วีดีโอ

If you don't mind, what was the most helpful part for you?

@kidslovesatan34 I'm not sure why TH-cam didn't notify me of this comment, but I just saw it going back through comments in the community setting. I'll look up the video and listen to it either tonight or tomorrow. Even in disagreement, I think it's good to listen to the arguments others give. Edit: Just below this I now saw your comment about the book by Josh Bowen. 700 pages is much more of a commitment, but I'll have it in the back of my head to look into if I get some time. If you are recommending it, I'm guessing it's something with which you largely agree?

@TeachingThroughTheBible I do largely agree with it but it is more nuanced than how most atheists would interpret it. I wouldn't really expect you to read 700 page tome, but just being aware of what an assyriologist has to say may be edifying. He also has a TH-cam channel: digital hammurabi.

Thanks for your comment. I believe you are referring to Exodus 21:16, not verse 17. Also, you appear to be using an English translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew. In the Hebrew, which I read, it does not say, "children of Israel." It simply says, "man" or "human." It definitively does outlaw kidnapping in the case of any person, not specifically Israelites. You could see this clearly in the original Hebrew, but also in just about any translation besides the one you used. You do bring up a great question about the enforcement of God's law. Did His people ever actually obey what He said? You brought up Jeremiah 34 where they had clearly been violating God's parameters of how to handle servitude. They began following what He said, only to immediately turn around and disobey again. But notice that God judged them for that. I do not know of a place in the Bible that definitively shows God's people obeyed His stipulations on servitude. However, I'm not quite sure what your point is in that. In the laws, we see what is right and wrong and learn about God's character. How God's people responded is irrelevant to that. God also said that marriage is between one man and one woman, yet King Solomon had hundreds of wives. Does that mean that God is fine with having multiple wives? Of course not. God said to not worship images. Then His people immediately made a golden calf to worship. They did not obey, but that doesn't change what He said about right and wrong. It just makes them wrong for doing what they did. As for an in-depth study on comparisons of USA slavery vs biblical servanthood, that would be an interesting read or study. As my purpose in this is simply going through the Bible book by book and chapter by chapter, I don't currently have time to take a deep dive like that, but I'd say the biggest differences are the image of God vs racism and kidnapping. The Bible says every human is made in God's image, regardless of place in the societal hierarchy. USA slavery very wrongly says people from Africa are sub-human. In biblical times there was no concept of race. People enslaved each other, but not based on an idea that what you looked like determined your value in such a way. Beginning in the 1600s, the idea of value being attached to skin tone appeared. The Bible says kidnapping is bad enough for the death penalty. USA slavery is wrongly foundationally based on kidnapping. If you want a more in-depth look than what I've got in this comment or on the videos, there certainly might be something out there. I know Dr. Otis Pickett, who is a history professor at Clemson, specializes in southern religious history and race relations. He might have written something on the subject.

@@morlewen7218 Hey instead of responding with a comment, why don’t you write a book? The god of the Bible endorses slavery there is absolutely no doubt about it and I will debate this issue until the day I die. I’m 60 years old now and have been discussing this slavery issue on this platform for the past five years every day and you’re not gonna come along and try and change my mind so let’s bring it on !

Thank you for your comment. I'd say biblical servanthood is the only defensible kind and anything that most people think of with "slavery," such as Trans-Atlantic slave trade is a violation of what God commands (see Exodus 21:16). God did not "demand" servitude (except from His people to Him), so your language is a little strong there, but yes He did give parameters as to what would be godly forms of servitude. The word "beat" tends to make people think of abuse (and abuse would be the "crossing the line" part), so it might not be the best word choice for what's there, but yes God was fine with physical discipline, just like almost every parent has been throughout the entirety of human history.

I was just wondering at what point in your life did you become pro slavery and why? Thanks

I would not say I am "pro slavery," especially since that is pretty much always associated in most people's minds with the evil that happened in America in the 1700s. I have pointed out in my videos that "servant" is a better translation for this reason. The Bible is pretty clear that servanthood is not bad and it becomes more clear the more you read the Bible. Those who follow God are frequently called His servants. Jesus, God Himself, lowered Himself to be a servant to all. I would also say it's not inherently bad to have a boss at work, whether that's at-will employment or contract work. What we have in Exodus 21-23 is closer to contract work than what we tend to think of as slavery. Other times people go into servitude in the Bible because they stole something and now have to repay their debt by working for the person. That is particularly just. If someone was stealing from a guy, then don't just throw him in a one-size-fits-all jail solution. He tried to make a quick buck instead of doing honest work so now he has to work for the guy he tried to steal from. He might also learn a thing or two about honest work if his temporary boss is a hard worker who is wealthier because of that.

Talking about justice. Christianity is unjust and immoral at it's very core. Punishing everyone based on the actions of two people in antiquity is grossly unjust. Tormenting people for eternity is a mockery of justice, no matter their crime. Infinite punishment for finite crime is grossly unjust. Those are two good examples, but there are many more.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible Do you know what happened to Non Hebrew slaves in the Bible ?

Well that is your opinion. Thanks for giving it. But that also means you put yourself in the place of God. You are being the arbiter of justice. Following the Bible means believing that the God of the Bible is the One in charge and who determines justice. Of course, this would go for other religions as well. Muslims believe that Allah is the true god and that he is the one who decides right and wrong. I do believe that probably at least part of your issue is conflating what is sometimes called "slavery" in the Bible with slavery in the Americas. I believe I addressed that in the previous video and noted that it's better to call what's in the the Bible "servitude" (which some translations do) because it has fundamental differences from the racist de-humanizing slavery of Atlantic slave trade. But certainly you may still have issues regardless. I'm not super comfortable with it myself. But my goal here is not "be comfortable." My goal is to explain what the Bible says as best I can.

​​@@TeachingThroughTheBible the job you're doing is trying to pretend that the god you worship and the scripture you embrace is not as horrible as it plainly reads. The point of apologetics is try to pretend it says something different, something more acceptable, something less abhorrent, something more flattering. You are being a very obedient apologist

It has nothing to do with pretending. Everyone has an ultimate authority by which he or she determines what is right and wrong. Christians follow what Yahweh God says in the Bible to determine this. Muslims use the Quran. Jews use just the Old Testament. You seem to use yourself. You are declaring things as horrible either because you misunderstand what is being said or because you have decided that you have a better definition of right and wrong. You may misunderstand because of a failure to understand culture and context. Before you complain about that, consider the word "slay." What does it mean? In today's current American youth culture it means something extremely different from what it meant in the Bible or any other time in history. Or consider Christmas songs. There's one that says, "Don we now our gay apparel." If you don't know the 1800s context in which it was written then you will have a completely incorrect understanding of what that line is saying. In addition, you may have your own view on morality that clashes with what the Bible says. But where did you get your own idea of what morality is? If it's just your own view that you came up with then how can that be binding on anyone else? Morals are by definition something that applies throughout time and space. You know this because you tried to apply it to a different time and place just now (ancient Israel). If, however, your morals are based on what the majority agree to, then you've just defeated yourself. You either mean "majority" as in the majority of a particular culture (which means you can't apply it to a different culture at a different time) or you mean majority of people throughout time. But the majority of people throughout time thought all sorts of slavery was fine (much more than the specific kinds of servitude the Bible accepted).

@@TeachingThroughTheBible It's abundantly clear I'm morally superior to Yahweh & the Bible. It and Him advocate for the most barbaric of practises, things I would never do.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible "Everyone has an ultimate authority by which he or she determines what is right and wrong." _No, they don't. Secular ethics & the Humanist Manifesto are far better than Biblical morality & recognize no ultimate authority._

Thanks for the thought. It seems illogical though to say that God is both immoral and non-existent. He can only be one, at most. As to the command, can you give me a verse that shows He "commanded" servanthood? He certainly gives parameters of how to do it in a godly way, but it doesn't seem like it is required. For example, the situation God describes does not exist in America, but I don't think I'm violating any command by NOT having a servant or being one. As for condemnation, He certainly very strongly condemned certain kinds of slavery. He said what the Egyptians did to the Israelites was wrong. In Exodus 21:16, he said if you steal a man or buy a stolen man then the penalty is death. It doesn't get much stronger language than that. So the entire basis for the trans-Atlantic slave trade is condemned by God. Lastly, I wonder how you determine what you think is moral and what is not? A Christian can determine by looking at the Bible. A Muslim or Buddhist can by looking at their religious books. If you believe in a supreme ruler than you look to that authority for moral decisions. So if God is real and He says something is moral and good, then it is. Simple as that. He made us and knows us better than we know us. He knows what is good and bad. But if He isn't, then who decides what is moral and immoral? Do you decide? How come you get to decide? Why are you in charge? If not, is it society? But if it's just society then you don't get to condemn the Holocaust because that society accepted it. And if you say EVERYONE has to agree then you'll never have a statement on anything at all because there will always be someone with a different view. So if it's not a supreme being or beings then who decides morality and why them? It seems, in the end, that if there is no Creator with authority then there is no morality at all and nothing is wrong. Everything is simply preference and you can't actually condemn anything. All you can do is say, "I don't personally like it."

@@TeachingThroughTheBible 😂okay, buddy, if your book claims that God is perfect love and I can point to clear counterexamples then the implied conclusion is he doesn’t real. I am not claiming that something that doesn’t exist is immoral, that was really lame of you to even go to that point. I’m an atheist and have my own view on morals and ethics, but again I am arguing using your own book to show you how it’s flawed. Punishing someone with death for stealing another person’s slave = slavery is okay and we can consider people property but don’t go stealing other people’s property. You are making excuses for what your book claims to be a perfect god. This is one of many examples where any sane human who isn’t doing mental gymnastics for their cognitive dissonance can see that having to make excuse after excuse for a supposedly perfect god is a disservice to yourself.

The verse does not ban you from just stealing a slave. It bans you from stealing ANYONE. That means you can't kidnap a totally free person either (like what was done to begin and sustain the Trans-Atlantic slave trade). As to the entire counter-example argument, you say any sane human would agree, but that's a circular argument. You are the one deciding who you think is "sane" and you are determining that simply by whoever agrees with you. So, I could in turn say that anyone who is honest with themselves and not engaging in "chronological snobbery," assuming their own position and time and culture is superior and smarter and better by default would agree that the God of the Bible is perfectly loving. Of course, my version has the benefit of at least some kind of metrics to guide it instead of an overly generic "sane" that could be measured in a million ways. But still, I don't choose to use that line of reasoning. I believe honest people can come to different conclusions. Of course not everyone is correct, but that doesn't make them insane.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible brother go read the Old Testament and the MANY times god says that his “holy army” can take woman as plunder. You’re sitting on one verse that does not even mean what you think it means, and that is demonstrated both in the actions of god and his people and the other clear commandments that people may go to the nations around them and enslave them as property to be passed down from generation to generation. You can’t read that and then say “oh but God says here to love your neighbor, so that’s not true” when the same book has god saying to enslave your neighbor. We’re reading the same book dude, and I’m telling you things it says that run counter to what you’re saying. That’s not me making some kind of 3rd party assertion, that’s your own book contradicting itself, you’re just holding fast to the one part of it that makes you feel better about it, while ignoring the parts that are contrary

@@TeachingThroughTheBible and before you come in here with more word salad apologetics, go read your Bible: Exodus 20:17 -- God provides a list of belongings which are not to be coveted, including servants (implying that they are property). Exodus 21:2-6 -- Israeli slaves must be set free after 7 years unless you trick them into wanting to stay by giving them a wife. Exodus 21:7-11 -- How your daughter must be treated after you sell her into slavery. Exodus 21:20-21 -- You may beat your slaves as long as they do not die within a couple days of the beating. Exodus 21:26-27 -- You have to let your slave go free if you destroy their eye or knock out one of their teeth. Exodus 22:2-3 -- A theif must pay restituion. If unable, he himself is to be sold. Leviticus 19:20-21 -- God tells Moses and Aaron what to do with a man who sleeps with another man's female slave. Leviticus 22:10-11 -- A priest's hired servant may not eat the sacred offering, but his slaves can. Leviticus 25:44-46 -- You may buy slaves from the nations around you and bequeath them to your children as inherited property (except if they're Israelites). Numbers 31 -- After the Israelites conquer the Midianites, Moses orders the execution of everyone except the virgin girls (including the male children). God then instructs Moses on how the 32,000 virgins are to be divvied up and given to the Israelites as their property. Deuteronomy 15:12-18 -- Free your Hebrew slaves every 6 years. Do not consider this a hardship because their service was worth twice as much as a hired hand. Deuteronomy 20:10-11 -- When attacking a city, offer them the option of being your slaves rather than being slaughtered. Joshua 9 -- Joshua "saves" the Gibeonites from being slain by the Israelites. Instead, he makes them slaves to the Israelites in perpetuity

I did not mean he had to get paid in money, though that could have happened. This passage doesn't give the details of that here, but of course their time and culture did not use cash the way we do today. They were often paid in livestock and food. For a servant, he may also be paid with housing. Most people (not just servants) of the time just had the necessities of life. And it was difficult to get even that. They needed money for food and shelter and if they had that then they were set. Finding a steady source of provision was a big deal. If you check out Deuteronomy 15, it actually commands masters to load up a Hebrew servant with food and livestock once the servant is set free in the seventh year. While I did not mean to say that the servants were always paid in money, I did intentionally characterize the servant as potentially liking his situation so much. I would disagree that it is under duress because of 21:5. It doesn't say the servant would do this simply because of his family. It includes him saying, "I love my master." That's part of why he chooses not to go out free. If he just wanted freedom for his family, I don't know why he couldn't work for that and it would be less than a lifetime. It's a wonderful picture to us of Jesus, the greatest of masters. We are to be his servants and if we love Him then we will choose to follow Him for our entire lives. Earthly masters should emulate Jesus. We actually see the Apostle Paul command something to this effect in the New Testament.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible "They were often paid in livestock and food" Well obviously they were housed and fed. But so were slaves in America. I wouldn't call that getting "paid" though? I just don't think you should say that. And where exactly does the Bible say that they were given livestock? It does not. It just doesn't. As you pointed out, the law in Deu. 15 was reserved only for Hebrew Indentured Servants and not the actual slaves that I'm talking about. So not really relevant to the discussion of chattel slavery for foreigners in the Bible. As to your interpretation of Exodus 21:2-6? You're simply reading into it what you want it to mean, rather than what it actually says it seems to me. What it literally says is that if you want to stay with your wife and children, you have to agree to become a slave for life AND declare "I love my master". This is what it literally says. You're free to believe that they meant it, but the circumstances are made clear in the passage itself. He has to or leave his family forever. And I don't understand how, in one breath you can say "Most people (not just servants) of the time just had the necessities of life. And it was difficult to get even that", and in the next breath suggest that a former Hebrew indentured servant could simply , " If he just wanted freedom for his family, I don't know why he couldn't work for that and it would be less than a lifetime"? These two statements are diametrically opposed to each other in an attempt make these verses say something they simply do not say.

The problem with your interpretation is that it means he didn't actually love his wife and kids either. Master and wife and kids are all in the same list in exactly the same way. You are artificially separating them. There is nothing in the text I see to justify that. Furthermore, the verb "says" is doubled in the Hebrew with an infinitive absolute form, which the ESV fairly translates as "plainly says." This is not coercion. I would also ask why you think he will leave his family forever? What exactly do you think is going to happen to his wife? Would she not most likely also be working for her 6 years? So, he might be able to work longer to shorten her few remaining years I'd think. But either way, if he worked 6 years and was freed but she had only worked 4 years, then what is preventing them from being reunited in 2 years? You seem to be creating an artificial problem.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible I get what you're saying, but it's not all that pragmatic. Think of it this way, if I point a gun at you and say either give me your wallet and plainly say you love me and your wife, or I'll kill your wife. If I give you my wallet am I really plainly saying that I love you? Because, to your second question.... No, the wife and children are not released. Verse 7 clearly indicates that even Israelite women do not go free as the men do in 6 years. Not in Exodus. More likely this was a non-Hebrew slave. But children? Those simply belonged to the master. Plenty of verses in the Bible verify this, and no verse says otherwise. That's just the way slavery worked, even back then.

Of course she will still be her master's...until she pays off her debt. The law keeps there from being a loop hole where a woman could get married to a guy that's about to finish his six years and then leave before her six years are up. If they were married before the servitude then they work for their six years together and if they were married during the servitude then they both have to finish their six years separately. It seems you've entered a conversation that you don't understand. The other commenter (who apparently knows how to have a civil conversation - you might learn a thing or two if you tried) was talking about the verse where a servant who has finished his six years saying earnestly that he loves A, B, and C. The other commenter instead split up A from B and C. The context does not do that. What the servant "says" applies to all three. So if one is not a genuine statement then neither are the other two. I'm just reading the Bible and looking at the structure of the sentence and how it's laid out.

It is true that the Code of Hammurabi (law #14) does outlaw stealing the son of "iwelum," which seem to be people in a higher social class (but perhaps free men in general). So women aren't protected in the same way and potentially people outside of the upper class aren't protected from kidnapping either. I haven't looked at all the ancient Near East law codes, but the Laws of Eshnunna do not seem to have the same laws against kidnapping. You are forbidden from stealing someone's slave, but if you are caught then you simply have to return the slave (laws #40, 49). There is no death penalty. Even if they all did have such a law, the point I was making was about the difference between what the Bible calls slavery and what we had in America in the 1700's. I will have three more videos coming out within the week that talk about these slavery laws in Exodus 21-23 (feel free to subscribe to know as soon as they come out). I may not have been clear enough in this video (apologies if that is the case), but I think before getting into what the Bible IS talking about, we need to address what is going to be on the minds of many people in our day and age when we hear the word "slavery" (what the Bible is NOT approving) and show the appropriate distance between that and the Bible. The Bible condemns American slavery. What the Bible talks about is something very different, so we need to be aware to be sure we don't import our own assumptions based on what we know of from slavery a few hundred years ago. Thanks so much for your question! Let me know if you need any further clarification.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible Thank you for that. This is a subject I got interested in a few years back and actually dug in deep. And while I understand the point that you're making about drawing a distinction between American chattel slavery and Biblical chattel slavery, I see too often simply leaving it at that to a degree. Arguing in essence that the Bible did not condone American chattel slavery, and never really getting into what the Bible did condone? In my experience there has been half-truths and outright dishonesty on both sides of this topic. That said, I hear your point so often I looked into it myself once. The point in your comment that "The Bible condemns American slavery" is questionable at best it seems to me. The most you could do is pick out one particular thing about American slavery that was not Biblical and therefor say that all of American slavery was therefor prohibited (ie. being race based, or possibly the kidnapping law. Though America had a law against kidnapping as well). But this doesn't seem an honest addressing of the issue? I mean I looked into the ways in which they were to same to be fair. And there were a lot. I made a list once; 1. Owned as property? Both 2. Owned for their entire lives? Both 3. Children born to them automatically became slaves too? Both 4. Could be beaten? Both 5. Bought from other nations? Both 6. Could not be killed? Both (look it up) 7. Forced to work? Both 8. Didn't get paid? Both 9. Involuntary? Both 10. Families could be broken up? Both And I know that you're talking about Exodus 21 in your videos right now only, but most of these laws (if not all) only applied to native Israelites and not non-Israelites. There are completely different rules for them, and those are the people that were the actual chattel slaves in the Bible? Lots of laws in the Pentateuch about slavery, not just Exodus 21 as you probably know. And to me, the laws in Exodus 21 aren't even about slavery. These are describing how native Israelites can only be made Indentured servants (since they have to be released after 6 years), rather than slaves. But I know others disagree with me there.

Thanks for the response. I get that. It is certainly common to say, "The Bible isn't ok with American slavery" or even "The Bible isn't ok with slavery" and end it there. It is because this is an issue of such confusion and discomfort that I will be looking in much more detail at the slavery verses in Exodus 21-23 than I look at the other kinds of commands in there. As you'll see time and time again in my videos (not just these few about slavery), we have to wrestle with the hard passages. Sometimes we will discover that we were misunderstanding the passage and that's why it seemed off to us. Other times, if we are honest, we will discover that God's morals don't always quite fit what is comfortable for us so we have to decide if we will accept His authority or essentially choose that we are the arbiters of morality instead. I do understand that there are plenty of other verses on slavery in the Bible outside of Exodus 21-23, but since I am teaching from a biblical theology framework rather than systematic theology, addressing those verses will have to wait until we get there. I hope you can be patient for that. I am aiming to have finished through Deuteronomy by the end of the school year. In the meantime, I believe some of what you have mentioned will be touched on in the next several videos I post. For now, then, I'll just point out one thing in relation to the issues you have brought up. There is a key difference between being "property" as God talks about it versus how it was done in America. In America, people were mere property and the mentality toward property was, "I can do what I want. It's mine." In the Bible, nobody is mere property. Everyone is made in God's image. They aren't subhuman because of skin color or anything else. They still must be given the respect automatically due an image-bearer of God. Furthermore, all property only properly belongs to God. We, as I say in my videos, are just the managers entrusted to take care of who or what belongs to Him. In other words, I can't do just whatever I want, even with "my own stuff." The Bible gives us a whole different worldview and lens through which to see both people and property that is incompatible with the Western mindset toward slavery. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts as I continue to post videos.

@@TeachingThroughTheBible Thanks again. And I totally understand that you're only doing Exodus here. All I'm saying is please don't say things like this is what the Bible says about slavery. Because it isn't. I mean technically it isn't even slavery, it's indentured servitude. You have to wait until Leviticus to get to the slavery laws. "In America, people were mere property and the mentality toward property was, "I can do what I want. It's mine." But see, this is my point really. The way you characterized slavery in America simply isn't true if you look into it. You couldn't just "do what you want". There were limits in the law, just like in the Bible. You couldn't kill your slave intentionally in the Bible, and you couldn't do it in America either. it was on my list? That right there by itself shows you couldn't just "do anything" with your slave. I'm honestly not trying to be picky here at all, but I here claims like this thrown out literally everyday. "Biblical slavery was absolutely nothing like American slavery". If I had a dollar for every time I heard that, Id be a rich man. But it is simply and categorically incorrect. And remember too, slave owners in America were Christian. Christians both established slavery in America, and fought to abolish it. And both holding up the Bible as their justification. Thankfully the abolitionists won. But that seems to be in spite of what the Bible specifically says about slavery itself, and more general theology as you're doing here.

I think I made the analogy of a rotten apple vs a fresh blackberry in this video (if not then it's in an upcoming one). Indentured servitude IS a kind of slavery and that's something that I think clarifies this. The Hebrew word in Exodus 21-23 IS the word for slavery. American slavery and many other forms are all kinds of slavery, and so is what we see here in these chapters. I agree it's best in our current context to not use that word for this and to use servitude instead because of the association most people have with the word, but it does remain true that what the Bible is describing here is still one form of slavery, just as a fresh blackberry and a rotten apple are both forms of fruit. As for people not being able to do whatever they want, the Civil War was literally fought over this. I believe it was either the South Carolina or Mississippi cessation declaration that said it most clearly. And of course we can still see even to this day, the American culture mindset of "I can do whatever I want if it's mine." Lastly, I'm fully aware that people tried to use the Bible to defend their own twisted form of slavery, and I believe I briefly addressed some of their twisting of Scripture in the infamous "Curse of Ham" passage. th-cam.com/video/9vrhxxKsOss/w-d-xo.html My aim in these videos is to help people have a better understanding of the Bible, which includes addressing what the Bible calls slavery and pushing back on others who have historically misused or misunderstood it.

Thanks! I hope you are enjoying and benefiting from the rest of the videos!

Certainly. Though Joseph left his home and became a servant, he ended up having authority over his people, the family of Israel. Jesus left His home in heaven to become a servant and is the ruler of His people (the church). Joseph was the rightful ruler according to God's word through a dream, but his people rejected him. Still, in the end they bowed down to his rightful authority (Gen 42:6). In fact, "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain" (Gen 41:57). So every country in Joseph's known world would be bowing down to him. Jesus was the rightful ruler (the Messiah as well as a descendent of King David) according to God's written Word, but His people rejected Him. Still, in Acts 2:37-41 we see many begin turning and submitting to Him. Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10 refer to every knee one day bowing before Jesus, the "King of kings" (Rev 17:14). We also see Joseph put into positions of authority before this point. He was in charge of Potiphar's house and then, even as a prisoner, in charge of the prison. So the narrative really leads us up to this point of him basically ruling Egypt (Gen 41:40) and everywhere else affected by the famine. But this is just how Joseph points to Jesus in terms of being a ruler. I have a video before this one that talks about him as a prophet like Jesus as well as two more videos I just uploaded about how he even has somewhat of a priestly role like Jesus and wisdom that points to Jesus, so you're welcome to check those out. If those videos aren't clear enough, always feel free to comment and I'm happy to do my best to explain it in written form. Thanks so much for your question! th-cam.com/video/MK5ccflVTZM/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/w4kkkTlyUnU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/xs3EebmsBRY/w-d-xo.html

@@TeachingThroughTheBible Woah. I really appreciate this I really appreciate how you broke it down even with the scriptural references. Thank you so much. I'll check the other videos and get the real message.