for the souls there. Extant catechism books from way back mention Purgatory. Where do the the pope and the councils come in in this process? Not to invent something new but to uphold the ongoing teachings. The Council of Trent solemnly defined the existence of Purgatory in the 1500s, not inventing something new, but to put an emphasis on it, because Luther had taught earlier on that century that Purgatory didn't exist. Without the Church Fathers, without the ongoing and unchanging Teaching Tradition of the Church, the Bible doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Without the Fathers and without the Teaching Tradition of the Church, the Bible can mean anything anybody wants it to mean, and that is why there are today thousands of Protestant denominations, each one teaching something different than the one down the street.

[@leonardovaldez-soto1466]

Keep it up. I’m binging on all your videos right now. Coming back to a relationship with Christ your videos have answered so many of my questions.Thank you

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I'm very excited to hear that!

[@tylerrossjcl]

I've watched a few of your videos now and I appreciate your honest attempt at an accurate portrayal of Catholic thought. As a Catholic myself with a degree in Catholic theology, I'm glad that at least the rudiments of our positions are given some representation. That being said, the representations given are just that: rudiments. One thing that stuck out to me in this particular video is that for the Catholic, there is no contradiction between your #5 and #6. You referenced what I suspect is Dei Verbum, which is indeed a glorious document on Scripture; but didn't mention that it fits with our understanding of Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium. You may disagree with the three-leged stool/tripod thing, but I think we can at least agree that there's an internal consistency. Then again, I understand that doing so was not the point of your video here. My overall point is that your representation of Catholic thought is usually more or less correct, but your understanding of how we fit things together could use some refining, at least for the sake of giving fair representation. If you ever want to run something by me, please don't hesitate to ask. I have great respect for what you're doing here and I think you have a real gift for holding one's attention for topics that to most might seem a little, dare I say, boring (certainly not boring to me though!). God bless.

[@AlexEding]

I found your channel through SmarterEveryDay and am enjoying the tour. I'm a recently deconstructed/reconstructing Christian and have enjoyed your attitude and how you present what you share. Keep on keeping on, sir. I am sure you'd be a fun person to grab a coffee or a beer with.

[@martybrammer2257]

I'm so glad you brought this from the 2 different views to give each camp things to think about. BTW, I really appreciate the work you put into last week's sermon! It was a much needed spiritual health check-up.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

I think the world of you man. Thanks.

[@michaelbecker6480]

Great representation of the Catholic Church. I appreciate the accuracy. However, while the tradition and pope do come into play in the tri-pod example that does not necessarily talk about how God made the Bible from the Catholic perspective. Tradition and papal authority come much more into play with the interpretation of scripture. From my understanding, most Catholic theologians hold the Dynamic View of inspiration. That God inspired the thoughts in the writers but not their actual words since even today, through translation and transcription, we don't know if we have the exact words of the original Biblical texts. However, the thoughts and message of the Bible has been maintained thus the Dynamic View of inspiration. This view would also allow for each author to add their own personal writting style as you had stated. PS: I have been a long time listener of NDQ but have never watched TMBH before. It's nice to have a face for the voice I have been listening to for so long.

[@astrol4b]

Catholicism hisn't so much papacy centered, the pope spoke infallibly only three times in history since the proclamation of the dogma.

[@malgorzatachp]

Michael I agree, but there is one more thing - we also believe that the Bible and Tradition come from one source, from God's revelation. Just like the Old Testament was at first oral tradition of Israelites which later became more and more written down during ages, the same thing (only quicker) happened with the New Testament. There was this unique experience of the first Church, experience of Jesus' resurrection which meant also forgiveness of sins and a real new life for everyone. From this experience after the pentacost the first Church started to proclaim the Gospel among Jews and gentiles. There were some teachings coming originally from the Twelve that were just passed on next generations of disciples in local churches. That's exactly what we call "Tradition". Biggest part of this Tradition was written down with time and we know it as a New Testament. But the New Testament never tells "it's all written down". It tells: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15 NIV. So we understand "by word of mouth" as oral Tradition and "by letter" (or other forms of writings) as the Holy Scriptures.

[@malgorzatachp]

@@timothyfreeman97 yup, it was only once in 1950.

[@markbennett7797]

Małgorzata ChP If Peter is the first victor of Christ, then why did Jesus Christ chose to speak to the apostle Paul and give this apostle and not Peter, direct revelation of the true gospel to Gentiles? Read Galatians 1;11 and 12 please.

[@waynewrz]

Love all the thought and work that you put into your videos man. Thanks for being a voice of reason and wisdom in a culture that doesn't always value that. You're hands-down one of my top five favorite KZbinrs that I've seen with a Jackson Hole shirt on.

[@davidatwood3228]

Well done, Matt. Seriously tough question, but super well gamed out.

[@thatllpreachkjv281]

I’m new to your channel. But I have been enjoying all of your videos. Keep up the good work.

[@jongeiser7569]

I really agree with not having to land in a camp when it comes to making a decision about things like this. I personally have several areas in my faith that I haven't landed in a specific camp. I've found that it sometimes becomes more powerful to live in the tension of those decision than to limit what God can do by putting him in a theological box. Great challenge, Matt!

[@keepbman]

Hey matt! Nailed it again. I love how you are just open and honest about this. People can believe what they choose. Just laying the info out there for them to be informed. That's the best policy. I'm at seminary now with the Salvation army and we are discussing these things now. You've practically stolen the text right from our professors mouth haha.

[@robstevens9590]

Thank you Mat. Your personal testimony that: you were a "believer" then you didn't believe, then you came to your present state of faith, is very encouraging for me. My (adult) son was raised in the Christian faith, but is now vehemently attacking the historicity of the New Testament and the deity of Christ (even His existence as an historical person!), gives me hope that it is possible, despite the way things look at present, he will some day "see the Light."

[@OmnomOminous]

Great ending to the video -- something I was thinking about lately.

[@carolynfiore3216]

Great explanation. Thanks!! (I’m Catholic and love that you are so well educated on our doctrine and are respectful of it!!)

[@CodyDWorks]

Amazing "landing". I wish more people could walk away understanding that not "landing" is ok.

[@Tabatha437]

Love this video! Thank you for mentioning that each person may land in different places at different moments. ❤️

[@paulco4145]

Excellent video, thanks! As a Catholic, I really enjoy your viewpoint!

[@JochemKuijpers]

These videos raise a lot of questions for me (as they do for others, I see..) If the bible was inspired by God, did he inspire other documents or media? If yes; how do we differentiate versus purely human-made media? Can we make this distinction purely based on what makes *us* feel good? Does God help us decide? If so, why do we need the Bible in the first place if he can (apparently) communicate with us already? If not.. how would we know we made the correct decision to trust the Bible as the word from God? Thanks for the video!

[@sos1691]

Upon careful examination of the facts, only, the bible tells on itself.

[@origamitraveler7425]

@@sos1691An Eumenical Council was the one that affirmed the inspiration of Scripture. Denying the authority of the former would logically crumble the latter's! Unless your position is an arbitrary decision to trust the books you have are the inspired ones.

[@sos1691]

Well yes believers in our time are as arbitrary as the intellectual giants of their day who successfully fabricated the bible. It can be said that the Rome of Constantine's time still rules the minds of Christians and Jews today. Was the bible inspired back then? Yes. But not by any God proclaimed therein. Rather it was inspired as a control device by robot-like non-human entities existing just outside our visible light spectrum. They have been holding mankind captive since our beginning here on earth. The ancients had different names for those non-human entities. Some ancients called them Anunnaki. Others called them the Archons. Still others called them the Demi Urges. The entities have no feelings like we do. However they survive off the energy of human conflict. We are raised and multiply for their benefit, much the same as chicken are raised on a farm. The entities are heartless and have no empathy - the real gods behind the bible. Today humans are waking up to their reality.

[@EileenonYHWH07]

I know I’m not the awesome guy from the videos so I apologize in advance for my totally not eloquent answer but I felt led to at least attempt to from my own person experiences with the Bible. It is entirely possible for God to inspire humans to this day. God’s inspiration doesn’t have to take the form of a book to be powerful. I have had conversations with people where thoughts and words would just come to me that I could have never planned and the other person be like “ummmm, it’s weird you just said that exact thing because x,y and z." God’s inspiration happens continually in the life of a believer. The Bible is just one (albeit major) example of God’s divine inspiration. Can we make this distinction purely based on what makes us feel good- absolutely not. Believers use the Holy Spirit as a guide. Feelings are fleeting and can change from second to second but God’s truths never change. Aside from that, what God is saying to you doesn’t always “feel “ good- especially when He’s pointing out an area of your life that isn’t in obedience to Him. Just like discipline from a loving parent my not feel good to the child, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t done out of love and concern. Feelings are just that, feelings. Does God help us decide? 100000% yes. As a believer and Bible reader, the Holy Spirit absolutely illuminates me to what God is trying to tell me. It’s why I can read the same verse 4 months after I read it the first time and suddenly I will have an epiphany of what God was actually trying to get across or a better understanding of God’s nature as a whole. So if God speaks to me why do I need the Bible? It’s the absolute best way I’ve personally found to facilitate God TO speak to me. Not only do I get to learn the history of what I believe but as I read God will very literally use seemingly benign verses to speak deep into my souls in a way I can’t even explain. It’s something that has to be experienced to even understand. It’s crazy but it’s incredibly real. The Bible is by no means the only way God communicates with us but it’s a crazy good way to open the door for Him to- reading it for MYSELF vs taking anyone’s word for it has literally changed my life. To answer your last question, you know you’ve made the correct decision to trust it when you see the complete change of thought processes, attitudes, skepticisms etc that manifest when you do allow God to speak to you via the Bible. You start to see the entire world in a completely different light. It literally has the power to change you forever, if you read it sincerely seeking truth. Its very easy to get caught up in skepticism ( I am VERY scientifically minded and so I don’t just think things at peoples words) but when I actually sought answers to what the truth of it all is I absolutely found it in Christ and the Bible was the single most important tool I had to understand God’s nature, the history behind the whole thing, and experiencing God for myself. Sorry it was so long! I wish you all the best and may God bless you always!!!

[@lostinAR]

Great vid Matt, Love your approach. One random question. What's up with the copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula next to your stack of books, screen right?? Not that reading Dracula is wrong or anything, but seems out of place given the subject matter at hand.

[@billfucile1315]

Your like wicked smart with multiple degrees but you couldn't come up with bipod? Really? Duo-pod? (Love it!)

[@livinginthespirit407]

Sometimes even the wicked smart draw a blank : ).

[@tripp9821]

I literally lost my concentration when he said that. I had to rewind and listen to what I missed because I was thinking the exact same thing. Glad I wasn't the only one who was tripped up by this.

[@jmorra]

@@tripp9821 -- Anglicans ditch the tripod idea and instead use a three-legged stool as an example, with Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the three legs. But for many Anglicans, unfortunately, the stool now has four legs, with "modern liberal political sensibilities" becoming the dominant leg-- and threatening to turn into a monolith.

[@justforever96]

@@jmorra Seems to be the case with ALL the churches around here. Our local Episcopal church came out flying a rainbow flag and a Black Lives Matter flag last year. They finally took them down some time since then. Got to suit your marketing to the the new generation of customers, right? Because that's the important thing about religion, of course. Modifying yourself to be what you think people want you to be.

[@ravissary79]

@@justforever96 Episcopalians are basically American Anglicans. A branch of both of Episcopalians and the Anglicans broke away from the liberal political monopod church and retained apostolic succession via coming under a major African archbishop, retaining the tripod. Check it out, a lot of them are returning to tradition via that path.

[@justforever96]

It always amazes me when I look back and realize all the ideas that I thought up myself as a kid which turned out to be the same ideas that famous thinkers came up with a long time ago. I remember wrestling with the idea of how the Bible came to be, and I remember going to my mother and telling her that I figured out that the Bible wasn't necessarily dictated by God from a cloud, but that he had just acted to inspire certain people to write down what ended up being the Bible. I remember coming up with the idea of infinite smaller universes inside universes. At one point I speculated whether the Bible was actually just metaphorical instead of literal. I also concluded at one point that just because the Bible says "God created the world in six days" it doesn't have to mean "six days" the way we understand "six days". I think the way I put it was that "back then, there was no such thing as 'days', they hadn't been defined yet, so it could have taken Him 6 billion years, and He called each billion a 'day'; that way we can correlate the Bible with what this history book says". And various other things I can't think of right now. I'm no genius, but I wasn't even ten years old yet, probable younger, and these are all ideas that great philosophers are famous for. I can't GUARANTEE I wasn't influenced by something I read, but in my memory they are just ideas that I had, and I do remember telling my mother as if it was a new idea of mine, which I wouldn't do it I had read it somewhere. But it makes me wonder what I HAD read that made it possible for a child to independently come up with these ideas. I am sure I had access to much more info in some ways than the great thinkers in the past, but I cannot remember enough to know just what. I'm going to wonder about that for the rest of my life.

[@LeoNardo-be6yh]

Absolutely agree with your perspective! I don’t always, but I do always respect your opinion in more than just the vain sense of respect. Your videos are enlightening and the podcast with Destin is refreshing. Despite theological differences I hold, beauty lies in how similarly our personalities seem to be (clearly a one sided opinion). Keep ‘em coming bro! 💪🏼

[@MarkHyde]

Hey Matt - can we get content on the reliability of the Old Testament - not just that it points to a future Messiah but it's canon and basic historicity from a (Protestant) Christian perspective? LOVE these videos. I think it would compliment this content.

[@lowkeytheology]

Another great video so happy I found this channel. God Bless

[@chrischandler9909]

Great video! You say most Christians probably don't think dictation is how God gave us the Bible, but a lot of average churchgoers I've talked to talk about the Bible like this! I think once they push into it they see the issues this offers, but until that point I think a lot of Christians think like this! PVI is still where I stick my hat, but within that category there is sooooo much room like you mentioned. Still working through all the details.

[@jasontucher7011]

I respect you as a Bible scholar. You are fair, but most importantly capable of systematic critical analysis and thinking. Your verbal communication skills and body communication skills are admirable. I also enjoy your topic selection. You get an A grade. I RARELY give that to a non Catholic. At the risk of asking a question you have given your professional opinion of; what do you think about reconcileing material subjects in the pentateuch such as the Dome of the firmament, the creation account in general, Mana, etc... I find the level of Association between inspiration and these subjects to be quintessential to the understanding of divine revelation to man. With the Advent of geology and space exploration how far can we disregard Moses accounts without falling into material heresy?

[@TrollingMyLawn]

Duo-pod, or a Bi-pod, exists, is a thing, and is very useful, although we see your point.

[@NatesMTBAdventures]

But it doesn't stand on its own

[@TrollingMyLawn]

It doesn't, but that's not the point of a bipod.

[@timverma]

Nate Watson it can, humans are bioods

[@newbiegamelover4767]

I think there's also mono-pods out there, too. Nor sure how those are supposed to work.

[@haileyparlette8083]

It was explained to me when I was young that the Bible was written by men and inspired by God. After reading it I have to agree. I enjoyed your more in depth exploration of that concept. Thank you for sharing and God bless!

[@ThatJPGamer]

As an atheist, I found the last bit of the video wonderful. We don’t need to arrive at an answer immediately or assume the answer we arrive at is the one that will hold for the rest of our lives. Let’s seek to understand each other and not to put anyone else down just because we arrive at a different conclusion.

[@ryantheprofessional7528]

So glad to see you throw 2 Timothy 3:16-17 up there. Can't really argue with that. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[@stevenfrasier5718]

Matt, even my Agnostic room mate likes you. You have a way about you. I wish I had friends more like you. I stopped going to church because even though I am a believer--I have adverse reactions to fellow believers. Maybe part of the problem is my cynical nature ?

[@EileenonYHWH07]

hi there!! God bless.!! If I were you ( in my very very humble opinion and from my own experiences ) I would maybe start by trying to understand that believers are still very much fallible human beings and when you are rubbed wrong by any believer it is a reflection of that believers imperfect nature, not God's. Sadly, the reality is not everyone in a church is a good or accurate representation of what God desires for us or of what Christianity should truly look like. I cant tell you how many people I know who believe in God but aren't a fan of his " people" and as much as it breaks my heart, I do see where they are coming from. My thing is this, to stop going to church because a human hurt you or turned you off to it is to just deprive yourself of the opportunity to commune with Christ in that setting because of another human being. Don't give anyone that power over you! I bet the devil loves for us to fall into that snare- I've been there myself. I just finally came to realize and understand that church is about God alone. It's my time to praise and direct my entire focus on Christ and to allow any human power to change that would only be to cheat myself of what God may have for me that day. I found that it helps IMMENSELY to bring my honest, raw feelings straight to God himself. Let him know your concerns and ask Him in sincerity to soften your heart/ cynical nature/ how you view these obstacles. Above ALL pray , read the Bible ( the BEST way to hear God speak - totally changed my life, man) and redirect your focus to Him alone from the moment you walk in to the moment you leave church. God can and will take care of the rest if you only give Him the chance to! We serve a great and mighty God!!!!

[@gr3yh47]

Hey Matt, around 7:00 there's a note that youll put a link to a vatican statement in the description but there isn't one :)

[@matthewbateman6487]

I am Catholic, and based on how you've described it, I don't think there is any problem with Catholics holding to a 'plenary verbal inspiration' view -- I think the way you present it coalesces God's omnipotence, with the human authors' free will, and the outcome of the Bible (both in its content, styles, and literary forms) -- it matches itself, as you said. I would just say that the Catholic Church was imbued by God with the grace and authority necessary to rightly compile it into one volume (so that none of the wrong books got in, and none of the right books were overlooked), and the grace and authority necessary to preserve, protect, and proclaim its words and its meanings rightly throughout all generations until He comes again. God bless, all!!

[@jasonpratt5126]

To be fair, Matt, "verbal plenary inspiration" was originally, and was for a long time, presented as dictation of every word. The various statements of inerrancy have qualified that a lot over the years, into what amounts to something different from dictation of every word -- and the father of modern inerrancy theory, Benjamin Warfield, didn't exactly hold to dictation of every word either -- but there _are_ reasons why lots of people (Christian and otherwise) think verbal plenary = option 2 in your list. The difference isn't between God sometimes using literal and sometimes figurative language: God could be doing that in Option 2, too. (And even literal language is highly metaphorical. As Lewis liked to say, we can make our language drier, but we can't make it more literal.) I agree with the cooperative inspiration idea, and I agree with plenary inspiration -- but "plenary" doesn't necessarily involve cooperative work, just that all of the work is inspired. I agree with some verbal inspiration, where the authors are transmitting along messages directly from God as ambassadors. I've run across 7 or 9 levels or categories of inspired composition as testified in the Judeo-Christian canon, and only some of it involves "write this down" or "say this to X". So I'm just not comfortable with "verbal, plenary" inspiration as a total combined category, except so far as authorization goes: by God's authority the scriptures say such and such. But that isn't necessarily dictation of every word either.

[@edvaldocorreia3079]

So, first thing that comes to my mind is James 1:5 that in my head plays something like: "If you want to know if something is r isn't from God, ask God". I believe that this helps a lot. Just my thoughts. :) Great channel! Great discussions!

[@ryantheprofessional7528]

Great Point James 1: 2-7 2My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; 3Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. I love this verse in it's context. Come to God when you go through trials. However, that's just a generalization of the entire book of James. Haha

[@samanthamccarthy325]

When I was a very new Christian (not long ago) and still skirting somewhat skeptically around scripture, I had many questions. I am very grateful that the Christians who were guiding me had the humility not to try and answer everything - including questions about the origins and reliability of the bible - but to suggest that i might choose to ask God about it. It is the best advice anyone ever gave me. In my experience, God really does answer questions if they are asked, especially if done so with a heartfelt honesty and willingness to hear the answer; never in the way you imagined, never in the way a human would think to do so, but somehow in a way that bears a hallmark that over time one comes to joyfully recognise as unmistakeably from God. It is one of the deep joys of faith, to enter into this trusting relationship with God, and if by some chance you are reading this and wondering if there is a God who might be waiting to reveal himself to you and guide you towards Truth, then there is always the option to simply ask Him.

[@x-raywarehouse2101]

I enjoy your videos - thank you for doing them. My difficulty with seeing the bible as the word of god is that it includes so many things that god wouldn't say, (at least not any god i could respect). Passages about slavery, animal sacrifice, violent reactions to minor sins, etc. Are those the word of god? Or a refection of the people who wrote them?

[@peruseperusing5027]

Great clip!! :)

[@HerotPM]

I like your explanation of each position. Very informative overview of the topic. My one question that I don't feel was answered is where the Bible came from. That seems to be the central topic of this video, but only the Catholic position seems to provide an answer. The video answered "how" the Bible might have come. But not how we know it, how it was compiled, how we know what books belong and do not belong. And, if you hold to Sola Scriptura, where all of this is clearly taught using only Sola scriptura. Lots of questions that I don't see how they can answered from a Protestant perspective, especially not without violating Sola Scriptura. I would love to hear your thoughts, however.

[@superjfbm]

so when the title says "The Ten Minute Bible Hour" and it actually lasts 15minutes or 8minutes... is this the difficulty of taking things as literal? or is it a matter of inspiration that is subject to interpretation?

[@michaelb4889]

Great video. What's with the Dracula book seems set on purpose?

[@michaelb4889]

Saw the next video. Get it!

[@timpeters9130]

Matt, you did not use the word inerrancy in the video. I am curious how you feel about the term Biblical inerrancy? I am not comfortable with it myself.

[@LlywellynOBrien]

I'm glad to see your effort to present the Catholic view fairly. For the record, the three legged stool is more of an Anglican thing (Scripture, tradition and reason), and denotes sources of revelation/authority (though orthodox Anglicans are not fans of the metaphor or its meaning. Catholics basically say (very crudely) we have one deposit of faith made up of the traditions passed on by the Apostles which includes both that which was written down* which is Scripture and that which wasn't* which we know as Tradition. We view the Magesterium (the Bishops) as those who teach authoritatively on both the content and meaning of both. * when I say 'written down' I mean 'written down, preserved, used in liturgy and canonised', loads of other stuff was written down obviously.

[@LlywellynOBrien]

Also, you probably could have skipped the Catholic/Orthodox one and just categorised us in PVI* (though obvs there are some slight technical differences within and between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants who hold to some view fitting within PVI*). * Shorthand for PVI as you describe it here. I am much more used to hearing PVI be used in a manner similar to option 2.

[@reallifeistoflat]

Hey Matt, a few things i felt after watching this. As a non believer looking in i would argue that 3 is what is actually true amongst most believers. The variety of sects, denominations and brands of Christianity are on some fundamental levels identified by which parts and/or how much of the Bible they think is "right"/important. It seems to me that every Christian does this version of evaluation in their own mind. As an example of that i think we can look at opinions about obeying things from the old testament ie: Leviticus. If point 6 is true then how can we know that any event is true and not parable? To my knowledge the only way we know most of these events happen is because they are recorded in the bible. If the Bible as a document is inherently untrustworthy (a point of argument for sure) then we lose the validation of those events do we not? God inspired the overall intent and message but wasn't concerned with the details which is why you see discrepancy between some accounts. It would seem to me like #6 causes as many problems as it fixes. Ultimately it's hard for me to approach this from the mindset of a person of faith because i don't believe that it was divinely inspired but what about the idea that God actually wasn't involved in the writing? Is it not possible that God made events happen and wasn't concerned with people writing it down? If God was concerned with writing this down then why didn't Jesus write anything down before his death? I think if we assume that God is real it's equally fair to assume that the bible wasn't inspired but hobbled together by believers who wanted to record events after the fact.

[@justforever96]

That's basically what the Orthodoxi say. The Bible is just a history book written by humans. The events that it relats are what we should focus on. As for Leviticus, you'll find few Christians follow those rules...or Jews either, for that matter...or much of anything in the OT, except the Ten Commandments. Why should they? To a Christian the New Testament is "the Bible", and contains the central tenets of their faith. The OT was supplanted, replaced by "the New Dispensation" when Christ came along. The church only retained it for the historical value and because the references it makes to the Messiah, and because Jesus and others in the NT refer at times to it and people want to be able to look up what passages He was referring to. I don't think that Christians ignoring directions from the Old Testament is "proof" of anything at all. As for the NT, the problem isn't so much that some ignore some parts and not others, but that they disagree which parts are the most essential parts. I don't think that's "proof" of anything either, except human nature.

[@Sola-Scriptura444]

*Jer.33:* 3 ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.’ *James 1:* 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. *Pro.3:* 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your pathsstraight.

[@abyssimus]

One point I felt was missing: the different ways God might have done it aren't all mutually exclusive, and the Bible is large and varied enough that different ideas (or combinations) could be applicable to different portions.

[@HerotPM]

Fairly good explanation of the Catholic position. One error that is worth pointing out, however, the third leg is the magisterium of the Church, which includes the Papacy, but is not exclusively the Papacy. The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church as a whole, through councils, bishops, and the pope. But very close to what you said and I appreciate how you said it quite charitably. I might also argue that the three legged stool needs ground to stand on and that the ground it stands on is natural law. But I'm not sure if Catholic Theologians would agree with me on that, that is sort of my own private musings. The church does hold natural law in very high regard, but does not include it in any of the three legs. So it makes sense to me to include it as the base the legs stand on since natural law is how we can learn about God apart from revelation in the first place as Romans 1-4 and Wisdom of Solomon both talk about knowing God and recognizing Him and His will from nature.

[@roypahlck6800]

Have you listened to Rabbi Tovia Singer? I do not agree with his conclusions but I feel he brings up some very challenging questions from a different viewpoint that need to be considered in regards to the bible (old and new testament). He is extremely well educated in the subject .

[@MissRachelLeigh96]

Completely off topic, but I have a question! I am new to the Christian faith and can’t find the answer. Do you believe it is a sin to practice other spiritual acts such as the tarot/psychic fields or that spirituality and religion do not need to be mutually exclusive?

[@IamGrimalkin]

Hi, I'm not Matt, but I have some opinions. You can think about them, ignore them, whatever is helpful for you. ________________________________________________ To me "spirituality" is referring to the Holy Spirit (it seems to be that's probably where the word comes from), so I would say that Christianity can (and should) involve spirituality but tarot/psychic fields are not spiritual in that sense. _______________________________________________ I think things like tarot/psychic fields most of the time nonsense so involving yourself in them most of the time is pointless regardless of whether you buy the christian worldview or not. However, from what I've heard from people who do deal with things like that; there is sometimes a correlation between things like tarot/psychic fields and demonic activity (I don't know why, it doesn't make much sense to me, but there you have it). I don't know how to distinguish between the two (harmless nonsense or something that might encourage demonic activity), so in my opinion it's probably wisest to avoid it altogether, that stuff can be dangerous. Of course, maybe the correlation isn't actually real, it could be just a cultural association, but better safe than sorry. That doesn't necessarily make it a sin, just an unwise idea you should steer clear of. It's a sin if it becomes idolatrous, beyond that I don't know. ________________________________ Relevant question: why would you *want* to be involved in tarot/psychic fields? I'm curious.

[@MissRachelLeigh96]

IamGrimalkin Thanks for the conversation. To answer your question; in the early days of discovering religion, someone explained Christianity and spirituality to me in a very beautiful way and that was that ‘it’s purpose comes down to finding truth.’ That it’s all about understanding yourself to be able to understand your relationship with God and the truth that is in everything. On that note: the way oracle cards were explained to me was that it draws out what your soul needs you to hear (that’s more hermetic oracle cards than the pagan tarot that’s often related to satanism). So in that sense I came to the conclusion that one would only add not take from the other. I’m curious to get another’s take on this.

[@IamGrimalkin]

​@@MissRachelLeigh96 Okay, that's interesting actually, it does seems you know much more about this tarot stuff than I do, and the reports I've been hearing about some tarot cards being correlated with demonic activity makes more sense if there is a sub-type of tarot associated with satanism. Worth asking: is that LaVeyan Satanism or Theistic Satanism? For the ones you're familiar with (hermetic oracle cards), I can't find out too much about them, so it might be worth you explaining what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to work. Right now I am somewhat sceptical that they work as advertised, but if you tell me more it might inform my opinion. I do think understanding yourself can help with understanding your relationship with God (and indeed, with other people), but I'm not sure if hermetic oracle cards are the best way to do that.

[@justforever96]

That totally depends on what sort of Christians you ask. Most would advise against it; the Bible recommends prayer and Jesus, it doesn't say anything about tarot cards. Others would tell you that tarot, etc are just somewhat mild forms of idolism, at best, satanism or demon worship at best. Think about it; you pray to communicate with God. Who/what are you trying to communicate with in tarot? If you believe there is "something to it" then you are admitting you believe in Another Power, which is idolatry. God is The One God, He is pretty clear on that. Idolatry is bad even if it is empty and merely disrespectful. If there IS "something in tarot", i.e. they have some effect or can predict the future, something has to MAKE them work. That would either be God working through the cards (which seems unlikely), or satan/demons doing it. Christianity doens't admit to any other Powers existing. I mean, you can make up whatever kind of weird blend religion you like, but it's not going to be compatible with actual Christianity as it is generally understood. Now, meditating, crystals and "psychic fields" are another thing. As long as you just believe these are natural effects from natural causes - i.e. crystals positively effect the body and mind due to energy flows - that is a lot more likely to meet with acceptance. You COULD argue that expecting ANY power to help you but Jesus alone is wicked (and some do), but then you'd have to also refuse Xrays, medicine, etc. Basically anything you think is benefical due to some inate, natural quality of the object/practice, and NOT because of some "spirit" or "life force", would be okay. Meditation is fine. New Age and Christianity were quite commonly mized back in the 70s and 80s. The tarot, etc, I would avoid, because that is asking for some actual intervetion from some force. A crystal might somehow have beneficial effect on the mind or body just because some characteristic it has, but cards aeren't going to tell you the future or influence things without something more conscious going on. And like I said, even if they don't work, you are HOPING they will. That's not much different that stooping to pay homage at a roadside alter to a travel god. That's idolatry.

[@jmorra]

Your final words are truly( for lack of a better word).. inspired. Some people will view your "continue to think about it" stance as indecisive, or even lacking faith. But your approach is honest. Christians can believe in the authority of scripture without becoming bibliolaters. On the other hand, acknowledging that scripture is not automatic writing (a la Mohammed), and is both a human document and a divine one-- that's the tension we have to live with. What we have is enough. When I visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, I notice the absence of a bone box. He is not there. Scripture is in harmony with this world-shattering reality, and in this I take comfort and am satisfied. But I can't get enough of the bible. It is a book, and then, not a book. It is unlike anything else.

[@justforever96]

For starters, it is numerous books, bound into one volume. "Bilble" basically can be translated into "library", which is true. It is a small, and significant library. If one was stranded alone for years with nothing but a Bible, they could make much use of that single volume without growing bored of it. Not many other single volumes can say that. Anyway, I think everyone should take the "I'll continue to think about it" stance. Even if you have been convinced on something and your faith is strong, it is crucial to at least keep stepping back and viewing the situation, to make sure you haven't missed anything. A person who steps blindly and automatically into a certain path and never looks around could miss something very important God puts there for them to see. We can never be SURE we are on the right path, and only by constant introspection and review of the information available can one be sure of taking the right path. What if Satan lured a person onto a false trail, thinking it was True Religion? If they never stopped to look around or to question whether this was _really_ the right way once in a while, they could march lockstep to the grave without ever blinking.

[@calinagotici2253]

I was actually thinking about this particular subject yesterday. How did the book of Esther, for example, get written? How do we know it's accurate? Who decided that it should be part of the Bible? All very interesting questions for me.

[@OmnomOminous]

Does it need to be historical to be inspired by God?

[@OmnomOminous]

@@calinagotici2253 What stories are these? The existence of those aside, the book of Esther is a very unique book, deliberately avoiding the mention of God.

[@calinagotici2253]

@@OmnomOminous it's hard to know what other stories exist because they haven't been preserved as well by Judaism or Christianity. But I'm sure there are at least a few historical accounts of events in the ancient world which are not in the bible. Also, perhaps the book of Esther was inspired by God. But did the people in charge of preserving scripture tell apart the inspired historical account from the purely human historical account? Can we rely on the fact that these people were religious leaders?

[@OmnomOminous]

@@calinagotici2253 There most likely were other stories of victory like this, so if Esther isn't historical, it might be there to represent the others in the way God wanted. It may be a slippery slope to say that, but as you said, it does not say it is ahistorical, and a whole holiday of was created because of its events. As for whether we can trust the authorship, couldn't we ask that about all the books in the Bible? In the case of Esther, it actually says who recorded the events (not that it's saying who authored the book itself, but that's how religious people take it) verse 9:20 Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, (NIV)

[@parabolic_thrill5487]

Hey Matt thanks for the video, I just wanted to touch on point 4 about the man made document. For Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, and the Christian existentialist point of view, whether the Bible is inspired or not is more or less a moot point. Whether the Bible is inspired or not, its my individual eyes which read the words and my individual mind which perceives their meaning. The point is that I take these words and forge a new self (with the Holy Spirit) based on my perception of these words. (Is my perception "perfect" if I am elect?) I can "decide" one theology is the one I will follow. In the real world where individuals abound, any authority, even imbued with the goodness of God, seems to have limited power over our freedom. This seems like an attack on God's authority, but it seems clear that even though he has Ultimate Authority, he seems to give humans radical and terrible freedom, not only to sin and be forgiven, but to wrestle, like you said, with these truths.

[@standrew3152]

I'm not sure why Orthodox and Catholics get lumped together. While Catholic Popes may have "great Theological power" that's not quite the case with the Eastern Orthodox church. We believe just as you said and we hold to tradition, ie teachings of the saints, who like the apostles, are also divinely influenced by God. The issue with this understanding is that some people take that as to mean we have two sources of the word of God. That's not so. The teachings of the saints do not deviate one iota from the Word contained in the Bible. They are both divinely influenced by God and therefore one Word.

[@jasontucher7011]

St Andrew , because we're separated not divorced.

[@standrew3152]

@@jasontucher7011I guess my point is, there is a clear delineation of belief, however unfortunate it may be, however, there is a sense of "laziness" among those not familiar, to just lump Eastern Orthodox with Catholicism. Whenever I'm in conversation with someone on religion, I'm always careful to try to dodge the question on my "named" religion. 'I'm Christian' is my usual reply, until we get a better understanding of who we are and what we believe. Too often I tell someone I'm Orthodox and immediately I'm thrown into the bin with Catholicism, which, again unfortunate, doesn't bear a good name with some religions, especially reformed religions who broke off of Catholicism for some very good reasons.

[@luisoncpp]

As a Catholic, it sounded me off that one of the 3 legs of the stool was the Pope, and I didn't even know the metaphor. Then I did a quick search and in fact, the third leg is not the Pope but the Magisterium (the teachings of the bishops).

[@pollyjetix2027]

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He has always been speaking to man, ever since he came down to talk with Adam and Eve in the Garden. It's God's nature to speak to man. It's up to us to learn to listen. Jesus said if we have ears, we need to learn to hear. If we are willing to trust that yes, God will talk to us, and that yes, we will be able to know what He's saying... amazing things happen. God didn't only speak to (and through) those who wrote what we hold as our Scriptures. He also spoke to (and through) other prophets of old. Moses said, "...would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! Numbers 11:29 So, what was hindering ALL of God's people from being prophets? The Holy Spirit was not yet poured out... because it wasn't God's timing. However, even back in those days, if your heart was right toward God, and you pursued Him with all you had, He was liable to speak to you, and you would hear His voice. That's just His nature!... That's what He made us for! And since Pentecost, the entire church can prophesy. Not all are prophets, but all can prophesy. That said... ought we be writing Scripture today? Not really. Scripture is given to us to help us to learn the voice of our Shepherd. God will never contradict Himself. If we have our spiritual ears opened, we will begin to hear in the spirit realm. And we will hear more than God's voice. (Jesus did! He heard Satan's voice, tempting Him!) Scripture is our measuring stick. These were men who definitely heard GOD talk. And once He says something, He will never change it. Therefore, all that we hear with our "spirit ears" must be measured against what Scripture already says. If it's something Scripture says nothing about... then just wait. "Prove all things." Eventually, if we spend enough time listening (and also reading Scripture) we will get better at knowing who's talking. What is "walking in the spirit?" Is it not centering your person in your spirit man? and from that standpoint, with your spirit ears open, it is possible to hear God's faintest whisper, at any time of day! I learned how to walk this way with God years ago... and I learned to take dictation as He spoke to me. Of course, I do not hold these notebooks as if they were the Bible... but they are God's words to my spirit. I can understand how God inspired the Scriptures. Today, Christians like to think He's so far away, and has changed his mode of communication, from the spoken voice to the written page alone. But He's still the same God who created Adam and Eve for that wonderful "cool of the day" communication time. He's waiting for you to listen. He's talking. Open your ears.

[@Prophetess9738]

Thank you. I have been asking God how to walk in the Spirit. I have felt the touch of Holy Spirit only in the past 2 months though I have been 'saved' since 15 years. Not His fault, completely my fault because I was living like a sinner though I was saved. Could you explain once again how to walk in the spirit?

[@theothertoddg]

I'd like to defend the Catholic tradition real quick. So, the bible has been around for a long time, right? And there have been protestants for a long time, too. Now, it's easy to imagine that there have been thousands of intelligent people, like you, throughout that time who have sat down and had critical discussions on the bible and come up with enlightened solutions as to where it came from. The problem is that (especially with protestant faiths that are completely independent and free from any hierarchy) that enlightenment only last as long as the individual does, and has to be re-discovered by every generation. Which is why the conversation we are have today seems so fresh. Having a church hierarchy like the Catholics have not only allows for enlightened ideas to flow form all over the world, but it also allows for that knowledge to be stored, archived, and distributed. Which is why a person can go through the Church's archives and read what people were talking about hundreds of years ago. That way, enlightened ideas don't need to be re-discovered, but can act as foundations for future discussion and enlightenment. It's like being handed a telescope for the first time. Sure you can look through it and get the gist of what it does, but wouldn't it be nice to have Galileo's, Kepler's, and/or Hubble's research to go along with it?

[@IamGrimalkin]

Hi, I'm not Matt, but I am a Protestant, and what I'd like to say is: I agree with your ideas, but why do you need to adopt Catholicism in order to implement them? It's entirely possible to read the ideas of Christians who came before you (Catholic or not), decide for yourself whether they have merit or not, and adopt their ideas if they seem to make sense. In the same way, I can read a modern astronomy paper (there's no particular reason to read Kepler or Hubble themselves anymore apart from historical interest, it makes more sense to read about the results of the Kepler and Hubble space telescopes) and decide based on the way they work out uncertainties, their physical arguments, etc. whether to agree with their conclusion. Matt himself does this in this video, mentioning e.g. Barth and the neo-orthodoxy lot as people whose opinion he has considered (and in this case, rejected).

[@tabandken8562]

@@IamGrimalkin Why not adopt Catholicism? Catholicism is the first and most True Church founded by Jesus, early Christian writings prove that. Why would you want anything else if you are a follower of Christ than the ONE Church He gave us?

[@IamGrimalkin]

Ah, but that's a different question to what I am asking. I'm not asking for any argument in favour of Roman Catholicism, I'm asking why The Count of Monte Disco thinks his argument leads to it. Do you think that it does, or do you require other angles like the one you're taking here? _____________________________________________ In terms of my perspective on what you are saying here, I'm not suggesting that what is now the Roman Catholic Church didn't evolve from "the first and most True Church founded by Jesus". I would say the same is true of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and (most) Protestantism though, those ideas didn't just pop up out of nowhere, they were a continuation of already-existing thought. Are you trying to suggest that the (non-biblical) early christian writings affirm things Roman Catholics think? I'm not going to deny that is true with *some* things Roman Catholics think as opposed to most Protestants, and I'll grant that in some cases the Catholics are the correct ones, I don't think the majority protestant opinion has necessarily got *everything* right. It's a mixed bag though, in some cases the affirm Protestantism over Catholicism. And also, just because early non-biblical Christian writings affirm an idea doesn't in my mind automatically mean it is correct, and if it disagrees with the bible itself (which it may do in some cases), I'll go with the bible, since a) the bible forms earliest christian writings and b) I track the with position 6. that Matt is listing.

[@tabandken8562]

Well, if you look at the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church, you will see that even the Apostolic Fathers taught directly from Apostle John confirms it. Did they know everything? No. I believe that God preserved Truth in the Church and taught the Church slowly. Look at Acts. The Apostles didn't even know if God's plan included gentiles or not or if circumcision was required until God revealed it to Peter in his vision. I believe all doctrine of the Church came from God slowly when questions and heresies arised. The Trinity doctrine came about because of heresies and questions. I believe the Trinity teaching came from God. Jesus promised to send the Spirit of Truth to His Church. He promised to be with it to the end of time. He prayed for unity of faith. Paul and the other NT writers warned to stay with the ONE faith and not be deceived by others. God preserves Truth in the Church just as God preserved Truth in the writings of the bible. Nothing Catholicism teaches contradicts the bible, only interpretation does. You can choose to follow interpretations of man from the 16th century or later or interpretations of man from the 1st-4th centuries. You can believe that Jesus, who is God, had the power to preserve Truth in His Church, or does not.

[@tabandken8562]

As for The Count of Monte Disco's analogy...I think he tries to explain it the best way a human can. The difference, we're talking about God and His revelations to man. In your example, you would take what the Apostolic Christian Fathers say and compare it to what Gnostics say or whatever heresy group and draw your own conclusions. What if you choose the wrong teachings, you choose the heretical group? That's why you need to decide if God would have preserved Truth via leaders of His Church and not just those who wrote the Scriptures. I believe He did. The bible has too many corruptions in it to be the only God preserved Truth with. Too many translations and each translation has a bias towards the teaching the translators wanted. No, too much confusion for a book to be our sole authority. You have to know the original languages. How then does the average Joe get the truth? No, God never meant for it to be so complicated. That's why He gave ONE teaching Church.

[@chrisrobey77]

I am curious about your christian, nonchristian, christian statement as related to salvation. Did you mean you literally gave up your salvation or you weren’t a practicing christian?

[@DanJan09]

I think the next question to tackle is: What is the motive behind the Bible? If we believe, that God is behind the Bible, then the next question should be, what is His reasoning behind it.

[@reallifeistoflat]

And more importantly why include contradictions and imperfections? If i was a perfect being i would think i would want a perfect document to reflect my will, attitudes and expectations perfectly. To not do so is akin to being a parent but telling your children 3 different punishments for the same action. If you don't send clear messages then how do you expect them to be followed?

[@DanJan09]

I would say, that if we answer the reasoning or the motive behind the Bible the questions, that you pointed out will be answered. In my opinion the biggest motive for the Bible, is to show that Jesus is the promised one (the Messiah in the OT) and we can get eternal life through faith in Him. For this I would quote John 20,31 and 2. Tim. 3,15.

[@DanJan09]

More to your questions. I think we need to rethink the whole notion of "perfection" and God's expectations. God is more real than most of us think. Let me phrase that differently, God likes the "natural". He created this world the way we see and know it - "naturaly". I know, especially christians like to point out that we live in a fallen world. This is correct, still this world was meant to be "natural". Humans were meant to eat and process that food. We were ment look after our Hygiene. We were ment to look after the nature. Even when new life is born, it's messy (originaly it shouldn't hurt though). The same goes for the Scriptures. He didn't give us a "Question Answer" book or the perfect rulebook. Even the rules we have in the Bible are in a context of a story. For example the book Deuteronomy. It's not just a List of dos and don'ts. The context here is Moses last day with the people and his speeches for them. And he starts his first speech with a retelling of their Story. The Bible is Gods way of showing us why we lost eternal life and how we can get it again. Namely through the Faith in Jesus. I think, the best way to read the bible (maybe not as an academic :)) is as a story and let the text make it's case.

[@bbuckner51]

Bi-pod

[@ezassegai4793]

bi-pod doesnt stand on its own

[@maikeruu1491]

Aren't we bi-pods 🤔

[@Oldmerk1]

I need to ask because it has been holding me back. What about the parallels between ancient Samaria. I have a hard time walking in faith with the similarities between some of the stories from the Samarin religions.

[@jasonpratt5126]

Morgan, I think you mean "Sumaria". "Samaria" was a paganized repopulated area of the Levant after the Ten Northern Tribes were conquered and deported. It's an important (and controversial) area for Judaism, including in Jesus' day, but it isn't Sumer and the Mesopotamian regions. (The concepts and names aren't totally distinct -- Samaria was repopulated with people from the Sumer region among other places.) I think the standard harmonization answer about the Sumerian parallels, is that Abraham and his family came from the southern part of that area, the city-state of Ur. His own walk of faith (somewhat literally!) involved he and his family being idol makers, who would have naturally been familiar with the myths of the region -- that was part of their job description, so to speak -- and then as he became more mature he started to realize that the gods being made by his family were only creations of human minds. Or worse, the idols were being inspired by creatures which were putting themselves up for worship, when they weren't the highest source of reality. These are themes which continue strongly all throughout the texts of the Jewish Tanahk (what we call the Old Testament in Christianity). Abram thus commits himself to seeking the greatest reality behind and above the idols, becoming one of the first supernaturalistic theists in the world at that time (the knowledge of God having been lost). He isn't the only one, there are some others around, including Melchezidek the priest-king of Bethel (who actually tries to reconcile him and the king of Sodom, who teamed up with Abram to rescue Lot, Abram's brother and an honored judge of Sodom). But it's through Abram that the Most High God, Who has led Abram to this understanding, shall bring blessings to the world, and the world back to trust in God. Part of this process involves bringing along a corrected understanding of the myths floating around Sumer, which had also traveled by the trade routes into the Levant (later named the Palestine region by the Romans, which became the kingdom of Israel, and then the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel). So there was a sort of evangelical continuity in what Abram (later coming to be called Abraham after his wife Sarah finally conceived Isaac) was doing. He was recovering a categorically different and superior idea of God, latent behind a lot of paganism, including his 'home' paganism so to speak. But he wasn't doing so in a totally alien fashion, for the people of that day. He did it in a way that brought new light and clarity to the old stories people already knew. Much of that account could be accepted without being Jewish or Christian, of course, but it also fits within the progressing revelation story of the Tanahk/OT. Anyway, if that was helpful, great; and if not, never mind. {g}

[@paullavoie5542]

after the event of the tower of babel everybody had different languages they went their separate ways and after awhile they wrote the stuff down that they remembered and as stories are passed down from gen to gen things change and they add stuff or they forget stuff. This is how the Sumerian texts and others came into existence God didn't help them with it it was completely from the mind of man. The bible the first 5 books were received by Moses from God on the mount where God himself wrote the ten commandments. This means the 6 day creation, Adam and eve, the flood the tower of Babel the life of Abraham were all told to Moses from God. Therefore they're more accurate then the others because they are a first hand account from a witness who was there. The Sumerian text is just stories passed from gen to gen then later wrote down. If anything at all the fallen angels revealed things to them for instance I know that the Sumerian text says humans came from 7 mothers well in our cells are mitochondrial dna which has 7 strands of dna so the fallen angels could of lied to them and said here's the proof 7 stands of dna from 7 mothers. Well theirs a different explanation for that God uses 7 as a perfect number it represents completion. so when the 46 chromosomes are passed from parents to children their are mitochondrial dna passed also fronm the mother it is most likely that God put these in us so that we would be able to procreate over time with out having either too little change between person to person or to great of a change from person to person and in the ennd it may have nothing to do with what we look like or our genetics who knows. It would be a type of control factor. Either explanation can't be proven with science and are cool to think about.

[@Oldmerk1]

Thanks for the info it was helpfu!

[@Abishekep]

This was the view held by scholars nearly 150 years ago, now this idea has been abandoned. Check out this Lecture by Dr. Michael heiser. Genesis and the Ancient Near East - kzbin.info/www/bejne/qH-VgaOYp9mZY7M Also check out his work on the Divine Council. Its pretty interesting. :)

[@parkercushingable]

Could you do a video on coming out of atheism to find God?

[@DaveNoe1]

I'd like to see a video on what you think about "once saved, always saved" and one on homosexuality. If you've already done those, I just haven't seen them yet.

[@nromanov]

Ok, I have a question. First of all, I just started to watch this video and I'm not finished with it. So I'm very curious to which conclusion he comes and how. But I'm a reasonably simple person and I'm just sharing a thought. So my question is; If we indeed believe that God gave us the Bible. Can we than conclude that the people who wrote it, were inspired by God? And if so. Were the people who established and compiled the New Testament also inspired by God? Can we then conclude that these people were closer to God than the average man? If so, how do we than explain the next? If they belonged to certain Church, practiced things like honoring the saints and praying to them, praying for the dead, used Icon's and all these stuff. How then can it be wrong, if these people with the Grace of God also gave us the Bible?

[@mattware8867]

Hey Matt, love listening to you and the way you explain things. I’m also super interested in Military and ancient history the way I’ve heard you talk about on NDQ. However, I’m already doing a maths degree so can’t really switch now 😂 this also leads me to struggle a lot with reading heavy books. What is the best way to learn these things for enjoyment? Are there free lectures I can watch or easier going books that you can recommend?

[@Thomas...191]

I second this question.. always want new books recommended. Mr ware have you discovered Dan carlins history podcast? The five parter on the 1st world war is breathtaking. He does ancient topics quite brilliantly as well.. any books/content you'd recommend?

[@mattware8867]

I’ll check it out, love a good podcast on the way to uni. And I’d love to give you a recommendation but I am completely clueless but interested. Educationally I went in the complete opposite direction so it’s tough to validate putting time into it when it’s going to benefit my larger goals.

[@connorcolestock4757]

Third!

[@glagolivedi2306]

You've missed Easter Orhotodox view on the Bible, we differ from catholics and protestants as we consider the Chruch as a whole can interpret the Holy Scripture, not the Pope, nor individual believer too.

[@sunshineschulte193]

Perhaps you can comment on how the Bible was complied and the books of the Bible were accepted by early Catholic counsels. The authority of the Catholic church was accepted to decide which books belonged and which didn't.

[@justforever96]

He did a video on this. Not sure if he made it to respond to your comment or if it was earlier, but there s a video on "which books were chosen for the Bible and why?"

[@kessotolo]

I am presently struggling with my Christian beliefs, and this argument seems to be what bothers me the most. For me, the struggle is; should the bible be the definitive literal authority for my Christian fate or can I take messages from present or former authorities and use them to guide my life.

[@aaronthomas829]

Why is there a legging and bra add before this video? When I think of Matt, I certainly think of leggings and bras - LOL great video!!

[@OmnomOminous]

Because other things you've watched made the algorithm think you'd appreciate the heads up...

[@justforever96]

It has little to do with the video you are watching now; it is based on what you've watched in the PAST, and it's trying to predict what interests you. And what have YOU been watching recently? O.o LOL. Or anyone else that used the same computer...or even the same IP address. They swear it doesn't work that way, but I am not so sure at all. It's either that or computers really ARE listening to what we say and sending keywords to Google so their ad robots can select ads to send to you. I really, really wonder sometimes. I've had ads show up related to a subject that I've never Googled or looked at online before...but which we WERE talking about within the last few hours. Or the ads will show up on the other person who lives here's computer, just after I finished talking about some subject I was just reading about. Anyway, that s why bra ads show up, not because they have anything to do with this video. If you start watching religious content you'll notice it takes several videos before the ads start showing for Seminaries and Bible Study courses, and the video feed gets more and more religion-oriented with each video you watch. It's really a terrifying world we live in, when you look at it in perspective. People get used to all evils and cease to notice them, as long as they creep in slowly.

[@FlatlineLancer]

please please please consider digging into neo-orthodoxy more. I've never heard this term before but I think it probably closely characterizes what my belief system looks like. I really feel like you did a bit of Hocus Pocus there with smoke and mirrors to dismiss that view without any concrete digging into the scripture. You and cluded a comment about the fact that the Bible says that it's the word of God but if we're careful it's only that all scripture is the word of God. Clearly as many of your videos discuss, the definition of scripture is up to some sort of human entity to decide. The question is who decides that? I would really love to explore this neo-orthodoxy with you if you might consider another video.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Given (my understanding is) neo-orthodoxy was a reaction to theological liberalism, I expect Matt to perhaps get onto it whenever he get back to his set of videos on higher criticism and theological liberalism. I'd be interested too. I don't resonate as much with their view on the bible, but from reading up on it, I do a little with their criticism of the closeness between natural theology and deism; although I think they go too far and I don't entirely agree with their solution.

[@FlatlineLancer]

@@IamGrimalkin thanks Grimalkin! Yeah I did a bit of research after my comment and I think you're right and it seems the pendulum swing of neo-orthodoxy starts with (what I'd consider exteremist exestenialists) such as Kierkegaard. I don't tend to agree with him or his contemporaries but they led me to Barth who I've liked and agreed with this far and I think he's labeled neo-orthodox yet it seems he' very orthodox by comparison.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Hmm, I wasn't really talking about existentialism, since frankly I don't understand it. From my limited understanding, I think Barth was also against natural theology (or at least, was at some point in his life), since it seems to lead to deism. His solution was to talk about god telling you Christianity is real directly. I would tend to agree that natural theology often leads to something like deism (more some kind of theism with a christian bent, but not necessarily full-blown Christianity). I'd also agree that the holy spirit can and does directly show people Christianity is true. What I'd reject is that is the whole picture: what is also needed is *super*natural theology of the actions of god described in the bible and other actions since: historical evidence of miracles in the bible, fulfilled prophecy, contemporary miracles, other historical miracles, less-explicitly-supernatural gifts and fruits of the spirit seen in biblical times and today. That doesn't, in my mind, mean natural theology is bad, just not a good use of time and resources compared to what I'd call 'supernatural theology' (which again would divide me from Barth, who in my limited knowledge did see natural theology as bad for some reason).

[@FlatlineLancer]

@@IamGrimalkin I either don't understand a majority of what you're saying about natural and supernatural theology perhaps because I've never heard these phrases. I thought theology was the study of God... so to me it follows that to study a supernatural being the nature of that study would be necessarily supernatural and natural. I'm a mechanical engineer who loves Jesus and the scriptures (which is probably why Matt and Destin are like two halves of my brain - see NDQ podcast) so I'm no authority on these topics but I enjoy understanding things better as I believe it's a reasonable component of my worship (the Shema). Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Supernatural theology is basically a word I made up, although some people use it. Natural theology, my understanding is, is a method of apologetics that uses things like the fine-tuning argument (that the universe is finely-tuned therefore god exists). I don't think such arguments are wrong (like I think possibly the neo-orthodox did), I just think they are overused, compared to saying, say, Jesus rose from the dead therefore God exists (in Barth's case, I think he would more say Christ reveals to me that God exists, therefore God exists; this works too). Understanding the world for the sake of understanding god via wonder at his creation is something I'm 100% down with, and perhaps it is one use of the word natural theology: in that sense I think it very much a good use of time and resources. Indeed I would agree that it is an application of the Shema, although I wouldn't say that is the only thing the "mind" part of the Shema refers to. I was referring to that apologetic method when I said I had problems with it. On inspection it seems to me neo-orthodoxy criticizes both meanings of the word.

[@KOIFishcat]

I know, bro, that you already discussed the topic of "bible codes", and I agree with you. However I don't that you are familiar with the works of Ivan Panin, and of the "seal of God" he had discovered. This might be the direct prove of Bible's supernatural origin.

[@briandiehl9257]

unfortunately I don't think it does

[@KOIFishcat]

@@briandiehl9257 unfortunately you sound like you are just a potz

[@InterjectionVideos]

Hi Matt, throughout your videos you use masculine pronouns to refer to god. I'm sorry if this topic comes up ad-nauseam - I've not checked. But I'd like to ask if the scripture tells us if/why god is gendered? Or if it's simply a pronoun issue - English has no gender neutral pronoun and it would be long winded and weird to keep clarifying "he or she". Perhaps god is without gender in the way humans think? Was it historical... god just had to be male thousands of years ago when the bible was written? I understand that addressing this topic doesn't add much value in way of helping people access god's word but I do think it would be a highly viewed video and lead people to your channel. Just a thought I had - thanks

[@theralhaljordan7337]

Huh, maybe if there is a translation of the bible into a language with a neutral gender pronoun we could see if they used it. But for the most part I think it's just cultural, G0d is seen as a father figure, the alpha male of the universe

[@reallifeistoflat]

It is a common, although perhaps outdated, grammatical rule that the genderless singular is the male. Recently people have been arguing that they is a much better genderless singular but older scholarship would default to make pronouns when if they weren't assuming a gender.

[@tabandken8562]

Well, Jesus is God and He is obviously male and He refers to God in heaven as "Father" and that would indicate "male".

[@salty_commuter819]

The final one and a half - two minutes of this video say it all!! To me the Bible isn't the word of God... It's the word ABOUT God. It is a journal that describes how others experienced God including a whole bunch of metaphors. And I can't see it any other way.....that's my agnostic side which I can't, and, to be honest, don't want to, get rid of. This is also a reason why I, officially being a catholic, hesitate to call myself Christian...... I call myself Christian because I follow, at least try to, the way of Jesus Christ. I also like the Roman Catholic version of the Bible. Why? Because this version contains all, or least most, books written at the time. I don't want anybody to filter these books for me because they think some books aren't "inspiring" enough. That's not up to them to decide!! That's God's decision......and HE will let me know!! But what I really hate the most is people saying: "Our way of Christianity is better than theirs, so....you should join us, join our church!!" And therefore I like the way you go around talking to all kinds of priests, pastors, etc. of all kinds of Christian churches and approach them with an open mind without judgement. Just to show which ways there are to be Christian. Keep up the good work!!

[@malgorzatachp]

Actually I think point 6 is a good explanation of what catholics think on that subject. Point 5 really treats about something else than catholic idea of biblical inspiration. We think God was really cooperating with every human author and every book or fragment of text really is made by God and really is made by human. We can see human's personality, intelligence, language skills in every part of the text, we also can see God's Word, His truth in every part of the text, and also the delicate touch of His Heart shining through the pages. He really could express Himself by cooperating with people of kind hearts. Just like Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, the Bible is also 100% God's and 100% human's. I'd love to hear how God conquered your heart back after this time of scepticism :)

[@dbelcher3249]

Mat you need to talk about Speaking in Tongues

[@MiscMitz]

God, "The pen is blue. The pen is BLUE!"

[@nosuchthing8]

Nice.

[@sos1691]

It is an exercise, and every exercise works. Whether it has veracity however is always determined factually. Never emotionally. Emotion is a tool of deception.

[@Sgt-Gravy]

I'm still very confused? If it's not #1 by talented people in nature connecting the dots, & it's not #2 holy ghost possession or#3-5 whispers of dictation. What means did the writer's communicate with God? ? Voice in their heads, visions, speech, touch..? Like, "AH HA!" moments? Realizations?

[@mountainflowerfitnesswithn8267]

What's going with Dracula in you book pile?

[@nosuchthing8]

See the previous show

[@justforever96]

In any case, why not? It's a good book. Interesting, worth reading. Quite religious underneath it all, which is typical of the era. Although the religion leans towards the power of religion in general, not Protestantism. I'm okay with that. The characters start out basically agnostic or at least ambivalent towards religion, and once faced with True Evil they find that faith (and Holy Water and the Sacrament) are the only things that can save them, and they have a spiritual awakening throughout the book. They, of course, leave that part out of the modern and film adaptions. Not trendy and cool enough.

[@connordevine9872]

I was born and registered as a Catholic but have regected the paplicy based on my current understanding of the bible. I do not believe in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church principally because of the abuses of the hierarchy of what was once my church. I am a Christian but I am in a way lost used to love people and try and help them out when I could, it's funny how someone can react to someone helping or caring for them. The usual reaction is what are you looking for,? It's besar and I'm tired, I want to be a good person but I find myself looking at people as morons. When I hear the statement,"I'm entitled" I get sick to my stomach. Any advice??

[@livinginthespirit407]

I will preface this by saying that i am a genuine follower of Lord Jesus. I have His Spirit in my heart, i love and delight in Him, His will and His ways and i seek with everything within me to live unto Him every second of every day in Holy Spirit filled and led Living relationship. With this said, i believe in a perfect all knowing and all loving Heavenly Father and a perfect Lord Jesus, but not in a perfect bible. I want to clarify here that i believe there are many beautiful God breathed truths contained within the bible, most especially but not limited to the words of Lord Jesus, such as, "but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.", but that many other parts of the bible are not God breathed, some examples of which are provided further down the page, three of which are "i forbid women to teach", "women be silent in the churchs", and "take disobedient children out to the city square and have them stoned to death". If one did not preconceive an incontestable belief in a 100% God breathed bible and did not believe they would be blaspheming God in challenging this popularly accepted institutionalized religious doctrinal opinion, if one was to actually invite and allow the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised to genuinely help them to discern, then which of those verses have the feel of being God breathed and which do not? As one of the most popular supposed proofs provided as substantiation for a 100% God breathed bible, the proponent of this idea will quote 2 Tim 3:16,17 which says, "All Scripture is inspired by God (or some translations say "God breathed") and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" Unfortunately it is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy when someone claims that a bible verse that says the bible is 100% God breathed proves that the bible is 100% God breathed. The proponent of the doctrines of the 100% perfect bible would never accept this as evidence from any other religion but his or her own. He or she would and does reject it as evidence when a Muslim claims that the Koran is perfect because the Koran says so (or the book of Mormon among others) and thus by using it as proof for the bible being perfect but not for the Koran and these other books that make the same claim, he would be holding to a double standard which ultimately is deeply dishonest. As well and separately, the author (who is not Paul) was not and could not possibly have been referring to his own letters in reference to "all scripture" in that context, nor was he referring to the 1500s 66 book Martin Luther canon as a whole which primarily came from a 73 book 4th century catholic canon which preceeded it. It is also noteworthy that the original 1611 King James bible was an 80 book canon and that there are other differing canons as well including the Greek orthodox and the Ethiopian canons among others. It's important to recognize and acknowledge that each of these dozen or more differing canons all were derived upon through one variation or another within the institutionalized religious system and the leaders within that deeply corrupted system... and that each of these different religious denominations or sects all believe that their canon alone is the one that is God's perfectly breathed canon. If we truly love God and genuinely want to seek and align our hearts and minds with His truth, let's be as honest as possible including in sincerely exploring the question of whether or not the 66 book Martin Luther cannon is God's 100% perfect, inerrant, infallible, God breathed bible, or whether it's the 4th century 73 book Catholic canon, the 1611 80 book King James canon, one of the other various differing canons, or whether none of them are actually perfectly God breathed and perfectly of Him. Can the genuine truth seeker at least acknowledge that if they did not automatically trust in and go along with popular institutionalized mainstream religious opinion (and doctrines) and preconceive that their canon of choice (which one?) is 100% God breathed... that there are a lot of very suspicious words contained within the bible that don't seem like words an all knowing and infinitely Loving God would inspire? Can the genuine truth seeker at least acknowledge that that they did not seek the truth about these doctrines of God breathed inerrancy and infallibility with honest open hearted and open minded prayer and sincere Holy Spirit filled research and discernment, but rather that they just accepted it since they trusted without question what the system told them and believed it was part of the requirement to be a Christian? A small sampling of what i overwhelmingly consider to be examples among many many other bible verses which deeply misrepresent the true Living God include the temper tantrums of Paul as mentioned by this video maker, the verses about women being forbidden to teach, ordered to be silent, many other women inferiority verses and a double standard law against wives pertaining to adultery that does not apply to husbands, the verses about God sanctioning the taking of slaves, the beating of slaves, the raping of Slaves, the stoning to death of disobedient children, etc. Given these examples and many more, i do not trust the doctrines of the perfect bible put forth by the highly corrupted institutionalized religious system initiated by a conglomeration of Catholic bishops and being perpetuated by the institutionalized non-catholic offspring of the Catholic church. If i was to believe in a 100% God breathed bible and that this bible was a perfect representation of my Heavenly Father and His heart, mind and essence, then i would have to believe lots of horrific lies against His true character. I choose instead to not be a conformist to institutionalized religion but rather a willing seeker of God's true heart. Some very good questions for the genuine truth seeker are as follows: If institutionalized religion or one of its pope's, bishops, priests, pastors, elders, deacons, other church attenders or prosthelytes, article writers, video makers, etc with its doctrines of God breathed, inerrant, infallibility did not tell you that this bible was 100% God breathed, would you really have come to this conclusion on your own by reading the bible with no preconceived bias about whether or not it was 100% God breathed? Upon very honest self reflection, did you even read the entire bible for yourself with an open heart and an open mind to the truth as to whether or not it is 100% God breathed Before concluding that it was, or did you simply trust in the institutionalized church system's popularized doctrines about this and take this system's and/or it's representative's word for it? If people are completely honest with themselves, then in almost every instance this belief came to them one way or another through the influence of the institutionalized religious system, not from seeking the answer with an unbiased open mind and genuinely allowing the Holy Spirit to help discern. It also did not come thru the bible proving it to them (via an uninterrupted stream of consistently beautiful verses of Spirit and Truth like those of Lord Jesus and which resonate with true Holy Spirit discernment, not via a self proclaimed circularly reasoned Paul verse made also by other religions)... and not from God speaking it to them, although the voice of institutionalized religion is very influential and in many cases those who have all or in part placed their trust in this institutionalized system would have believed that God's voice was confirming this to them, when in reality, God's voice is not the only one that speaks and the voice of institutionalized religion is a very strong counterfeit. Does there have to be a perfect bible for you to be able to believe in and follow after a perfect God in Living relationship with Him? I believe that Abraham and others demonstrated that neither a perfect bible, nor any bible at all is needed in order for a child of God to experience wonderful living relationship with their Heavenly Father who continues to speak fresh new words into the Hearts of His children, just as was true with Abraham. Is it possible that God allowed men with free will to write imperfect books and letters consisting of whatever they believed and felt, partly inspired of Him and partly not, often heavily influenced by popular opinion within their culture (including popular anti-women sentiments) & for other imperfect men by popular opinion to choose what they believed was inspired or not, compiling it into what their institutionalized system called their "canon".... and that God allowed this free will process to provide us with a dozen or more imperfect canons all of which claim to be perfect and all-inclusive? Is it possible that God never set out to suspend the free will of men by forcing them to write and to choose a perfect God breathed bible and that maybe He wanted His children to seek after Him and to enjoy living relationship and living 2 way communication with Him directly as Abraham, isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, elijah, elisha, etc all did rather than having this infinite Living relationship be replaced by a supposedly perfect and all inclusive 66 book Martin Luther canon that is most commonly used as a rule book and as a replacement for true Holy Spirit discernment and God's infinite living voice that speaks fresh new words into the Hearts of His children? If God really did choose to inspire a perfect God breathed canon and if He is not the author of confusion, why did he allow there to be more than a dozen different canons? Hoping this inspires some honest self reflection and a deepened willingness to seek after the genuine truth of the Living God. Blessings to all.

[@Laura-qp9iw]

This was very thought-provoking, and I bet it took you a long time to type. I just wanted to say even though I'm not sure where exactly I land on this whole thing yet (and I may never be) I agree with your points about the 2 Timothy verse and I also think that people can know God apart from the Bible. Many people within the Bible and for much of church history have come to know God even without reading my current 66-book Bible for themselves. I feel like this frees me to realize that even if I question the Bible that doesn't mean I can't have faith in God based on who I've known him to be. As far as the remarks about women being silent in the church I have heard from many people who hold the same view of the Bible's inspiration as Matt (plenary verbal inspiration i think) who are egalitarian and see those verses in a different light. If you're interested one podcast on the subject that I've really enjoyed is the split frame of reference podcast. But yeah thanks for sharing your thoughts

[@ItsRiker]

I want to thank you for your generous Christian tone and the effort that you took to write out a well thought comment. I hope to do that as well, but sure I am not going to do it quite as well. I would suggest to you that all absolute sources are self verifying. We can always ask how do we know that. That sort of hyper skepticism is not usually helpful. Don't get me wrong, asking questions, is a very good thing. All I would suggest to you, is that the Bible self verifying is not a logical fallacy. It is rather what all ultimate sources of authority must do. Truth be told, it is impossible to convince anyone of this though. I do think that given some thought on the issue, it is a reasonable conclusion to come to. All I can do to convince you, is to encourage you to continue to read and study the word, and ask if you see it as I do? If you to see Christ on every page, and the beauty of the Gospel narrative, as it is unveiled from creation to Christ's return, then even if ultimately our philosophy disagrees, we none the less find the same Savior in Scripture.

[@patrickhodson8715]

We can’t say God never does option 2, because there’s plenty of scripture with quotes ending with “thus says the Lord.”

[@justforever96]

I don't think we can use that as evidence that God physically spoke those words to a person. They more likely mean "this is the Word of the Lord", i.e. what God wants you to know. All we have is the English translation, and frequently nuances of meaning don't transfer well between languages. There are plenty of things we say in English that don't follow their literal meanings exactly. People talk all the time about how "Jesus/God spoke to me", only rarely do they mean that they heard actual English words in their heads telling them what to do. Usually they mean that they suddenly knew what they had to do, without words, or suddenly felt comforted, etc.

[@AlexanderosD]

No way! If God had the Bible written, it would've been on giant pages made of light and it would make you cry tears of the most delicious beer! And every time you read it, you would get raptured into a state of euphoria while you had visions of Nightrider reruns play in your mind. What are you trying to say, the Bible is a collection of writings from very human and humble people gathered together to give a glimpse into God's character as he works with broken humanity in order to reveal His glory through us? Nah...that's too realistic bro.

[@markcrawford4239]

I thought the old testament the Torah, was inspired by God written through the prophets and new testament was written eye witness accounts and testimony

[@Csmith298803]

Who did he talk to to write genesis? If Jesus went ALONE to pray the night the Roman soldiers seized him, how do we know what he did while he was there? Did he tell someone after he came back to his disciples? How come Jesus doesn't call someone to walk on water like he told Peter to? Did all the famous people in the bible have their own personal scribes with them everywhere they went writing down everything they said/did?

[@justforever96]

Who said the stories were written down just as they happened, in real time? The most serious of Christians generally admit that the accounts were typically written years after the fact from oral traditions and/or memory. Where does ANY culture "get" their creation myth? Who was there to see it happen? This is exactly what this video is ABOUT. Did the authors know what Jesus did alone because God came and spoke aloud to them, and told them "Write down this story or I shalt Smite Thee"? Or did they suddenly feel this inspiration to write down a story which has their friend Jesus praying to God before getting executed? Or did they sit down thinking "I know Jesus pretty well, and when he went off to be alone the night before the soldiers came to get him, I bet he was praying. I'd like people to believe he was, so I'll write down that that was what happened"? Believe it or not, the latter falls under the category of "divine inspiration". Even if some charlatan sat down intending to write a false story to fool everyone for his own purposes....it could have just been God MAKING him do it, without realizing he was acting as an instrument of God, and that what he was writing was actually exactly what God wanted written. This is what they mean by God being mysterious. As for Jesus making people walk on water, why doesn't God just come out and show Himself to humanity and tell them "I am real, so shut up! Now, this is what I want you all to do starting now..." If God is real He could do that, right? He could silence all the doubters and unite the churches, so why doesn't He? Because apparently He wants FAITH. He is testing humanity to see what they will do. If they all KNOW there is a God and just do what they are told because they know for sure He will smite them without fail if they don't, they aren't being challenged, they are being slaves. That is evidently not what He wants (because if He did, we would be slaves instantly). If He doesn't show up and prove His own existence, why are we asking Jesus to show up and perform stageman's miracles for us?

[@Sewblon]

8:00 The catholic solution isn't really a solution. Even if we accept that church tradition and the bishop of Rome's decrees are equally of god, that doesn't tell us how God made the bible. Did he dictate it? Did he authorize some really smart people to write it? I don't know. The catholic theory laid out here doesn't say. 14:00 I really needed to hear that last part. Thanks.

[@Kingdom0324]

Hey Matt, how did you come to Christ?

[@Csmith298803]

How come no one believes people when they say "God talked to me. Good revealed this to me."

[@nosuchthing8]

Because it sounds crazy

[@justforever96]

Because they decided long ago that the Days of Prophecy and Revelation are over. Much cleaner that way, and you don't have to worry about a lot of nuts and charlatans trying to take advantage that way. Or you have to worry less, anyway.

[@IamGrimalkin]

I think #1 is actually entirely reasonable to build your life on. You probably do it too, if you at all build your life on the speeches in Acts (just because the book where a speech is quoted is "pleanary verbal inspired" doesn't mean the speech itself neccessarily was). I don't think #2 is quite the same as the Muslim belief of the Quran, since the Quran was supposedly recited by Gabriel (who got it from God) to Muhammed, who then memorised it; but the belief is similar. When it comes to #3, it's certainly true that some people holding this position arbitrarily decide which parts of the bible to follow. But equally, many people holding this position do have a methodology for it, and even if you disagree with their methodology or their application of it. Here are some popular methodologies within this camp: On way is to say only the non-overtly-supernatural elements of the bible are inspired, in the way Jefferson may have done. Of course this could be seen as contradicting the concept of inspiration, but my understanding is that Jefferson was a Deist at the time, which makes the concept more consistent. Another way is to only regard the words of Jesus as inspired, which can be popular in some circles. Another is to regard all the bible as inspired, except the parts which (under their assessment) conflict with the words of Jesus. Dotails alludes to this elsewhere in the comment section. Another is to regard it all inspired, apart from the parts which (in their assessment) contradict with "love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself". Another is to regard it as all inspired, apart from the bits that contradict with their own moral compass. As you might point out, that would mean they wouldn't need a bible *if their moral compass is clear on everything the bible covers*. But usually that is not the case, and there are areas where their moral compass would seem to be silent or unclear where the bible is clear. Another one (held by CS Lewis I believe) is that the bible gets "more inspired" as time goes on, reaching perfection at the end of the new testament, so the later books of the bible have more inspired bits. Another (similar to position #5, popular with some Catholics and Anglo-Catholics) is that this process continued in the church with the developments of the creeds etc, so which bits are inspired can be decided in the light of those. Another (popular with some theologically "liberal" Christians) is that God caused the development of culture itself, so which parts are inspired can be deduced by the general trajectory of culture over time. I don't think you can simply dismiss these views as arbitrarily cherry-picking scripture to align with their own opinions: they can have a methodology to what they do, even if it is a methodology you don't agree with. On #5, I think it's worth acknowledging that the concept of a "three-legged" stool originated in historic Anglicanism, although there the three legs are "scripture, tradition, and reason" and the phrase itself can nowerdays mean different things to different people using it. You've also got the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which adds "experience" to the other three. I think one view you missed in your two videos (but I'm not sure which of the two it belongs in) is that the bible is not inspired by God or necessarily even written by spiritual people, but works as historical account of important things God did in history. I personally would say this position can lead to positions #1 and/or #4, since you can historically deduce from the bible that the authors were very spiritual people and looking historically at what does in the bible can lead you to Jesus who can tell you things (although of course you would need to assess any potential case of this critically); and #1 and #4 can then lead to #6, since you've got a bunch of very spiritual people saying the bible is inspired in the verses you mention and one of the things Jesus can directly tell you is that #6 is true. I would also suggest that some of the methodologies I listed for #3 also lead to #6.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Great comments on all of those. I'm aware of the origins of the three-legged stool analogy, but I think it holds very well for trying to characterize the Catholic View 2 people who aren't familiar with it. In regards to the possibility that I omitted, I think I covered that in a composite sense in the last video.

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@MattWhitmanTMBH Yeah, I think you did a little bit. Though you talk more about that in the context of people at the time geniunely thinking God did something and was mistaken; which is a rather different view to people geniunely thinking God did something and were correct in that opinion. Yeah, the three-legged Catholic stool does work quite well as an analogy.

[@tamaramagdalene1000]

Just appreciate God gave you a Bible in the first place. He couldve used nobody and said nothing and let us all die and burn.

[@dougoverhoff7568]

One has to ask the question: what does the Bible say? We can agree or disagree on various portions of the Bible, and that's fine. But, the only true question is: what is the main message of the Bible? Personally, I am of the school of those who really only care to follow the portions of the Bible written in RED. Since those are, we believe, the direct quotes from the lips of Jesus; then yes, at least that part is from God, of course, because Jesus IS GOD! Why concern ourselves with other questions, when we have the very words of Jesus to follow. I think we'd be hard pressed to find even one devout Christian, who can truly say, that they have done all that Jesus has admonished that they do. Unless you can say that you are one who has conformed to His ideals, then I wouldn't worry too much about the rest at this point. You've still got some immediate work to do before any other concerns take precedence.

[@preston0808]

I have a lot less tolerance for Catholicism, having lived with people in bondage to their Godless superstition. On paper, they're just wrong, and the arguments aren't crazy, just misled. In practice, Catholicism is Satan's greatest achievement. I've watched people go to death confident in their salvation because of a church record, or because of pictures of Mary and rosaries. I've seen healthy, living people live in constant fear of hell despite loving Christ, because their Catholic church keeps them doubting and insecure so they always come back.

[@jasontucher7011]

pzcanada you very obviously haven't taken the time to do the research required to pass comment on this subject. There's a lot of subject material to study and it's not easy so you have to sit back and listen to teacher, try the catechism 1992 edition and use the glossary. I swear the doctrine a jigsaw puzzle but it IS coherent. RCIA (religious education) is a great program offered at most parishes. It's free and truly non obligatory. No one cares if you don't come back. Then after that if you still disagree you will be able to articulate why. P.s. Catholicism comes with its own dictionary and is needed like a compass to figure out what we talk about, no it's not in latin. Best of luck.

[@ionatanpurcaru5020]

Matt why are you relating just to Catolicism? You could relate to Orthodoxy .

[@terryleskow5938]

Yes agree god is the Bible

[@Bc232klm]

The option that makes the most sense is that they are all incorrect. None of those options have enough evidence to back them up.

[@Csmith298803]

How come the bible doesn't talk about what Jesus was doing from age 12-33??? How come we don't know Jesus last name? If Mary stayed a life long virgin, where did Jesus half brother come from?

[@justforever96]

People didn't have "last names" back then. Only some cultures used multinomic personal names, like Rome, and it was quite different from today. Some cultures might call you "Seth, son of Samuel" (some would list back for generations, and still do: "Ahmed idn Fathir ibn Muhammed ibn Achtel ibn Kalihah" for example). In Scandinavia if your name is Jon and your father's name is Jack, you are Jon Jackson. If you name your son Paul, he is called "Paul Jonson". Your daughter is named "Hilda Jonsdotter". They only adopted hereditary names in the 20th century. Many other cultures use similar practices. Historically, right up to the 20th century, even in Western culture, a person had one name; Jack, for example. If people needed to describe WHICH "Jack" they meant, they would say "Jack of Highbottom", or "Jack the Miller". Only the nobility had family names, usually derived from some famous individual who was an ancestor, so people would know who they were related to. Go look through the Bible and tell me how many "last names" you find. Not many. Mary Magdalene was called that to differentiate her from The Virgin Mary, and it just means "Mary from Magdala", or "Mary the Magdalene'. There is Simon Peter, which means "Simon, the Rock", which is a name Jesus gave him. There is Pontius Pilate, who as a Roman used a family name (IIRC "Pilate" is the family name and "Pontius" is his personal name). There are theh Herods, Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa, Herod Archeleaus, Herod the Great. these are all kings, and the second name only serves to differentiate them (I wouldn't be much surprised if "Herod" wasn't even their real name, but only the name they adopted when they became King, since kings like to use certain names, i.e. all the neverending Henrys and Georges and Louis and Jameses in Europe, one or two might have actually been born with that name (at the very least there was at least once upon a time a king whose name actually was Henry, which the others later copied to capitalize on his fame). Anyway, Jesus DOES have a name, and it is quite well known. Two of them, actually: Jesus of Nazareth is what he was called as a normal person, is accordance with customs of the time. Mary would have been Mary of Nazareth (Mary Nazarite?). Joseph would have been Joseph of Nazareth, or Joseph Carpenter (whatever that is in Hebrew, anyway). Jesus might have been called Jesus Josephson (in Hebrew), or he might even have been called "Jesus Carpenter" by the time he was in his 20s. But he is mostly known as Jesus of Nazareth...when he isn't known by his more important name of Jesus Christ. That is as legit as any other surname from the era; it means "Jesus the Savior". If you are trying to cast doubt onto the historicity of Jesus (whether he was a real person, that is), don't bother. Almost everyone, even the most skeptical of Christianity, accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, even if they question the Jesus Kristos part. As for the other questions, who cares? What do you think he did between 12-13? If it doesn't say, it's probably because it wasn't worth mentioning. And his "brothers", you can look that up if you really like to know. Take your pick of explanations: they don't literally mean "brother", but figuratively. They mean "relation", and they are actually cousins of Jesus, not brothers. It means that Mary didn't remain a virgin and went on to have more children the normal way. Some churches reject this, others have no problem with it. It certainly doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Mary stayed a virgin forever, that's just a church tradition. By pointing out this "mistake" all you are doing it pointing out that this may possibly indicate that the doctrines of some Christian churches have been mistaken regrading Mary and the Perpetual Virginity. They are well aware of this argument and have countered and rejected it. This is hardly groundbreaking stuff; Christians have been poring over the Bible and picking it apart down to the last letter for 2000 years, and I assure you this issue has been taken note of already. Neither of these point of if major concern to whether Jesus was the Savior or not.

[@briandiehl9257]

First of all, due to Jewish law, the high priest wasn't allowed to start there work until they were 30, Jesus being a high priest he couldn't do anything until we was 30, hence the gap. Second, last names didn't exist back then. And final, where did you get the idea that Mary was a life long virgin?

[@deluxeassortment]

After 38 years of studying the Bible, the typography of the Bible, the archeology surrounding the historical events in the Bible, and the conflicts within the Bible, I can no longer see the Bible as anything but mythology, full of harmful "philosophy".

[@arsene4440]

The bible mentions the story of creation, Noah and Abraham in the very first book. It would require a big deal of imagination to come up with which is not impossible ofcourse but the moral values of God depicted, the consistency of God rules and judgements, the absolutely holy sayings of God and Geographical and ethnic facts mentioned are too good to be of man's imagination especially in a time of absolute moral degredation. It is the most convincing story to explain where we come from among the oldest religions. Another aspect is God's judgement to his own people the hebrews where they were warned and punished harshly many times for their disobedience to God. Why would people make up bad events and punishments for themselves if their purpose is to fool others into believing it is from God. I get that the pagans also believed their Gods punished them but not for moral reasons. They would even sacrifice their children (immoral) as means to please their gods. Ofcourse we as christians feel the Bible is the word of God through the holy spirit but as if was talking to unbelievers.

[@earlysda]

This video is good, but the logic used at 2:30 is faulty. God created all those authors, so when they are writing, of course they would use their own language, which would naturally come from God. That happens only when they are inspired tho, which the entire Bible is.