Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive? - Timothy Keller [Sermon]

[@kvo1532]

wow man this man has a gift to reach university students

[@kvo1532]

@@majafleur9646 that’s true also

[@thurzaheim]

I never want the sermon to end. Whenever he says "we can't go into that now, there isn't time" I say NO, keep going! I binge listen to his sermons.

[@mlestoll]

I think I get offended more often because prominent pastors don't untangle all of our issues with literalism. For example, untangling our issues with homosexuality. I understand why the six verses against homosexuality are constantly misinterpreted, and there are many online sources discussing this, but it's not ironed out in an actual sermon where more people would be more likely to access the information. No one goes out of their way to find online information that might confirm or deny their beliefs, but they would have no choice but to listen to a sermon in a church that they go to regularly.

[@ofeliaclaudio6379]

How beautifully read the scriptures are! Who is this woman?

[@soundmarkstudio]

Stunning wisdom.

[@janehenderson3096]

St Andrews Roseville 10.30 service 12 Dec21

[@rak2332]

This lecture is not about Literalism, but about Reliability

[@clementineslaughter6904]

Yeah, I thought he was going to get all gnostic on me, lol. They're pretty wacky. The sermon was encouraging, I really enjoyed it. Really relatable.

[@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594]

Actually, it is very much about literalism. Its about believing everything The Holy Bible says, even those parts we don't like. It shows you can believe The Bible literally.

[@DerpMuse]

@@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594 if you believe it literally then theres talking snakes, 900 year old people, and magic. Please show me the existence of any one of those.

[@MesserTAMU]

@@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594 if I can believe the bible literally, were there one or two angels at the grave in the gospels?

[@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594]

@@MesserTAMU the answer is C: both! Matthew and Mark, who list a single angel, are true Synoptic Gospels. Luke, who lists 2 angels, gives similar events but at different times, and is therefore only 50% a Synoptic. You will see this exemplified in most areas of the book when compared to the 2 true Synoptics.

[@AlesanaAmbrosia2004]

Glorious

[@witchf4ce310]

What I have a hard time with is the Old Testament though. Especially Genesis, as it doesn’t make sense scientifically.

[@LilacDaisy2]

In what way? Science proves life can not come from non-life. Here are some scientists who see how Genesis makes the most sense of science. Enjoy! :-) kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJqmlpZuiM53q6s kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6Knh5KDibaGrsk kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6ezhYaoisunjMk kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2aWgoOim7aGd9E kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIDbaYp-eKusadE

[@j.gilmore275]

Hi Maria! I recommend: "Zondervan Handbook to the Bible" - context on how the Old Testament came together and ways to interpret it, and the Bible in general The "Can I Push It Series" from Alfred Street Baptist Church, especially the episode on the Old Testament. See: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqnEnmV6pKabeLs

[@christianityshop9863]

awesome cheers

[@piet7607]

zeer goed, very good is ter a verbatim copy of this.

[@MrT-ty4ku]

goedendag mede-Nederlander in commentsectie

[@xaindsleena8090]

This guy doesn't present a very honest discussion of slavery in the Bible: 1) He completely ignores the definition of chattel slavery as defined in most dictionaries i.e. chattel slavery is when people can be bought and owned as permanent property 2) Leviticus 25 verses 44 to 46 explicitly tells Hebrews that they can buy non-Hebrews as permanent property i.e. chattel slaves. It also says that slaves could be held for life and that there was no requirement to release them .. ever 3) When Paul wrote to Philemon to plead for him to grant Onesimus his freedom, he wasn't making any general pronouncements against slavery. Instead it seems like he was asking for a special favor for his dear runaway-slave-friend. If Paul really thought slavery was evil, why didn't he help Onesimus escape instead of sending him back to his master? When Paul told Onesimus that he should seek his freedom, he obviously meant that he seek his freedom within legal means. And how does this indicate Paul was anti-slavery? If you tell an inmate to seek his freedom within legal means, does this imply that you think it was wrong for the inmate to be locked up? 4) The fact that kidnapping and then selling others was a capital crime (Exodus twenty one verse sixteen) doesn't mean the bible banned slavery. This is because kidnapping was just one of several ways that slaves could be obtained. The main ways that Hebrews were legally allowed to acquire slaves were through purchase or inheritance (Leviticus twenty five verses forty four to fourty six) or warfare (Deuteronomy twenty verses ten to eighteen). Slaves could also be obtained if a female slave gave birth since her children automatically became slaves as well. 5) Just like there were Mosaic laws which protected slaves against abuse, there were also American laws which did the same. We know that despite these laws, there were cases where African slaves were abused. The bible gives many examples were the Hebrews failed to obey the Mosaic laws, but for some strange reason apologists like this guy seem to think that the Hebrews always treated their slaves well and never abused them... yeah right! 6) He claims Biblical slavery wasn't race based. This is very misleading since the Mosaic laws had very different laws for slavery depending on whether Hebrews or non-Hebrews were involved. Ancient societies were very homogeneous with regards to race, culture, language and religion. So the laws did in fact discriminate by race, culture, language and religion - its just that these were all reflected in one label i.e. non-Hebrew.The American slavery laws were based on the Mosaic slavery laws, they just replaced non-Hebrew with non-European (i.e. African and native American)

[@linusloth4145]

@Xain'd Sleena you can interpret and do mental gymnastics all you want to fit the bible your presuppositions. However, you cannot explain away the historic fact that it was mainly Christians which returned to the bible in order to fight to abolish slavery at great cost. Besides, slavery was (and partly still is) a human universal around the world for all of history. In which frame of reference can you put moral blame on anyone who condones slavery?

[@linusloth4145]

@O G you are exposing your confirmation bias

[@pwoods100]

A smart guy to be sure, but unfortunately he glosses over many issues, as most Christian apologists do. For one the slavery thing: If you look in the New Testament, then condoning slavery is more dubious. But you can't get away with that in the old Testament - the whole indentured servitude argument has been refuted. It's clear that the OT has rules on how to beat your slave, and in Lev 25 it states clearly that it's okay for the Israelites to be indentured servants, but when it came to other nations, they could make slaves for life. The myth argument doesn't stand up so well either. It's true that it takes longer to create a myth from scratch, but who ever said that it was completely made up? Many secular scholars believe wholeheartedly that Jesus existed, had disciples, was crucified and buried. It's the resurrection part where things get complicated. In the culture of that time, there were many eye witness stories of different resurrections, so the cultural elements were already in place for a story like that to be embellished. About 80 percent of the gospels could have been real - a real Jesus, real apostles, real Mary and Joseph. All they had to do was deify Jesus, and make him resurrected. Since such a story is not complete myth, it wouldn't have taken very long to add those extra elements. The 500 eyewitness account is not even in the gospels. It's in the epistles, and is only mentioned once. We know nothing about these 500 people, or where they came from. And only half of Paul's writings are really him. The other half are either forged or pseudepigrapha. The cultural blindness argument is probably the weakest. It's obvious that the bible favors the Jewish culture and was written for the people of it's time. So the writers knew exactly what they meant, when they penned it. How is it our fault, that I can't see something clearly in an ancient book because I'm culturally blind to it? I'm not going to apologize for living in the 21st century. If the bible disagrees with many different cultures, then the bible is the problem, not the culture. Seems to me that an "all powerful" God would be capable of writing the bible himself so everyone would understand it, and not entrust men in a certain time and a certain place to deliver his message for him. Makes no sense. Anyway, enough rambling. And lastly, I'm getting weary of this repetitive argument that if the bible doesn't make sense, then there must be something wrong with our understanding of it. "It may not mean what you think it means" So when I read about god ordering infants to be killed in the old testament along with women and children, does that not mean what it really says? So in other words, god didn't really tell Abraham to sacrifice his son - it just looks that way? Then I assume that hell may not mean what you think it means, and heaven may not mean what you think it means. After all, anything in the bible may not mean what you think it means!

[@bruharry1]

pwoods100 Christ is God. You can bet your life on what ever you want but I bet on Christ. There is no other God, philosophy, deity, spiritual guru like Him.

[@pwoods100]

"There is no other God, philosophy, deity, spiritual guru like Him." According to you, yes. I get that.

[@jtalia5700]

Imma be quick here but dude.... Slavery did indeed exist in the OT, but it was never a moral thing to do. No verse insinuates that. Some of the verses you were pulling came from the chapter of EXODUS - what is exodus about hmm? He states that the first witnesses of the resurrection were WOMEN. If they wanted to pull one over on everyone they wouldn't use women and if they decided to deify Jesus, they wouldn't have stopped at a few details. And not only that, but the controversy over whether or not gentiles should practice Jewish customs disproves your theory. If 2nd century church leaders wanted to solve that issue, all they had to do was to put that argument into Jesus' mouth via changing the texts. Ultimately, you miss the point that no one would've thought to put in "a few details" because that kind of subtle forgery was impossible for the time! The New testament flips the table on Jewish culture, and the fact you're unaware makes it obvious you don't know the new testament. If the Bible favored any one culture and looked down on the rest, that's not a God above the world that's a god OF this world. It would disqualify his divinity if he belonged to one group of people. The bible does make sense to people who look into it. But just because it irks you on the outset doesn't make it any less truthful. Some of the most prominent apologists of the 20th century were originally atheists who tried to disprove the bible but instead realized it's complex and consistent nature. Instead of being offended at the cherry-picked verses you use here, look closer. That's what Tim is saying. You're glossing over the text and are choosing to be outraged.

[@LilacDaisy2]

Having a lady's voice reading men's words at the start ... Find it so hard to concentrate on what she's saying.

[@lawrenceheung9143]

Lilac Milkshake beautiful voice I think

[@maybe.yellow]

I'm fine with Christians as long as they're not like this. Regressive af, you're the kind of christian that makes athiests hate y'all. This is coming from an athiest.

[@LilacDaisy2]

@@maybe.yellow My dislike (on that certain day a year ago) of a lady reading the words of a man upsets you? How strange that is. Why should anything upset you? On what grounds, since we are the product of billions of meaningless accidents, with no end purpose?

[@Blazekyo24]

But Sir, if the bible is teaching all about Jesus, let us know more about Jesus. It's nothing about us, does it means that we are not going to follow the teaching of bible to do good or bad? Because its not about teaching us to do good or bad, its telling us what Jesus had done for us.

[@yiqingwang1437]

Blaze Kyo what you said is a false contradictory. why it canat be that who Jesus is and what he has done for us, then you know the reason you ought to follow the teachings of the Bible